Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/21/1995 03:10 PM House L&C
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE April 21, 1995 3:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Pete Kott, Chairman Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Beverly Masek Representative Kim Elton Representative Brian Porter Representative Gene Kubina MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 260: "An Act relating to marine pilots and the Board of Marine Pilots; extending the termination date of the Board of Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective date." HEARD AND HELD HB 236: "An Act relating to reductions in compensation for state officers and employees; and providing for an effective date." HEARD AND TABLED HB 144: "An Act relating to salaries for officers and employees of the state who are not members of a collective bargaining unit; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 298: "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of the collective bargaining agreement with the Alaska Public Employees Association, Supervisory Unit; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 299: "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of the collective bargaining agreement with the Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 300: "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of the collective bargaining agreement with Public Employees Local 71, Labor, Trades and Crafts Unit; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 305: "An Act making appropriations to satisfy the agreed upon monetary terms of a collective bargaining agreement for certain employees of the University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 251: "An Act relating to Native corporations." BILL POSTPONED HB 232: "An Act establishing an economic development tax credit; and providing for an effective date." BILL POSTPONED HB 288: "An Act relating to procurement preferences for corporations and partnerships owned by persons with disabilities." BILL POSTPONED WITNESS REGISTER DAN TWOHIG, Coordinator Board of Marine Pilots Department of Commerce and Economic Development P.O. Box 110806 Juneau, AK 99811-0806 Telephone: (907) 465-2548 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 260 PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist Southwest Alaska Pilots Association 10652 Porter Lane Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 790-3030 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260 CAPTAIN RICHARD GURRY, President Southeastern Alaska Pilots Association Box 6100 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-9697 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260 BOB EVANS, Lobbyist Alaska Marine Pilots 2822 Iliamna Avenue Anchorage, AK 99517 Telephone: (907) 364-3360 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in HB 260 BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, Representative Southeast Alaska Pilots Association 302 Gold Street Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-2210 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in HB 260 GAYLE HORETSKI, Assistant Attorney General Commercial Section Civil Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260 JOE KYLE Alaska Steamship Association 234 Gold Street Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-3107 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260 ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director Central Office Alaska Court System 303 "K" Street Anchorage, AK 99501-2084 Telephone: (907) 246-0547 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 236 MARK BOYER, Commissioner Department of Administration P.O. Box 110200 Juneau, AK 99811-0200 Telephone: 465-2200 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 236 WENDY REDMAN, Vice President Statewide University System University of Alaska P.O. Box 155000 Fairbanks, AK 99775 Telephone: (907) 474-7311 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 305 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 260 SHORT TITLE: MARINE PILOTS SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/15/95 745 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/15/95 745 (H) TRANSPORTATION, LABOR & COMMERCE 03/22/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/22/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA) 03/24/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/05/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/05/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA) 04/07/95 1170 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 2DP 2NR 2AM 04/07/95 1171 (H) DP: BRICE, WILLIAMS 04/07/95 1171 (H) NR: MACLEAN, SANDERS 04/07/95 1171 (H) AM: JAMES, G.DAVIS 04/07/95 1171 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 04/12/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/18/95 1356 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED 04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 236 SHORT TITLE: REDUCTION IN STATE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION SPONSOR(S): FINANCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/06/95 597 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/06/95 597 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE 03/17/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/17/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 03/20/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/20/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/01/95 (H) L&C AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 04/07/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/08/95 (H) L&C AT 01:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 144 SHORT TITLE: NONUNION STATE EMPLOYEE SALARY INCREASE SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/01/95 200 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/01/95 200 (H) FINANCE 04/10/95 1226 (H) L&C REFERRAL ADDED 04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 298 SHORT TITLE: APPROP: MONETARY TERM APEA SUPERVISOR CONTRACT SPONSOR(S): FINANCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 04/05/95 1027 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/05/95 1027 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE 04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 299 SHORT TITLE: APPROP: MONETARY TERM IBU CONTRACT SPONSOR(S): FINANCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 04/05/95 1028 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/05/95 1028 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE 04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 