Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/20/1996 01:40 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
March 20, 1996
1:40 P.M.
TAPE HFC 96-81, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-81, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-82, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96-82, Side 2, #000 - #215.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:40 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley
Co-Chair Foster Representative Martin
Representative Brown Representative Navarre
Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell
Representative Kelly Representative Therriault
Representative Kohring
Representative Mulder was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Mark Boyer, Commissioner, Department of Administration; Mila
Doyle, Labor Relations, Department of Administration; Diane
Corso, Labor Relations Manager, Department of
Administration; Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Administration; Katherine Strasbaugh,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Terry Cramer,
Attorney, Legislative Affairs Agency; Pat Gullafson,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
INQUIRY INTO MONETARY TERMS AND INTERIM LABOR AGREEMENTS
MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM COST OF LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
OVERPAYMENTS
Co-Chair Hanley reviewed the issues before the Committee.
He noted that the first area of concern relates to the
conversion of sick leave to personal leave. He noted that
the second area of concern was brought to the attention of
the Committee by Representative Martin. The Committee will
review Cost of Living Differentials (COLD) overpayments to
Marine Highway System employees. He noted that in-state
employees are paid between 18 and 22.5 percent more than
1
out-of-state employees. Some out-of-state employees claimed
and received in-state COLD payments.
Co-Chair Hanley provided members with back-up information
regarding the issues under Committee consideration
(Attachment 1).
INQUIRY INTO MONETARY TERMS AND INTERIM LABOR AGREEMENTS
Co-Chair Hanley noted that monetary terms of an agreement
must be submitted before the legislature for approval.
Monetary terms of an agreement are defined as changes in the
terms and conditions of employment resulting from an
agreement that will require an appropriation for
implementation or will result in a change in state revenues
or productive work hours for state employees.
The Committee reviewed two contracts negotiated by the
Administration. The interim agreements allowed conversion
of employee sick and annual leave to personal leave. Under
certain conditions employees can cash-in annual and personal
leave. They cannot cash-in sick leave.
MARK BOYER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
stressed that the Administration is given maximum
flexibility regarding requirements for the submission of
monetary terms in negotiation of contracts.
Commissioner Boyer asserted that his management style is
inclusive, thorough, and collaborative. He stressed that he
entertains all points of views. He maintained that counsel
is sought in regards to decisions made by his Department to
assure sound principles.
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT
OF LAW addressed legal questions. She stressed that
monetary terms as defined by in statute is not what an
ordinary person would customarily think of as something with
cash value. Monetary terms have been defined as that which
requires an appropriation for its implementation or a change
in productive work hours. She emphasized that no
appropriation was required for the interim conversion of
employee leave.
Ms. Strasbaugh observed that on an average, employees use 60
percent of their sick leave. She pointed out that the cash
value of sick leave converted to annual leave may never be
paid. The leave may be entirely used. She asserted that
the conversion will result in less leave usage. She stated
that an appropriation may never be required.
Ms. Strasbaugh stated that the Administration expects that
leave usage will be reduced. She observed that similar
2
conversions occurred in 1989. She emphasized that the
practice of leave conversion is consistent with the wording
of the law.
Ms. Strasbaugh disagreed with Ms. Cramer's assessment of how
the Court would rule in regards to leave conversions (see Ms
Cramer's memorandum dated 3/20/96 in Attachment 1). She
noted that she would inform the Court that no appropriations
would be needed to pay for the leave conversion. She would
not be able to tell the Court how many productive work hours
would be gained or lost as result of leave conversions. She
did not think that the Court would allow an employer to
speculate in regards to future costs.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if unions requested the conversion of
sick leave to annual leave. He asked if this is generally
viewed as a benefit to the union or to the State.
