Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/23/2000 01:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 23, 2000
1:50 P.M.
TAPE HFC 00 - 39, Side 1
TAPE HFC 00 - 39, Side 2
TAPE HFC 00 - 40, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:50 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Mulder
Co-Chair Therriault
Vice Chair Bunde Representative Grussendorf
Representative Austerman Representative Moses
Representative J. Davies Representative Phillips
Representative G. Davis Representative Williams
Representative Foster was absent from the Committee.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative John Coghill; Denise Henderson, Staff,
Representative Kott; Deb Davidson, Staff, Representative
Davis; Joe Reeves, Deputy Director, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Corrections; Don
Etheridge, Lobbyist, AFL/CIO, Juneau; Guy Bell, Director,
Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of
Administration; Mike Tibbles, Staff, Representative
Therriault; Candace Brower, Legislative Liaison, Department
of Corrections; Bruce Ludwig, Business Manager, Alaska
Public Employees Association (APEA).
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE
Blair McCune, Public Defender's Office; Augie Kochuten,
Police Officer, Unalaska, Department of Public Safety;
Raymond Magpantey, Correctional Officer, Unalaska; Mr. Harry
Niehaus, Guardians of Family Rights, North Pole; Patricia
Hurt, Registered Nurse, Matsu Correctional Facility, Matsu;
Marci Schmidt, Matsu; Gail Sela, Nurse Supervisor, Spring
Creek Correctional Center, Seward; Randy Blum, Food Service
Supervisor, Spring Creek Correctional Center, Department of
Corrections, Seward; Carrie Quiring, Administrative Clerk,
Spring Creek Correctional Center, Seward; Mike Harbaugh,
Maintenance, Matsu Correctional Facility; Bruce Main,
Correctional Officer, Department of Corrections, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 159 "An Act granting certain employees in correctional
facilities status as peace officers under the
public employees' retirement system."
CSHB 159 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and a new zero fiscal note by
the Department of Corrections.
HB 259 "An Act relating to a parent's eligibility to be
represented by the public defender before and
during the probable cause and temporary placement
hearing that is held after the state takes
emergency custody of a child."
HB 259 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 288 "An Act relating to the creation of an aggravating
factor for the commission of domestic violence in
the physical presence of a child."
CSHB 288 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and a new fiscal note by the
Department of Corrections; an indeterminate fiscal
note by the Department of Administration; and 2
zero fiscal note by: the Department of Public
Safety and the Department of Law, both dated
2/04/00.
HOUSE BILL NO. 259
"An Act relating to a parent's eligibility to be
represented by the public defender before and during
the probable cause and temporary placement hearing that
is held after the state takes emergency custody of a
child."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL testified in support of HB 259.
He explained that HB 259 is the result of a meeting with
agency representatives in Fairbanks, last spring. He noted
that concerns were expressed that some persons are unable to
obtain legal representation for the 48-hour child in need of
assistance (CINA) hearing. The Division of Family and Youth
Services is required to hold a CINA hearing within 48 hours
after a child is taken into custody. The ability to receive
services from the Alaska Public Defender Agency is not
uniform across the state. The legislation would provide for
representation. Provision would be made for indigent
determination or pro-rated pay back for services.
BLAIR MCCUNE, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE testified via
teleconference in support of HB 259. He observed that the
legislation would allow the Agency to start their work on
CINA cases earlier. He stressed the importance of the
language "may be represented, pending a determination of
indigency" on page 1, line 7. He explained that the Agency
must be careful not to enter a situation were a conflict of
interest exists. The Alaska Public Defender Agency would
want to take the more serious case if multiple charges were
involved. He did not anticipate additional costs with the
legislation.
Vice Chair Bunde noted that the language is permissive. He
questioned if the Alaska Public Defender Agency would be
liable if they were unable to immediately respond to a case,
due to their caseload. Mr. McCune noted that they would not
be liable and added that the Agency is required to represent
zealously and competently when they begin working on a case.
He expressed confidence that cases would be well represented
and stated that his concern is with possible conflicts of
interest that could arise when a more serious charge is
involved in the same case. The Alaska Public Defender Agency
has not had sufficient funding for staff to be on-call. Vice
Chair Bunde clarified that his concern would be that the
Agency not be in violation if they did not having an
attorney available to respond to a case.