300 SHORT TITLE: APPROP: MONETARY TERM LOCAL 71 CONTRACT SPONSOR(S): FINANCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 04/05/95 1028 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/05/95 1028 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE 04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 305 SHORT TITLE: APPROP: UNIV. OF AK LABOR AGREEMENTS SPONSOR(S): FINANCE JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 04/11/95 1237 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/11/95 1237 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE 04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 251 SHORT TITLE: NATIVE CORPORATIONS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES,MacLean,Williams JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/15/95 741 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/15/95 741 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE 03/27/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/27/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 03/29/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/05/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/05/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/10/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/10/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/12/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 232 SHORT TITLE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/06/95 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/06/95 590 (H) ECD, STA, L&C, FINANCE 03/21/95 (H) ECD AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 17 03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(ECD) 03/22/95 850 (H) ECD RPT CS(ECD) 6DP 03/22/95 850 (H) DP: KELLY, MOSES, MACLEAN, KOHRING 03/22/95 850 (H) DP: SANDERS, ROKEBERG 03/22/95 850 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV) 03/22/95 850 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/04/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/06/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/06/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/11/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/11/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/18/95 1345 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 2NR 04/18/95 1346 (H) DP: GREEN, PORTER, JAMES, OGAN 04/18/95 1346 (H) NR: WILLIS, ROBINSON 04/18/95 1346 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV) 04/18/95 1346 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 288 SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT PREFERENCES/STATE LEASES SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/29/95 979 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/29/95 979 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE 04/03/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/03/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/07/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 04/07/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C) 04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-42, SIDE A Number 000 The House Labor and Commerce Committee meeting was called to order by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:10 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Sanders, Kubina, Elton, Masek, Rokeberg and Kott. Representative Porter had not arrived. HB 260 - MARINE PILOTS Number 030 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced the first order of business would be HB 260, "An Act relating to marine pilots and the Board of Marine Pilots; extending the termination date of the Board of Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective date." DAN TWOHIG, Coordinator, Board of Marine Pilots, Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), testified via teleconference. He said he supports the bill as it is currently written. He referred to Amendment 0.1, which deals with pilotage tariffs and establishing a maximum tariff, and said the DCED takes no position on the tariff issue. MR. TWOHIG referred to Amendment 0.2, relating to Section 2, which removes the extra seats on the board, and said the DCED supports the amendment. MR. TWOHIG referred to Amendment 3, which will add additional language to the cross regional licensing temporary license issue, and said the department supports it. Number 078 PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist, Southwest Alaska Pilots Association, was next to testify. He stated his organization hasn't taken a position on the composition of the board. He said it was probably an oversight to include the ability to relicense someone the next year if the shortage continues and if the commissioner finds there is a continuing shortage. Mr. Fuhs showed the committee a map showing the sizes of the three regions that currently exist. He said he doesn't support cross regionalization. The regions are very large and if you could keep up with what is going on within the regions, you would be doing well. Number 100 CAPTAIN RICHARD GURRY, President, Southeastern Alaska Pilots Association, was next to come before the committee. He noted the Southeastern Alaska Pilots Association is headquartered in Ketchikan, Alaska. Captain Gurry read his statement into the record: "I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee today. While we have several concerns about HB 260, which amends the Marine Pilot Act, I am going to focus only briefly on two aspects under consideration by this committee. "First, cross regionalization; second, composition of the Board of Marine Pilots; and, correct myself there is a third, the third is a request by shipping companies to impose a maximum tariff on pilot service fees. "First, cross regionalization. We oppose cross regionalization. We oppose cross regional licensing and support the Department of Commerce's position on this issue. "Second, composition of the Board of Marine Pilots. We support the current composition of the board and no additions of industry representatives on the board. The board should be comprised primarily of pilots who are regulated by the board; and public members because it is the public's interest that should be overseen by the board. We oppose adding additional industry members on this board. Industry agents are not restricted to working in regions as pilots are and, therefore, cannot offer specific expertise that a pilot can whose expertise lies only within a particular region. Larger boards are more cumbersome, more costly and less effective. Perhaps the best board make up would have three pilots, one from each region, three public members and one state representative. The