DIANE CORSO, LABOR RELATIONS MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION
discussed the bargaining process. She stressed that the
State proposed implementing personal leave systems in
previous negotiations. She observed in most circumstances
24 hour institutions must pay overtime for employee's leave
replacement. She maintained that employee hours off the job
are reduced when sick and annual leave is converted to
personal leave. She noted that the State proposed a
personal leave system during negotiations with the Labors,
Trades and Crafts union (LTC). She observed that many LTC
employees are involved in 24 hour operations. She
emphasized that the combined accrual rate is higher under a
sick and annual leave system.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Ms. Corso
explained that the personal leave accrual rate was reduced
below the combined accrual rate for sick and annual leave.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that not all employees use all of
their sick leave before they retire. The balance of sick
leave would not be of value to the individual employee.
Personal leave is of cash value to the employee.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Commissioner
Boyer explained that there was a one time transfer of 50
percent of each employee's sick leave to personal leave in
the Labors, Trades and Crafts (LTC) union. Supervisory Unit
(SU) employees were also allowed to convert 50 percent of
their sick leave to personal leave. This change has
occurred. According to the Office of Attorney General leave
conversion is not a monetary term.
Co-Chair Hanley questioned if a change in employee health
3
premiums can be made as part of an interim agreement.
Commissioner Boyer stated that if the health premium amount
was changed up or down it would be a monetary term. He
observed that changes in health premiums were submitted in
the LTC and SU contracts. He noted that these changes would
require additional appropriations.
Co-Chair Hanley referred to 23.01, Employee Health Insurance
(see Attachment 1). Commissioner Boyer clarified that the
state health premium contribution of $524 dollars was
carried forward from the currently approved contract.
Ms. Corso noted that the only change was the addition of a
provision allowing the union to increase the employee
contribution rate after a notice period to the State. This
would not incur additional cost to the State. Co-Chair
Hanley pointed out that a previous document prepared by the
Administration erroneously indicated that the health premium
amount was $500 dollars.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that the Commissioner's letter, dated
3/18/96, contained in Attachment 1, stated that a change in
departments' rate of contribution for the leave account was
not needed in this fiscal year. He asked if any changes are
anticipated in the future based on leave conversions.
Commissioner Boyer stated that the Administration does not
expect any changes in leave cash out calculations based on
the conversion. He stressed that their calculations are
based on the history of previous conversions.
ALISON ELGEE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION discussed leave conversions. The Department
budgets actual leave utilization on an annual basis. All
departments are assessed the same terminal leave percentage.
Leave cash out is adjusted on a quarterly basis based on
utilization by department. She explained that contracts
allow employees to cash in a certain number of hours if
thresholds are met. Additional leave cash in is at the
option of the employer. A quarterly review was instituted
to provide employer responsibility for additional leave cash
in.
Ms. Corso explained that there are no caps on personal leave
accrual. She noted that personal leave has to be used to
cover any medical absences for the employee or family.
Commissioner Boyer pointed out that the contracts contain a
mandatory usage provision. A standard of 37.5 hours must be
used annually or lost. The employee can cash out five days
if they have a 10 day mandatory usage.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that the estimated value of the leave
4
conversion would be approximately $7 million dollars if it
were all cashed out. He stressed that upon termination sick
leave which was converted to personal leave would be
available for cash in. This leave that would not have a
cash value if it had not been converted.
Commissioner Boyer stated that the statute does not address
the question of value. The statute refers to required
appropriations. There is no increased appropriation
required. The personal services budget of each department
is billed a standard 1.4 percent. This is billed to a bank
that is drawn down from by the employer. Co-Chair Hanley
questioned if the draw down would be increased by the
conversion. Commissioner Boyer responded that there are
limitations on the draw down of active employees within the
contracts.
Co-Chair Hanley stressed that some employees will terminate
within the next year. He asserted that their leave cash in
will be greater due to the interim contract. Commissioner
Boyer acknowledged that their cash opportunity will be
greater. He restated that an additional appropriation will
not be needed. He stressed that the 1.4 factor is
historically reflective of previous leave conversions. He
stressed that if the Legislature laid off 1,000 employees
the rate would be eschewed.
Co-Chair Hanley concluded that there is a cash value to the
employee that does not require an additional appropriation.
He asked if additional leave value was placed on the books.
Commissioner Boyer clarified that leave was taken from an
account that does not have a cash value and placed in an
account that does have a cash value.