HARRY NIEHAUS, GUARDIANS OF FAMILY RIGHTS, NORTH POLE
testified via teleconference. He observed that page 1, line
6 refers to a "person who is the natural or adoptive
parent." He questioned why legal guardian was not included.
He stressed the need to include guardians in the
legislation. He referred to legislation that would allow a
continuance in cases where a public defender is not
available.
Representative Coghill noted that the question of a
continuance would be addressed in other legislation and felt
that it was out of the scope of HB 259. Parents can ask for
a continuance under current law. He indicated that he would
be willing to consider the addition of guardians.
MARCI SCHMIDT, MATSU testified via teleconference in support
of HB 259. She emphasized that it is crucial for parents in
CINA hearings to have representation. She maintained that
many parents do not receive representation because they do
not know that it is available. She noted that there are not
sufficient private attorneys available to take on CINA
cases.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned if the House Judiciary Committee
discussed guardians or the need to broaden the legislation
to cover those with temporary custody of children.
Representative Coghill responded that the addition of
guardians or those with temporary custody was not discussed
in the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. McCune observed the state statute does not contain
specific language, but refers to court rules: "an indigent
person who is under formal charge of having committed a
serious crime, or if entitled to representation under the
Supreme Court delinquency or child in need of aid rules". He
observed that there can be problems relating to the addition
of guardians because there can be temporary guardianship
where a parent is out of town in addition to legal
guardians. Temporary guardians may not be included under the
rules. He did not have a suggestion for language to add long
term guardianship.
Representative Austerman noted that the Administration does
not have a policy relating to guardians and theorized that,
if there were a problem, there would be a policy. Mr. McCune
explained that the court system decides that a child should
be represented and appoints the Alaska Public Defender
Agency to represent them. He did not think that the Agency
should be in the situation of representing short-term
guardians.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned if there is a legal definition
of "legal guardian" as opposed to a short-term guardian such
as a baby sitter.
Representative Austerman spoke in support of the
legislation. He suggested that the issue be researched.
Mr. Niehaus clarified that his concern is in regards to long
term guardians and noted that the issue is addressed in
Court Rule 22.
HB 259 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 288
"An Act relating to the creation of an aggravating
factor for the commission of domestic violence in the
physical presence of a child."
DENISE HENDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KOTT testified on
behalf of the sponsor in support of HB 288. House Bill 288
would add a new section to AS 12.55.155(c)(18). At the
present time, committing domestic violence in the presence
of a child is not included as a determining factor in the
sentencing of the perpetrator. Currently there is nothing
in the Alaska Statutes that would allow judges to factor the
egregiousness of the crime into the sentencing. This should
be an aggravating factor in determining sentence for the
crime of domestic violence. This bill would expand the list
to protect the special vulnerability of children. It would
become a major factor in determining the severity of the
crime and the resulting sentence thereof. House Bill 288
would allow the courts to consider these factors to mitigate
or aggravate the severity of domestic violence when
committed in the presence of a child. This is a valid
criterion for the court in rendering sentence.
Ms. Henderson emphasized that she has witnessed the long
term emotional and psychological damage that domestic
violence in the home can cause on children. She maintained
that it is imperative that the court system be given a new
tool to further the fight against domestic violence and
child abuse. While working for the Juvenile Division of the
District Attorney's Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, she
observed that there was one underlying factor that always
seemed to play a role in the lives of the children coming
through the system; "domestic violence". She also worked
with Abused Women's Aid in Crisis in Anchorage, where she
witnessed the devastation that domestic violence has on
children. She is currently a Court Appointed Special
Advocate, for the Office of Public Advocacy in Anchorage.
She maintained that the legislation would not only bring
awareness to the trauma that children bear in witnessing
domestic violence in the home, but would be instrumental in
breaking this on-going cycle.
Ms. Henderson noted that there are zero fiscal notes from
the Department of Law, Alaska Court System and the Public
Safety. The Department of Administration, Public Defender
Office's submitted an indeterminate fiscal note. She
observed that the Department of Corrections brought their
fiscal note down from $99 thousand dollars to $24 thousand
dollars. She felt that the Department of Corrections' fiscal
note should also be indeterminate, since the legislation is
permissive and allows judges discretion in its
implementation. She pointed out that the bill only adds an
aggravating factor for the judges to consider. It is at the
judge's discretion as to whether it will be applied.