board should be maintained as a Board of Marine Pilots and not a Board of Marine Agents. "Third, the maximum tariff. The State Board of Marine Pilots wrestled with a maximum tariff for several years. We spent countless hours on this matter taking up valuable board time which could have been used on more pertinent issues such as safety and training. Since last year, there has been no tariff for marine pilots, there have been no pilot shortages and no price gouging. We now hear from industry that a mechanism is needed for price disputes and to prevent work stoppages. SEAPA pilots have addressed both of these concerns in our contracts with cruise ship companies. Dispute resolution and automatic contract extensions have been suggested in every contract with vessel companies. Some companies have opted for these and some have not. Pilotage rates are below the tariffs set by the board in 1991. The reason why they are below is because pilots offered to discount their rates in exchange for long-term commitments. These commitments are needed in order for us to project our future pilotage requirements. In testimony before this committee on Wednesday, industry representatives suggested that there would be pilot shortage this year. The SEAPA pilots currently have 31 pilots on our roster. Not all of our members have renewed their license at this time. Many of our members would like to work a fuller schedule this summer, but because of lack of projected work, they have chosen to only work part-time. Industry has never specified a single blaring problem that now actually exists, in fact, as a consequence of the repealed maximum tariff. If industry is worried about the price and availability of pilots then it is incumbent upon the state to heavily regulate pilots to ensure that they are available and highly trained. A maximum tariff undercuts the system that the legislature has tried to enact, which is a competitive pilotage system. "Historically, under a state set maximum tariff, the board set the maximum tariff that could be charged but had no oversight over the actual amounts charged between pilots and vessels under private contracts. Maximum tariff does not either actively regulate pilotage or let pilots freely compete and this has serious repercussions. When there is competition, the market place decides the price and the Sherman Antitrust Act Law enforces competition and punishes those who conspired to restrain trade. When there is active state supervision of a private party, there is immunity from antitrust laws. However, under a maximum tariff true market forces are thwarted by establishing an artificial price ceiling and pilotage associations cannot enjoy antitrust immunity under a maximum tariff provision because there is not active supervision of pilotage prices actually charged. Therefore, we support leaving the bill as is - without a maximum tariff. Thank you. Number 197 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Captain Gurry how much of the work that his organization does is provided to shippers that are under contract. He also asked how much of the pilotage work is done through people that they don't have contracts for. CAPTAIN GURRY said very close to 100 percent is done under contract. They have contracts that are through agents, and the scope of the vessels that they cover, the ships can come from anywhere. They represent such a broad scope of ships - different companies from different companies. He said it would be very cumbersome for them to get individual contracts from all the different freighter companies throughout the world, so they contract out with the agent that represents all those companies. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the contract with the agent would set a price for an individual (indisc.) CAPTAIN GURRY said that is correct. He noted it would cover any vessel that came in under the agent's authority. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said any vessel that comes in probably has an agent. CAPTAIN GURRY responded in the affirmative. Number 224 BOB EVANS, Lobbyist, Alaska Marine Pilots, explained he was in attendance to speak to the maximum tariff. He said he has heard some concerns that the maximum tariff is necessary in order to avoid antitrust concerns on a federal level. Mr. Evans said he has given committee members a letter from Mark Ashburn, with Ashburn and Mason, which speaks to the fact that Sections 12 and 16 of the bill takes care of any concern about a maximum tariff. It provides the level of regulation, according to them, that is at least as good as a maximum tariff. Additionally, if that is a concern, his comments in the past have indicated a fixed tariff would make more sense. Mr. Evans said they are not asking for that at this time. This view is not only shared by Mr. Ashburn, who is formally the head of the Antitrust Section of the Attorney Generals Office, but it is shared by Dick Monkman, who is now the head of the Antitrust Section, and Mr. Weyhrauch who is with Faulkner Banfield. MR. EVANS said it has been suggested that this is a concern as a result of FTC versus TICORE. That case does not fall on all fours with the context - the facts of this case. That case is distinguishable from the facts in Alaska. TICORE involves the independent businesses that operate as title companies. Each of them independent of one another that come together as independent businesses, set a price and then offer that to some state authority which, in turn, will have to take some negative action to prevent that from becoming the price. If they fail to reject the price then the price goes forward as the price for the title companies. These are independent businesses. The factual context of Alaska is that these organizations, which are independent entities, will fix a price, set an amount, within the organization. Mr. Evans said there is nothing in the statute that says the Southeast Alaska Pilots Association (SEAPA) is supposed to sit down with Alaska Coastwise Pilots (ACP) and set a price or another organization. There is no price setting from one business entity to another which makes FTC versus TICORE not applicable to the facts of this case. MR. EVANS said there are two reasons off the top. The statutory provisions in the bill before the committee takes care of the concern of a maximum tariff for antitrust problems. The FTC versus TICORE is not applicable based upon the different factual context. Mr. Evans said he would point out that the people at risk are the individual businesses. They are not industry, it is not the state, is not anybody but themselves with the advice of their