Ms. Elgee explained that non-covered employees were
converted in the late 70's from an annual/sick leave system
to a personal leave system. A review was conducted to
ascertain the average actual leave utilization of state
employees. It was determined that employees use 60 percent
of their sick leave on an annual basis. Annual leave and 60
percent of the accrued sick leave were converted to personal
leave. The total leave value remained the same as had been
previously utilized. She stated that there was a net zero
cost to the state of Alaska. Commissioner Boyer emphasized
that the economies of scale allow a net zero result.
Co-Chair Hanley observed that payments to leave accounts are
adjusted periodically. Ms. Elgee explained that adjustments
are only made for leave cash in. She noted that prior to
the Hickel Administration a flat amount was assessed all
departments for terminal leave and leave cash in. It was
discovered that the Department of Public Safety's leave cash
5
in practices were increasing the rate statewide by a
noticeable percentage. The decision was made that managers
should be responsible for leave cash in. Leave cash in is
adjusted on a quarterly basis. It is assessed through
payroll and goes into the working reserve account to be used
for terminal leave, leave cash in and unemployment insurance
benefits.
Ms. Elgee explained that the Administration budgets the
annual leave need on a cash basis. Co-Chair Hanley
maintained that there is going to be an increase in the cash
amount that is needed to cover additional leave. He
stressed that employees can retire or quit with more
personal leave than they had before the interim agreement.
Commissioner Boyer emphasized that some employees will wait
10 - 20 years before they cash their leave in.
Commissioner Boyer estimated that sick leave not used would
be 40 percent on an annual basis. Co-Chair Hanley noted
that there is a 10 percent employee turnover. Ms. Elgee
pointed out the size of the employee pool results in a wide
variety of situations.
Co-Chair Hanley stressed that there is a cash difference to
the State. He questioned if personnel costs include
contributions of employee leave. Ms. Elgee restated that
the State does not accrue liability for leave. The
Department of Administration budgets based on an annual
usage pattern.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-81, Side 2)
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Commissioner
Boyer stated that the leave conversion was considered a
win/win situation. The State gained reduced accrual and
utilization rate. The employee gained more flexibility. He
restated that it was an employer desire for many years. He
added that the city of Fairbanks bargained for similar
provisions. He maintained that it makes good business
sense.
In response to remarks by Representative Navarre, Ms. Corso
noted that personal leave systems, in most of the contracts,
were modeled on the state statutory scheme.
Ms. Elgee observed that members of the Teachers Retirement
System (TRS) have the ability to convert sick leave to
retirement credit. She pointed out that this would need to
be taken into account in terms of any uniform application.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that the Teachers Retirement System
differs from other groups. Ms. Corso added that there are
members of TRS in other state employee groups.
6
Representative Therriault noted that legislation was
introduced to allow cash in of unused sick leave.
Commissioner Boyer pointed out that the legislation would
have allowed a 100 percent conversion. The interim
contracts provide for a 50 percent conversion and a reduced
accrual rate.
Co-Chair Hanley clarified that if an employee had 100 hours
of sick leave 50 hours would be converted to personal leave
and 50 would remain as sick leave.
Commissioner Boyer stressed that personal leave must be used
before the remaining sick leave can be accessed. Co-Chair
Hanley observed that the requirement to access sick leave
was reduced from 30 to 20 days. Commissioner Boyer
emphasized that it is a defined environment that disappears
over time.
Representative Martin expressed concern that there may be an
impact to the State's long term retirement costs.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Ms.
Corso explained that the decision was reached to consult the
Attorney General. Commissioner Boyer noted that the
position of the Attorney General was that leave conversion
was not a monetary term that required notification of the
Legislature. He maintained that the Department of
Administration is conforming to past practices of
Administrations of both parties.
Representative Martin maintained that sick leave should be
for sick people.
Ms. Corso noted that the only kind of leave that can be
donated to another individual is personal leave. She
observed that there has been an increase in personal leave
donations for sick leave use by other employees.
Co-Chair Hanley concluded that there is a cash value to the
conversion. He observed that employees are allowed to
convert 50 percent and keep 50 percent of their sick leave.
