Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/09/1995 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSTA - 3/9/95
SB 90 PUBLIC OFFICERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Number 475
SENATOR SHARP brings up SB 90 as the next order of business before
the Senate State Affairs Committee and calls the first witness.
Number 477
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, prime
sponsor of SB 90, reads the sponsor statement for SB 90. Mr.
Christensen explains how the commission would work, as outlined in
SB 90 and a letter submitted to the committee by the court system.
Number 528
SENATOR LEMAN asks Mr. Christensen if the legislature could make
specific changes to a report from the compensation commission, or
would it have to reject a report in its' entirety.
Number 531
MR. CHRISTENSEN responds the report would have to be rejected in
its' entirety. The first time the commission does an order, it
will have to do an order for everyone. Following the first time,
the commission will be able to do separate orders. However, with
each specific order the legislature receives from the commission,
the legislature would have to reject an order in its' entirety.
SENATOR LEMAN asks Mr. Christensen if he expects the order to
consist of all offices at once, or if it would come down
individually.
Number 540
MR. CHRISTENSEN replies the bill is silent to that question, but he
expects the first order would include an adjustment for everyone,
since that hasn't been done in quite some time.
SENATOR DUNCAN asks if the legislature would have to take an action
of rejection or approval on an order.
MR. CHRISTENSEN responds the legislature must reject an order
within 60 days by enacting legislation. If they do not enact
legislation to reject an order, and an appropriation is put in the
operating budget, then it automatically takes effect.
Number 548
SENATOR DUNCAN asks Mr. Christensen who suggested the change made
in Section 7. It includes, "Salaries, per diem if authorized by
order of the Public Officers Compensation Commission...."
Number 552
MR. CHRISTENSEN believes the drafter added that particular language
because the existing statute refers to per diem. Once the
commission is created, it is the commission that will be setting
per diem, not the council.
SENATOR DUNCAN asks where it says that, and if that is the only
place it says that. He is not sure he agrees with that. He is not
sure how Section 7 works anyway, because right now, "other
allowances" aren't vouchered. This language would mean "other
allowances" would have to be vouchered. He guesses that would
include the office allowance. He asks if AS 24.10.120 is presently
in statute, and the only new language is that which is underlined.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replies that is correct: the only new language in
Section 7 is that which is underlined, "Salaries, per diem if
authorized by order of the Public Officers Compensation
Commission...."
SENATOR DUNCAN asks if legislators are currently required by law to
voucher their office allowances. Senator Duncan disagrees that
legislators are currently required to voucher their office
allowances.
MR. CHRISTENSEN responds that the existing law requires legislators
to voucher their office allowances, but he realizes there are a lot
of laws on the books that are not followed the way they were
originally intended.
SENATOR DUNCAN doesn't know why the court system keeps getting
involved in other branches of government's business. He is not
anxious to turn per diem and everything else over to some
commission.
Number 566
CHAIRMAN SHARP comments he would not want to take the heat for the
actions a commission might take over which he would have no
control. If he has to take heat for anything, he would just as
soon have it be for his own actions. It is his intention to hold
SB 90 in order to better educate himself on the legislation.
Number 574
SENATOR DUNCAN likes better the approach currently used, which is
that the legislature must adopt recommendations, not reject
recommendations.
MR. CHRISTENSEN adds that the reason nine other jurisdictions have
adopted this method, is because they viewed it as a good way of
actually reducing the heat, since the commission has the authority
to set salaries, and the legislature is not required to approve the
salaries.
SENATOR DUNCAN comments he doesn't like letting a commission do
that.
Number 586
MIKE MCMULLEN, Acting Director, Division of Personnel/EEO,
Department of Administration, states the administration is
sympathetic to the question of judges' salaries, and has no problem
with addressing that question. The legislature attempted to
address the problem by tying judges' salary changes to...
TAPE 95-10, SIDE B
MR. MCMULLEN:
...changes in AS 39.27.011, which hasn't changed since it was
adopted. So this set that scheme back, in terms of trying to keep
judges' salaries competitive, in order to attract judges. Mr.
McMullen states, where the administration has problems with this
bill is the same way you've just been talking about. If the
legislature's elected representatives are able to have their
salaries changed, they should be up front and taking a vote and
taking the heat. Likewise, the governor should be in a position to
see that coming through for his salary, and have his choice in
terms of vetoing or letting it become law by signature or without
signature. The mechanism set up here allows the order of the
commission to become effective, changing legislative salaries,
governor's salary, lieutenant governor's salary, his commissioners'
salaries without any affirmative action by the legislative body or
the governor. The solution to that would be for the recommendation
to come to the legislature, but it would take affirmative action to
put those into effect. That would resolve that problem.
MR. MCMULLEN states, the other problem the administration has with
SB 90 is the list of factors in Section 17. This section would
have an unexpected impact on collective bargaining. State
employees, all public employees in fact, who are class I (not able
to strike) have a binding arbitration process for setting the terms
and conditions of their collective bargaining agreement. The
arbitrators who hear these kinds of cases abhor a vacuum. Right
now there are no standards in Alaska law on what an arbitrator
should be looking at when he or she is setting these salaries.
This is a good list. It is modeled after another state. In the
past, we have had arbitrators specifically look at the State of
Oregon as an example of the things arbitrators traditionally look
at in setting salaries. Adopting this standard in Alaska Law, in
any place, will invite arbitrators to look at those standards. The
arbitrator will be in the position of having this independent body
making its' review and making a recommendation on salaries. This
may or may not be consistent with the position of the current
administration, with regard to the terms in the bargaining
agreement. In effect, the commission would be setting the pattern
for arbitrator decisions. We need to recognize that this is going
to happen, and fully debate the impact SB 90 will have on
collective bargaining. If it is not intended that SB 90 have an
impact on collective bargaining, then it should be stated that SB
90 is not intended to set a pattern in collective bargaining, or
the arbitrators are not to use it, or some other factor. We need
to either recognize that SB 90 will become the standard, or we need
to amend the bill to prevent it from becoming the standard. Mr.
McMullen mentions that the administration has submitted a zero
fiscal note for SB 90.
Number 550
CHAIRMAN SHARP states SB 90 will be held for further information.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|