counsel and their own independent business decisions, they are prepared to take that risk. Public safety is not an issue here. This is a business/legal decision of these organizations. Mr. Evans said there is no good reason why the state ought to involve themselves in that kind of a decision. MR. EVANS referred to the maximum tariff and said if it is put in place, it will give a negotiating tool to one side that is not available to the pilots. In the past when the maximum tariff existed, there were no contracts. The individual pilot groups had to take what came whenever it came. There is no market share. They serviced the industry at the whim at getting a call or not getting a call. The maximum tariff that went away last year has brought more stability in the shipping lanes of the state of Alaska than anything that has occurred since 1991. He urged the committee to reject the amendment which establishes a maximum tariff. Number 293 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the length of time has been that there hasn't been a maximum tariff. MR. EVANS said since June, 1994. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many contracts have been entered into since that time. He also asked what the atmosphere has been between industry and the pilots. MR. EVANS said he could only speak for the organization he represents. He said they have signed one contract which amounts to about 21 percent of the work in their region. They are currently going through active negotiations with several others. He said his organization has been told that there is probably not much reason in negotiating until the legislature decides whether there is going to be a maximum tariff. He said other representatives could probably give a better answer to the number of contracts that have been signed. Number 310 BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, Representative, Southeast Alaska Pilots Association, was next to come before the committee to testify. He said in their capacity as attorneys representing the individuals who are working for pilot associations, the Southeast Alaska Pilots Association is not recommending that they would enjoy antitrust immunity under a maximum tariff provision. If the Department of Law suggests that it is better than nothing, then his organization would like an indemnity provision from the Department of Law that they will reimburse SEAPA for their legal fees and any damages they have to pay for an antitrust judgement. Currently, the negotiations between the pilot associations and the companies involved are at arm's length with transactions between two private parties over the terms of a contract, and that is what the legislature deemed which should take place in 1991 -- a competitive system of pilotage. MR. WEYHRAUCH said unless the state actively and aggressively supervises marine pilots, they will always face this antitrust threat. So it is active supervision by the state of every aspect, not just price. It includes training, entry, discipline, everything, and clearly articulating that policy to displace competition in the statue. That is what it will take before they recommend that they have antitrust immunity. MR. WEYHRAUCH said if a maximum tariff is imposed, why not a minimum tariff on the industry. He referred to the industry side of the issue and asked why the pilots should take all the heat. Number 337 GAYLE HORETSKI, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, came forward to testify. She said the Department of Law would decline to accept Mr. Weyhrauch's invitation to indemnify them for their legal expenses. Ms. Horetski said she has personally spoken with Mr. Robert Schoder, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in Seattle. She informed the committee the FTC issued a generalized report about competition in the pilotage industry in Alaska. Mr. Schoder told her that the FTC agrees with the Department of Law's interpretation of the TICORE case as it applies to antitrust immunity, under federal law, for pilot associations. She said she did invite representatives of pilot associations to share with her any letters or memorandums that they received from Mr. Ashburn on this issue. She noted that several days ago the issue about Mr. Ashburn having a contrary opinion was first brought up in the Senate. To date, she hasn't seen anything in writing on that. She said she can't really respond to what Mr. Ashburn has allegedly said since she hasn't seen any documentation. There being no questions of Ms. Horetski, Mr. Kyle was next to testify. JOE KYLE, Alaska Steamship Association, said he would like to clarify a couple of things. He referred to the maximum tariff and said he would like to remind the committee that what industry is concerned about is not a maximum tariff so much as an impasse where pilots and shippers cannot agree on a price. Mr. Kyle referred to Captain Gurry's testimony and said he thinks that he gave a great example of how likely it is that they are not going to be able to agree all the time when he suggested that the industry be disenfranchised from the process of the Marine Pilot Board. Mr. Kyle said they are a major stakeholder in this entire process. They have hugh capital investments that they entrust to the care of pilots when they move into state waters. They want to be a player in the process that regulates those pilots. MR. KYLE referred to the issue of maximum tariffs being before the committee and said it is because the industry has already tried binding arbitration with the pilots as a dispute resolution mechanism. The pilots shot that down. They then tried a mediation process with the legislature. The pilots shot that down. Now we're back where we were before which is maximum tariffs. Mr. Kyle said different people will give different versions as to how well the maximum tariff worked since 1991. The reason it is back before the legislature is because they knew where they were with the maximum tariff. MR. KYLE said he doesn't know how binding arbitration, competition and mediation hurts pilots. He referred to the experience they had with the maximum tariffs over the last three years and said he doesn't know how that hurts pilots. Mr. Kyle said he would like to remind the committee that there needs to be some kind of mechanism in the Marine Pilot Act to get a handle on tariffs so the industry has some protection. MR. KYLE referred to Mr. Weyhrauch's comment about pilot associations and the companies involved are at arm's length and said that isn't accurate when the companies are required, by law, to engage the services of pilots. He said they are open to mediation and