Co-Chair Hanley referred to the memorandum by Ms. Cramer in
Attachment 1. He pointed out that the memorandum states
that the fact that the cost does not need an immediate
appropriation does not circumvent the need to submit the
contracts. If a future cost can be demonstrated the
conversions would be a monetary term.
TERRY CRAMER, ATTORNEY, ALASKA LEGAL SERVICES stated that
she would argue that the conversion is a monetary term if a
7
future cost is determined. She stressed that there is an
ascertainable period of time that the terms will apply. She
pointed out that the State will be bound by the terms in
subsequent years.
MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM COST OF LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
OVERPAYMENTS
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that some Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Marine Highway
employees were compensated at the in-state level when they
should have been compensated at a lower out-of-state level.
Representative Martin noted that he received a copy of a
memorandum by Commissioner Boyer to Jim Ayers, dated 6/30/95
(see Attachment 1). He also received an anonymous letter,
dated 11/26/96 (see Attachment 1). He noted that statements
made in the memorandum were reprinted in newspaper
editorials.
Representative Martin reviewed other documents contained in
Attachment 1. He maintained that he was mislead by
Commissioner Boyer in regards to the status of negotiations
between the State and marine highway employees. He asserted
that these employees should make 100 percent restitution to
the State. He questioned Commissioner Boyer's authority to
forgive the indebtedness to the State.
Commissioner Boyer stressed that he did not believe an
agreement had been reached when he spoke to Representative
Martin in December 1995. He emphasized that an offer had
been made and agreed to in principal. The agreement was
contingent upon acceptance by all ten members of the Marine
Engineers' Beneficial Association (MEBA). He did not
receive indication that this qualification was met. There
were no signatures from MEBA members on the agreement until
after December 20. 1995. He had no firm agreement with the
other two units involved.
Representative Navarre pointed out that the commissioner of
Department of Administration is not required to inform the
chairman of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee or
legislature in regards to negotiations. He observed that
employees disputed the claim that the Cost of Living
Differential (COLD) was wrongly taken. No determination had
been made. He suggested that a state asset was not given
away because it has not determined if COLD payments were
wrongly paid.
Ms. Corso gave an overview of the issue. She explained that
in March 1992, as a result of recommendations made by the
Governor's Task Force on Organization Efficiency,
8
investigations were made into COLD payments. The
investigation was conducted through the Office of Management
and Budget. Meetings were held with the Department of Law,
Department of Administration and Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities. In July 1992, a
working group was formed. The working group recommended in
August 1992, that the Office of Management and Budget send
out new certification forms. Under the agreement employees
that claim COLD are required to certify annually that they
meet the requirements and are entitled to receive COLD
payments. Additional information including rental
agreements were required. Approximately 700 people received
inquiries at this time. Members of the working group began
meeting with the Labor Relations Steering Committee. The
majority of members were certified. Two hundred and fifty
files were turned over to the Labor Relations Section in the
Division of Personnel, Department of Administration to
continue the investigations. Of these, 125 needed more
information and 125 were suspect. In March 1993, a private
investigator was hired. The suspect group was narrowed to
90 employees to be interviewed.
The State decided to attempt to seek global settlements with
all three bargaining units involved; Marine Engineers'
Beneficial Association, Inlandboatmen's Union (IBU), and
Master, Mates and Pilots (MMP). The State would agree not
to seek criminal prosecution of employees and not to
terminate employees if employees would agree to a lengthily
suspension and pay back money claimed by the State. She
stressed that the State felt it would be worthwhile to
settle in order to avoid the cost of lengthy investigations.
The agreement was rejected by IBU. Only eight members of MMP
and one individual in MEBA signed up for the settlement.
Interviews began in January 1994. In June 1994, a number of
employees were terminated. Global settlement negotiations
were begun again. Ms. Corso noted that MEBA signed up for
the agreement but IBU rejected the agreement.
Investigations were completed by November 1994. Twenty nine
employees were found to be inappropriately collecting COLD
payments. These were dismissed. The remainder were issued
some form of discipline. In December 1994, arbitrations
were held.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-82, Side 1)
Ms. Corso noted that the MEBA decision was received in March
1995. The Arbitrator found for the State on all points. In
three other cases the State won one, lost one and split the
third decision. There are additional cases awaiting
arbitration.