Co-Chair Therriault asked for more information regarding the
fiscal note by the Department of Corrections. Ms. Henderson
noted that the original fiscal note by the Department of
Corrections was for $99.7 thousand dollars. The Department
of Corrections worked with the Department of Law to lower
the fiscal note. The new fiscal note is for $24 thousand
dollars.
Mr. Niehaus expressed concern with subsection (c) on page 1,
line 13. He questioned if an argument among parents in
another room could be used as an aggravating factor.
Ms. Henderson explained that the provision would only apply
to felony offenses. It is not a new statute; it would be a
mitigating factor. Mr. Niehaus felt that the language could
be misinterpreted.
Vice Chair Bunde clarified that there has to be a charge of
domestic violence involving physical violence for the
provision to be an aggravating factor. Ms. Henderson
explained that the language is permissive and up to the
judge's discretion.
Co-Chair Therriault felt that the new fiscal note was still
high. He pointed out that action on fiscal notes are subject
to conference committee action on the operating budget and
indicated that he would work with the department to lower
the note.
Representative G. Davis noted that the fiscal note by the
Department of Corrections indicates that an addition of
three months could be added to sentencing based on the
aggravating factor in subsection (c).
Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to report CSHB 288 (JUD) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 288 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and a new fiscal note by the Department of
Corrections; an indeterminate fiscal note by the Department
of Administration; and 2 zero fiscal note by: the Department
of Public Safety and the Department of Law, both dated
2/04/00.
HOUSE BILL NO. 159
"An Act granting certain employees in correctional
facilities status as peace officers under the public
employees' retirement system."
DEB DAVIDSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS testified on
behalf of the sponsor in support of HB 159. House Bill 159
pertains to the retirement system for correctional facility
employees. She noted that the Committee was provided with a
proposed committee substitute, work draft 1-LS0699\D,
2/21/00. The legislation allows non-correctional officer
employees the opportunity to retire after 20 years of
credited service with a facility, providing they pay the
full actuarial cost of converting the service to service as
a police officer. The legislation was introduced after
speaking to several employees at correctional facilities.
Any type of employment within a correctional facility is
stressful and carries certain elements of risk regardless of
the type of job. Employees who work in the kitchens,
administration, maintenance, medical profession and other
areas are in daily contact and often work side by side with
inmates in their jobs. Additionally, there are certain
skills that employees must have to work in a correctional
facility. Employees must be able to react to potentially
dangerous situations. She maintained that the stress level
leads to a high rate of turnover within these fields. The
legislation would provide incentive to remain in these jobs.
The intent is to reduce turnover and the cost of recruitment
and training. There is no cost to the state of Alaska, since
employees would pay the full actuarial cost.
In response to a question by Vice Chair Bunde, Co-Chair
Therriault noted that the fiscal note would be zero because
the employee would pick up the cost.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned if stress is compensated through
salary. Ms. Davidson stated that the employees at
correctional facilities are paid the same rate as other
state employees in the same job class.
In response to a question by Representative Austerman, Ms.
Davidson clarified that the legislation would apply to any
correctional facility where employees are members of the
Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), including
municipalities.
JOE REEVES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS provided information
regarding the legislation. Institutional staff are
considered class I employees and receive a slight
differential. He noted that there are 288 staff in the
combined institutions that include administrative clerks,
managers, nurses, health practitioners, and electricians.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the amount of turnover. Mr.
Reeves indicated that there is a high turnover. In the last
year, 44 of 288 non-correctional officer employees were
replaced. Civilian staff accounts for about 15 percent of
the employees. The legislation would benefit the department
if it succeeded in reducing turnover.
Representative Austerman noted that the legislation would
cover all other employees in correctional facilities. He
observed that employees of the Kodiak Police Department
would fall under the program. That would result in the clerk
of the chief of police in being eligible for 20-year
retirement. Representative Austerman indicated that he would
be supportive of allowing correctional employees but
expressed concern with the level of expansion.
Representative Davis stated that he did not intend to cover
police department administrative staff under the definition.
Representative Phillips noted that community jails would be
covered under the definition. Mr. Reeves acknowledged that
community jails have a variety of staff.
GUY BELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION did not know which community
jail non-correctional employees would be affected by the
legislation. He agreed that the line needs to be drawn. He
noted that an issue might develop, in community jails,
regarding how much of an employee's time is associated with
correctional duties vs. their administrative police duties.