arbitration. Since that hasn't been satisfactory to the pilots, they are at the maximum tariff and that is what his association currently supports. Number 397 MR. WEYHRAUCH said, for the record, the pilot's have asked in their contracts for arbitration provisions. The companies have rejected those in contracts. The pilots are out there, they want to work on their own and they don't need the paternalistic attitude of industry trying to look out for their interests. He said they are ready to compete if that is what the legislature wants them to do. Number 410 There being no further witnesses to testify on the measure, CHAIRMAN KOTT closed public testimony. He said the committee has three proposed amendments before them 01, 02 and 03, Utermohle, dated 4/20/95. Chairman Kott moved Amendment 1. He noted the amendment was requested by bill's prime sponsor. The suggestion was that maximum tariff be established. Amendment 1 restores the language that existed prior to the exploration of the maximum tariff. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA put a call on the committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would take an at ease at 3:35 p.m. The House Labor and Commerce Committee was called back to order at 3:37 p.m. CHAIRMAN KOTT said the call has been satisfied. He said Amendment 1 has been moved. He asked if there was an objection. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA objected for the purpose of discussion. He said it seems like a maximum tariff would give a half of a solution. He indicated it doesn't seem like there is open competition. Representative Kubina said he would be very supportive of binding arbitration and the board could be the arbitrator. At least somebody is making a decision and they are hearing both sides of the story. To put a cap on it seems like the legislature is taking one side's point of view. He said he would support binding arbitration, total competition or mediation. Representative Kubina said the amendment appears to take one side over the other. CHAIRMAN KOTT said the state has essentially mandated that shippers/transporters are going to have to have pilots on board. The board will determine the maximum tariff. He noted the board consists of public members, shippers and pilots. Between the three of those groups, they should come up with a rational approach. Chairman Kott said Representative Kubina is right to a degree that they are somewhat curbing free and open market competition by establishing a maximum ceiling on what can be charged. Currently, as it stands in some of the regions there is not competition anyway. So what would prevent those individual groups from establishing whatever tariff they want to establish within reason. Number 456 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to his region, Prince William Sound, Region 2, and said there is no competition for tanker traffic coming in and out of the sound. He noted it is very substantive. It doesn't appear they're having a problem there. Representative Kubina said he would be more in support of the board deciding. He suggested not setting a cap, but let the board set the rate. CHAIRMAN KOTT said there may be some severe problems with letting the board set a rate as there may be problems in agreeing to that rate. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to the amendment and said they're setting a maximum rate. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that he has been all over the board regarding the issue between safety, competition, etc. The state initiated this quandary by saying, "You will, shippers, have pilots. We will establish standards for their experience and training and (indisc.--coughing) and you will put them on your ships." So the state has interjected itself once and said if you don't, it's a crime. That is a pretty heavy sanction. Representative Porter said, "To me, then saying, `But we're not going to give you shippers any assistance in trying to reasonably meet our expectation of being able to reasonably compensate pilots' isn't there. So from that standpoint, and I have some labor management experience in my background, I was taken (indisc.) when I heard the representative of -- in effect management if this is one of those kinds of issues saying, `Please give me binding arbitration.' Wow! Binding arbitration generally does not favor management and my personal philosophy is such that unless employee who has the right to strike, which obviously pilots have the right to say `I'm not going,' binding arbitration seems to be inappropriate. So to hear the industry saying give us binding arbitration makes me believe that they're really in a vulnerable position." Representative Porter said he doesn't know that this is appropriate answer but it is an answer and he is willing to give it shot since it seems to have generated the contracts that are currently in existence. Number 501 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said it is hard for him to think of this in terms of labor management -- talking about two different types of business groups. He said he isn't as concerned about the major shipping companies. They're going to be operating under a contract. It seems to him that the value of a maximum rate for an agent that's bringing in a ship that might come in once a year or once every three years seems to be the area in which there are vulnerabilities. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if the committee were not to adopt Amendment 1 and leave the status quo as it currently is, there is the threat of the FTC finding there is some antitrust violations. He asked who would be penalized and what would be the corrective action. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he believes the answer would be the pilot organizations who don't want this. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said they don't want it but they would be the ones to answer to it. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thinks that there is substantial concern and this would go towards ameliorating that problem. Number 538 A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 1. Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives Kott, Porter and Elton. Voting against Amendment 1 were Representatives Sanders, Kubina, Rokeberg and Masek. So Amendment 1 failed to be adopted. Number 547 CHAIRMAN KOTT moved Amendment 2 which restores the board back to the existing composition as it currently exists. Hearing no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 550 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated Amendment 3 addresses the renewal of a license by the commissioner in times of immanent shortage. It makes it simpler for him/her to continue with business under a shortage condition. He moved Amendment 3 be adopted. He asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 554 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked for a brief at ease at 4:50 p.m. CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 4:55 p.m. He handed the committee members Amendment 4 which deals with dispute resolution. Do to the extensive nature of the amendment, he said he will hold the bill over pending the committees review of it. He said it would be brought up at another time. At this point an at ease was taken. The meeting was called back to order at 3:58 p.m. HB 236 - REDUCTION IN STATE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION Number 570 The next order of business was HB 236, "An Act relating to reductions in compensation for state officers and employees; and providing for an effective date." CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would like thank the subcommittee chairman, Representative Sanders, for holding extensive subcommittee hearings. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said when the bill was put into a subcommittee, Chairman Kott asked them to try and find out what the bill does, who it does it to, and to see what they could do to make it more acceptable to the working public. He said after ten hours of public testimony and well over 1,000 letters, he feels that everyone knows what they are doing and they all have a good understanding of who they're doing it to. Now the committee needs to review the numbers and see what, if anything, they can do to make it acceptable to the public employees. Representative Sanders said earlier in the day he received information from Legislative Research which is comprehensive. It includes every employee in the state. Representative Sanders said, "What we need is more time, Mr. Chairman, but it seems that for some reason unbeknownst to me, there is no more time -- that his bill, Mr. Chairman, is so important that it must be rushed through. I have never seen a bill in my three sessions that had to move so fast with so little scrutiny, Mr. Chairman. I just don't understand the urgency, but for the unity of the majority, I am going to report this bill out to the full Labor and Commerce Committee with the hope that as a full committee, we can make a few adjustments that will ease the pain caused by HB 236." Representative Sanders referred to pay schedules and said he would challenge anyone at the table to tell him how many different pay schedules are floating around in Alaska state government. He said there are 180 different pay schedules and every one of them are different. Representative Sanders said how anyone would expect the legislature to do something like this in the short amount of time they have had, he doesn't understand. Number 611 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he appreciate all the work Representative Sanders has put into the matter. He said he doesn't believe the bill is being rushed to the next committee of referral. The bill has been in the House Labor and Commerce Committee for over a month. Number 621 ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director, Central Office, Alaska Court System, came forward to testify in opposition to HB 236. He said our judges are about thirty-fifth in the nation in salary. Over 70 percent of his employees within the Judiciary are range 15 or less. They do not have a number of high paid employees and they would respectfully seek exemption from the Judicial Branch from the application of the bill. Number 630 MARK BOYER, Commissioner, Department of Administration, came forward to testify. He thanked the committee for giving the Administration the opportunity to testify on the bill previously. The Governor felt that given the lateness in the session and given what they are currently doing at the bargaining table on a daily basis.... (End of Tape) TAPE 95-42, SIDE B Number 000 COMMISSIONER BOYER continued, .... would do to the work force. He said they are unclear of what the goals are of the proposers of the legislation. If the goals are to reduce the personal services cost to state government, the Governor and the Administration are absolutely in support of that goal. They clearly understand the need to reduce personal services costs over the next few years. This bill, however, they feel is the wrong way to do it. If the goal is to change the Public Employees Relations Act (PERA), this bill is also the wrong way to do that. A more appropriate way to change PERA, if the goal is to not have the Administration bargain at the table over wages and benefits, is for the legislature to change PERA taking the mandatory term of bargaining out of the act. He said the Administration is unclear as to what the goal is. Commissioner Boyer said the Governor is looking for a way to deal with personal services costs without creating such havoc in the labor work force. If the bill were enacted and were allowed to go into law, the Governor has suggested that he will not allow the kind of disruption to the work force that this bill would cause to occur. There are alternatives to reducing personal services if that is the goal. He said he would like to work with the legislature in achieving that goal. COMMISSIONER BOYER said the Governor is not prepared to encourage the committee to go down a path that would have the Administration unilaterally impose these terms and conditions on what could be as many as 14,000 or 15,000 state employees. He informed the committee that the Administration is currently negotiation with the state's largest union which includes about 8,500 employees. There are three contracts that cover approximately 3,000. If the bill were passed and became law, the state would be forced to impose the terms and conditions of this contract. There would be major disruptions. Number 012 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Commissioner Boyer saying that if the intent is to change PERA, they should use a different vehicle. He asked if it is safe to assume that the Administration would be supportive of seeking ways to improve the PERA system. COMMISSIONER BOYER said there are changes to PERA that even the current Administration would like at some point in the further. He said, "I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the Governor would support a wholesale change in the complexion of the Employment Relations Act. I'm not suggesting that whatsoever. I'm suggesting that if that's your interest or the interest of the