9
Representative Martin observed that $700.0 thousand dollars
are in question. He referred to the memorandum by
Commissioner Boyer. He pointed out that the memorandum
indicated that members of Commissioner Boyer's staff were
opposed to a settlement.
Commissioner Boyer stressed that the labor relations
perspective is only one perspective which is narrowed to
that field of expertise. He acknowledged that he was
counseled against the settlement by members of Department of
Administration. He emphasized that this is the third
attempt at settlement. The current settlement only affects
10 of 28 employees. The total monetary environment under
the agreement is $430.0 thousand dollars. He maintained
that the Administration is aggressively pursuing prosecution
of employees not covered by the agreement. He acknowledged
that the offer was made to all the employees. He pointed
out that IBU believes they have won the issue.
Representative Martin maintained that the settlement was
overly generous. He questioned Commissioner Boyer's right
to give away the State's assets. He noted that if the other
unions get a better deal that MEBA will get the same deal.
PAT GULLAFSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
maintained that the commissioner of Department of
Administration has the authority to settle labor disputes.
He demonstrated that the Commissioner has the authority to
settle employee disputes. He emphasized that a disputed
dollar is not considered worth 100 cents. The cost of
collecting each dollar must be taken into consideration. He
reiterated that there have been four negotiations with mixed
results.
Co-Chair Hanley noted that the memorandum by Commissioner
Boyer indicated that Mr. Gullafson was not supportive of the
deal. Commissioner Boyer clarified that the memorandum did
not address the March 11, 1995 or August 8, 1995 agreements.
He noted that the memorandum discussed an offer from the
unions. In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr.
Gullafson stated that there is probably a 50/50 chance of an
arbitrator ruling in favor of the State. He pointed out
that arbitration is difficult to argue against. He noted
that the agreement establishes clarity between the State and
MEBA regarding qualifications for the Cost of Living
Differential. He stressed that there will be a future
savings through a reduction in disputes.
Co-Chair Hanley stated that residency should not be a
negotiating point. He felt that residency requirements for
COLD payments should be clarified statutorily.
10
Representative Martin acknowledged the importance of setting
residency requirements in regards to COLD eligibility. He
asserted that employees mislead the State. He maintained
that the state of Alaska should take the cases to court.
Mr. Gullafson observed that it has not been established that
the employees were clearly ineligible for COLD payments.
Representative Martin restated that employees should be
pursued for false claims.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Gullafson
noted that attorney fees are paid by the party that did not
win the arbitration.
Co-Chair Hanley questioned if the agreement between the
State and MEBA is fair. He referred to comments made by
Commissioner Boyer in the memorandum to Jim Ayers (see
Attachment 1). He observed that the memorandum questioned
the political benefit of an agreement. He noted that
repayment will only be 15 percent. He observed that the
memorandum questioned if there is a benefit in helping the
union representative deliver for the union in an election
year. Commissioner Boyer also asked in the memorandum what
the press fallout would be and if there is a political need
that could be met. He stressed that these statements make
the settlement more questionable. He questioned if the
agreement was motivated by political aims.
Commissioner Boyer stated that he knew the answers to most
of the questions posed by the memorandum. He maintained
that it is healthy to ask political questions. He asserted
that his decision was not based on political considerations.
He reiterated that it was a good business decision. He
emphasized the time and energy the issue has absorbed.
There are 18 cases pending. He stressed the decision not to
throw good money after bad. He emphasized the importance of
providing a criteria for future disputes. He asserted that
millions of dollars will be saved by removing individuals
from future COLD eligibility.
Commissioner Boyer noted that the permanent fund dividend
criteria for residency has been withheld in court. He
stated that his goal was to implement an agreement which
embraced the best set of criteria for determining residency
and put it in place by the agreement. He noted that
legislation will be introduced to place this criteria in
statute. He restated that the goal is to contain the drain
of future resources. He estimated that the State saves
$20.0 thousand dollars a month in benefits that are not
being paid as a result of actions taken by the current and
previous Administrations. He observed that 3 out 10 of the
individuals in the agreement are receiving COLD again. He
11
emphasized that the Department of Administration and the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities should
not be in the position of policing employees when there is a
permanent fund dividend fraud division that works.