Representative G. Davis read the definition of a
correctional facility as defined in AS. 33.30.901:
(4) "correctional facility" or "facility" means a
prison, jail, camp, farm, half-way house, group home,
or other placement designated by the commissioner for
the custody, care, and discipline of prisoners; a
"state correctional facility" means a correctional
facility owned or run by the state;
Representative G. Davis observed that the intention is to
adopt the definition of a "state" correctional facility and
recommended that the legislation be amended.
Mr. Bell provided members with a spreadsheet demonstrating
the indebtedness that would result under different scenarios
(copy on file). The committee substitute would require the
employee to pay the full actuarial cost. Employees can elect
to pay off the indebtedness in full or take a monthly
benefit adjustment. Tier I employees are employees that
entered PERS before July 1, 1986. Tier II covers employees
that entered the system after July 1, 1986. A Tier I
employee with 20 years of service at age 55 would have a
retirement liability of $228,940 dollars if they were a
Police/fire employee and $216,221 if they were a non-
police/fire employee. The employee could make a lump sum of
$12,719 and have a monthly base of $1,875 thousand dollars
or reduce their benefits by $104 dollars a month.
(Tape Change, HFC 00 - 39, Side 2)
Mr. Bell continued to review the spreadsheet. At younger
ages a Tier II employees would have a higher indebtedness.
Their indebtedness is higher because the normal retirement
age for Tier II employees in 60, while the retirement age
for a Tier I employee is 55.
Mr. Bell observed that if a person began work at 25 years of
age and were a Tier I employee that they could retire at 45-
years-old if they paid their $174 thousand dollars
indebtedness. Vice Chair Bunde noted that it would be
expensive and questioned whom would take advantage of the
option. Mr. Bell explained that the choice currently is to
take their benefit and not receive anything in the future or
to wait and not receive any benefit until they are at
retirement age.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that there would be a
benefit to remain in the job for a longer period.
PATRICIA HURT, REGISTERED NURSE, MATSU CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, MATSU testified via teleconference in support of
the legislation. She emphasized the high risk of infectious
disease and abuse that she encounters on the job. She
stressed that she cannot remain in the job for 30 years, but
felt she would remain on the job if she could retire after
20 years. There is a high turnover of correctional nurses.
She makes less money than nurses at local hospitals do.
MIKE HARBAUGH, MAINTENANCE, MATSU PRETRAIL CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY testified via teleconference in support of HB 159.
He echoed concerns regarding job hazards and occupational
risk. He noted that it takes a minimum 10 years of
experience in maintenance, plumbing and electrical
activities and is subject to additional rules for
correctional institutions. He pointed out that he daily
encounters bodily fluids that could contain infectious
disease.
BRUCE MAIN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference. He stated that he
supports the legislation for those that work inside of
correctional facilities. He questioned if employees in youth
correctional facilities and the Alaska Psychiatric Institute
(API) would be covered under the legislation. He began work
as a nursing aide in API. He noted that he switched to a
correctional officer in the same facility to enter the 20-
year retirement system. His job was reclassified back to a
30-year retirement system. He stressed that he did the same
work in both jobs. He observed that he does not have
retirement credit even though he has 27 years of services
since he only has 19.5 years as a correctional officer. He
stressed that his health has suffered in his job. He pointed
out that he is a Tier I employee that could be replaced with
a more inexpensive employee.
Representative G. Davis stated that the legislation does not
cover youth correctional facilities, but thought that there
was other legislation that would covered youth facilities.
Co-Chair Therriault was unaware of other legislation and
indicated that he would prefer that HB 159 not be broadened.
RAYMOND MAGPANTEY, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, UNALASKA testified
via teleconference. He questioned if the legislation would
cover municipal facilities.
Co-Chair Therriault explained that the intent was to cover
municipal facilities but that concerns have been raised
regarding their inclusion.
GAIL SELA, NURSE SUPERVISOR, SPRING CREEK CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, SEWARD testified via teleconference in support of HB
159. She noted that force is sometimes used to restrain
inmates. Nurses must accompany tactical teams during
application of pepper spray. Tactical teams are clothed for
protection, while nurses remain in their uniforms without
protection. Nurses must treat the prisoner afterwards. She
emphasized that nurses in correctional facilities do not
receive as high a salary as nurses in private hospital
facilities. They do not receive hazardous pay. She pointed
out that, of the employees she supervises, there are only 4
out of 13 remaining after 3 and a half years. She maintained
that the legislation allows equal benefits for equal risk.
Nurses are exposed to inmates without protection. She
stressed the threat of becoming a hostage in a riot or
hostile situation.
Vice Chair Bunde commented that the more stressful and
unpleasant the job the more it should command in wages. He
expressed surprise that nurses at Providence Hospital are
paid a higher hourly wage and questioned if they receive
comparable benefits. Ms. Sela thought that health benefits
were similar and comparable. She acknowledged that the state
of Alaska has a good benefit system.
RANDY BLUM, FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR, SPRING CREEK
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, SEWARD testified via teleconference in
support of HB 159. He observed that he supervises eight
staff positions and has had 12 different employees in those
jobs over the past five years (150 % turnover). He observed
that correctional officers work seven days on and seven days
off and questioned if this accounted for a difference in the
rate of turnover. He stressed the need to reduce turnover.
He spoke to the fiscal note. He maintained there would be
savings to the state and that correctional staff is under
paid by $175 thousand dollars. He asked that HB 159 be
supported by committee members.
Representative Phillips asked for clarification. Co-Chair
Therriault noted explained that the figure that Mr. Blum
quoted is the amount that a 45-year-old employee with 20
years of experience would have to pay to opt into the 20
retirement.
CARRIE QUIRING, ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK, SPRING CREEK
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, SEWARD testified via teleconference in
support of the HB 159. She stressed the high level of
turnover and the expense of training and the difficulty of
finding employees. She observed that the indebtedness
requirement could be paid previous to retirement by
additional withholding payments. Once the 20-year retirement
is established employees will pay the same as others.
DON ETHERIDGE, LOBBYIST, AFL/CIO, JUNEAU testified in
support of HB 159. He noted that class I and II Local 71
wage earners make the same wages. Union nurses in private
institutions have comparable retirement packages to state
employees. He stressed that employees work directly with
inmates and have encountered dangerous conditions.
BRUCE LUDWIG, BUSINESS MANAGER, ALASKA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION (APEA) spoke in support of the legislation. He
maintained that employees are placed in dangerous situations
and receive no extra compensation. He noted that non-
correctional employees are often involved in riots and
hostage situations. He observed that the state's
contribution would be reduced by a half of a percent.
Representative G. Davis MOVED to ADOPT, work draft 1-
LS0699\D, 2/21/00. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative G. Davis stressed that conditions in state
correctional facilities are, in most part, more difficult
than in community jails. He noted that the intent would be
to narrow the legislation to state correctional facilities.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained
that legislative legal counsel indicated that the state
correctional facility definition is reference in AS
33.30.901.
Representative G. Davis MOVED to ADOPT a conceptional
amendment to add "state" before "correctional" on page 1,
line 1 and on page 1, line 7; and to add "as defined in AS
33.30.901" on page 1, line 7. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that the Commissioner of the
Department of Corrections expressed concern regarding the
affect of employees that are transitioning from correctional
officers to supervisors.
CANDACE BROWER, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS observed that there are 4 positions in
administration that corrections that are under a 30-year
retirement including: the director of institutions and the
director of community. She stressed that as correctional
officers they receive a 20-year retirement. When they are
promoted they lose the 20-year retirement. There is a
disincentive to promote.
Co-Chair Mulder clarified that the provision would only
apply if the employee did not yet have 20 years of
employment under the 20-year retirement provision. Ms.
Brower noted that three of the four positions could take
advantage of the provision if it were passed.
Tape Change, HFC 00 - 40, Side 1
Vice Chair Bunde observed that employees that are eligible
for 20-year retirement would have an incentive to remain in
their positions until they reach their 20-year retirement
before they are promoted.
Ms. Brower explained that employees would have to give up
their 20-year retirement to promote. They would not have the
option to buy their retirement credit if they were not
included in the legislation. She stressed that the
department did not want to see people penalized for being
promoted.
Representative G. Davis indicated that he would support an
amendment to address the issue on the floor or further in
the process.
Representative J. Davies expressed concern with the
amendment to limit the legislation to state correctional
facilities. He stressed that there would be an equity issue.
Representative Phillips MOVED to report CSHB 159 (FIN) out
of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note.
Vice Chair Bunde suggested that the state could provide the
retirement benefit in lieu of higher wages.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 159 (FIN) was reported from
Committee.
CSHB 159 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and a new zero fiscal note by the Department
of Corrections.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
House Finance Committee 12 2/23/00
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|