Commissioner Boyer noted that the State claims that
employees were overpaid $800.0 thousand dollars. If
arbitrator awards followed the estimated 50/50 pattern the
State would receive repayment of $400.0 thousand dollars.
The State has already spent $300.0 thousand dollars to
pursue these claims. He stressed that the State is
approaching the break even point. He maintained that the
agreement trades a break even proposition for a permanent
fix to a problem that would have continued to perpetuate the
drain of state resources to employees that are not qualified
to receive COLD.
Representative Martin observed that the most other groups
will have to pay is 15 percent. He questioned if one union
could sue if anther union receives a better settlement.
Commissioner Boyer pointed out that employees are currently
being treated differently. He added that the offer was made
to the other unions. The offer stood for four months. The
offer was not accepted by IBU or MMP unions. He maintained
that there will be no better settlement than what was
offered all three unions and accepted by MEBA.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Ms. Corso
reiterated that the offer was made to all three bargaining
groups.
MILA DOYLE, LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
explained that the initial global settlement offer, which
was offered by Commissioner Usera, had two components. The
offer required that the union agree to withdraw all class
action grievances and unfair labor practices around the
issue of COLD. Both MEBA and MMP agreed to this
requirement. In addition, the agreement gave the
opportunity for individual members to sign up for protection
under the settlement offer. The settlement provided that
individual members would not be prosecuted or lose their
jobs. The employees would receive a lengthy suspension
which could not be disputed through arbitration. Employees
would be required to pay the full amount of restitution
claimed by the State. The agreement provided for a neutral
third party to review disputes regarding the amount owed.
Eight members of MMP and one member of MEBA accepted this
agreement.
Commissioner Boyer concluded that there are 18 employees
remaining with disputed amounts totaling just under $400.0
thousand dollars.
12
In response to a question by Representative Martin,
Commissioner Boyer explained that employees fill out a form
and attest to their residency. He reiterated that the
Department's priority was to change the venue to the
Permanent Fund Dividend Division's fraud unit. He noted
that there was no structure in place to accomplish this
prior to the agreement. Employees will have to recertify
their eligibility based on permanent fund dividend criteria.
The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities will
transfer the forms to the Department of Revenue for review.
The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
Marine Highway System has been responsible for
certification.
Commissioner Boyer restated that legislation will be
proposed to permanently make the permanent fund dividend
criteria the criteria for future COLD qualification.
In response to a question by Representative Therriault, Ms.
Corso clarified that the current collective bargaining
agreement includes general provisions for COLD
qualifications. This is consistent with permanent fund
dividend requirements. Further negotiations will clarify
specific criteria and the process for determining that an
employee has meet the criteria.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-82, Side 2)
Representative Therriault asked if there was any willingness
by employees to police themselves. Commissioner Boyer
replied that guilt or wrong doing was never admitted by any
of the employees.
Co-Chair Hanley reiterated concerns regarding terms of the
agreement. He restated that the political comments
contained in the 6/30/96 memorandum by Commissioner Boyer
has caused concern regarding the validity of the agreement.
He observed that the lack of information given to lawmakers
was seen as misleading by some legislators.
Representative Martin stated that he wished that
Commissioner Boyer had been more "straight" with him
regarding the potential agreement of August 8, 1995. He
asserted that the overpayments are "out right theft".
Commissioner Boyer urged members to support legislation to
place COLD residency requirements and certification
provisions in statute. Co-Chair Hanley assured him he would
assist in addressing the issue.
Representative Therriault noted that IBU took a vote in
13
August 1995 to authorize a walk out due to the lack of a
contract. He questioned if this issue would have caused IBU
members to vote for a walk out. Commissioner Boyer stated
he could not speculate what effect the issue would have had
on the vote. He noted that the atmosphere was very intense.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
14
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|