legislature, that there is a much more straight forward way to do that and a clear delineation, if you will, in the sand on that issue. This is not very clear. This is not a clear way of dealing with that issue." Number 025 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Commissioner Boyer saying that the Governor has suggested that he will not allow the kind of disruption to the work force that this bill would cause to occur and said that suggests a veto. Number 039 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to Commissioner Boyer saying the Governor is working on ways to deal with personnel costs and asked if there is a bill, proposed by the Governor, that he thinks does deal with personnel costs in a better way than HB 236. COMMISSIONER BOYER said they are developing a number of initiatives that will be introduced during the next legislative session that will deal with a number of issues. One bill that was introduced this session are a couple of tools that will be necessary in downsizing environmental. One tool is the change in the area cost differential for non covered employees. While the fiscal savings in that piece of legislation are small, the implications of the application of that statutory scheme in other contract environments is quite immense. Commissioner Boyer said the second tool has to do with an early retirement incentive bill that has a private sector twist to it. The private sector twist has two pieces. One, there is a voluntary cash separation piece that was borrowed from the private sector. ARCO has used that kind of a mechanism successfully to permanently downsize its operation. He noted that there are some up-front costs, but in the ARCO example for an up- front expenditure of $39 million, they've reduced their work size by 30 percent for a permanent reduction in personal costs of $25 billion per year for as long into the future as you can see. Commissioner Boyer said they see that as a tool that should be available to the state as well as the private sector. COMMISSIONER BOYER said, "The RIP (Retirement Incentive Program) is a very surgical RIP. We have an example, I hate to use this example here at the table, Mr. Chairman, but in Representative Kubina's district we think that with the RIP as a tool, and the voluntary separation piece as a tool, that we can craft a package that when we look at Harborview Developmental Center that is in the heart of his district - a hundred highly trained and skilled professionals providing services there, that as we stop doing that service that we allow some of the people to RIP out of the system. Some of the people whose jobs are disappearing to take a separation pay. And those people that are left at the bottom who aren't able to take advantage of either one of those for one reason or another, help those people through an attrition plan - move throughout the system and stay employed if that is in fact what their choice is. So we're hoping that you do give us the opportunity to use a couple of the tools that we've introduced. Long answer to a short question." Number 094 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he thinks it is safe to assume that the reason why the bill was introduced was to close the fiscal gap and to look at wages and compensation. CHAIRMAN KOTT said he has prepared some amendments. Amendment 1, K.5 4/20/95, exempts the courts. He said there has been testimony that our court system and those individuals that work within the court system are well down the ladder compared to other states. He said there was testimony from our Supreme Court Chief Justice alluded to the fact that they are over burdened with work and we're asking them to do more. On top of that, we're asking them to take a reduction in pay at a point when court employees are way down on the ladder to begin with. Number 130 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved Amendment 1. He explained he is familiar with the wage and benefit packages that exist in the Criminal Justice System. He said he believes the Court System has done a good job in trying to be frugal. He said he believes Amendment 1 is an appropriate amendment and he supports it. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to the adoption of the amendment. Number 146 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion. He asked if there are other amendments. CHAIRMAN KOTT said there are four independent amendments. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he curious as to what criteria is being applied to the court system. CHAIRMAN KOTT said after listening to the testimony by the court administrator as well as the chief justice and alluding to the fact how far behind our Judicial Branch is as compared to other states, he thinks that with the amount of work they are asked to do, it is only warranted that they be exempted from the measure. CHAIRMAN KOTT said Amendment 1 has been moved and asked if there was an objection. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection. Hearing no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 180 CHAIRMAN KOTT explained Amendment 2, K.6, dated 4/21/95. He said it strikes at the heart of the problem, from a public perspective, that he heard from public testimony that we're cutting them 5 percent, however, we're not really addressing ourselves. He said Amendment 2 conforms to many of the criticisms conveyed to the committee by members of the public and that is that the legislators took an increase in per diem this year. The amendment restores the per diem back to the 1993 level. There is no option. The per diem would go back to $100 per day. Chairman Kott said he isn't suggesting that the legislators aren't deserving of it or that it isn't warranted, but in many cases it is warranted. Every individual in the legislature has a different circumstance. Some have given up $30,000 or $40,000 a year jobs, some are maintaining two households. All that must be factored in. He moved the amendment. Number 202 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion. He suggested an amendment to the amendment which would add a differential for the members of the legislature who are single and also presently receiving state retirement income. He suggested lowering their per diem to $50 per day. CHAIRMAN KOTT said he believes that is a hostile amendment to his amendment. He said the reason he would object to that is from a constitutional perspective, we would be treating groups of individuals unequally based primarily on marital status. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would point out that it is the policy of the state of Alaska to administer all employment benefits on a differential between marital status. That is the present call. There is nothing unconstitutional. Representative Rokeberg then withdrew his amendment to the amendment. CHAIRMAN KOTT said under this provision, if you live within 25 miles of where the legislature is convened, there is no per diem. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further discussion on Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection. Number 250 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he objects. He explained he has gone on record opposing this. He said he thinks that the bill that it is in "stinks." He maintained his objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, Porter, Masek and Sanders voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Elton and Kubina voted against the amendment. So Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 269 CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Amendment 3 and said the Administration had testified that the bill probably doesn't get the intent of what they're trying to do. He said he agrees and thinks there are substantial problems with the measure in just making a wholesale cross board cut. It is great for this year, but in further years it probably will have little affect. Amendment 3, K.7, is to establish a three year wage freeze for all non covered employees. That includes an increase of compensation based on merit for the incremental annual increases. He said we really have to hold the line on wages. Chairman Kott moved Amendment 3, K.7, dated 4/21/95, be adopted. Number 283 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected for the purpose of a comment. He said the people who haven't gotten the wage increases are the non union people as they haven't gotten a pay increase in six years. He said he will do everything he can to make the bill better so that if it does unfortunately move out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee, at least they'll be moving something better than what there currently is. Amendment 3 is making the people who have already paid the cost pay more. Number 294 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS referred to Amendment 3 being a three year wage freeze and asked if that would freeze the pay at the rate that it is today and the 5 percent wouldn't apply. CHAIRMAN KOTT said the effective date of the bill would be the effective date of everything in the bill. If non covered (indisc.) a 5 percent reduction, they would get the 5 percent reduction and then there would be no increase for a period of up to three years. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he agrees with Representative Sanders in that there is a conflict. He referred to page 3, Section 9, and said still sets out a new pay scale and these are non collective (indisc.) people. He said he believes that Section 9 should also be deleted. In other words, Section 9 cuts their pay by 5 percent and then a three year wage freeze is being added. He said he believes is what would happen if the amendment is adopted is you would cut their pay 5 percent and then freeze it to three years. Representative Kubina asked Chairman Kott if that is his intent. CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is his intent. That is what the drafters of the bill have informed him that is what would occur. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he objects. CHAIRMAN KOTT referred ahead to a proposed Amendment 4 and said it establishes a three year hiring freeze. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the freeze would apply to all the wage schedules exclusive of the Alaska Court System. Number 338 CHAIRMAN KOTT said because of all the confusion with Amendment 3, he withdrew it. CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Amendment 4, K.8, and said it establishes a three year hiring freeze for the Executive Branch. He moved Amendment 4. Number 344 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He said he is willing to vote for Amendment 4 under one condition which is that the House Labor and Commerce Committee refer the bill back to subcommittee so that they could go back to the public and say, "We've changed the parameters of this bill dramatically. We're no longer talking about a wage cut. We're talking about something that really gets into management. We're talking about something that really gets into management. We're talking about not being able to hire people to fill critical jobs whether they're in Corrections or Public Safety or something else." Representative Elton said if the bill sent back to subcommittee so that new public testimony could be taken on the whole new element, he would vote for it. If the bill isn't sent back to subcommittee, he believes the committee is doing the public a disservice. The bill is being made into something much more dramatic. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he feels he could vote for the amendment because it falls in line with his philosophy as he is in favor of smaller government, not cheaper government. He said he thinks the amendment helps to accomplish that. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is in favor of smaller government too. He said when you talk about things like this, you have to talk about not only cost but value and the service that government is providing. The amendment addresses cost, but we may have a problem with value. Number 379 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the hiring freezes that he is used to seeing have got a "fail safe" built into them that allow for emergency exceptions. He said in review the bill, he didn't see a "fail safe" that would qualify for the kind of situation that Representative Elton discussed. CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page l, line 8, "State agency may fill a vacancy in a position if the department, commissioner or agency head certifies that the agency needs to fill that specific positions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he stands corrected and removed his objection. Number 390 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he will have to vote against the bill as it is a whole new way of looking at saving money. No public testimony has been taken. There hasn't been comments from the department or the Administration. There should be hearings held on the bill. CHAIRMAN KOTT said an agency could fill a specific position to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public. He said the statement is open ended and could almost be considered to be all inclusive with every conceivable problem out there. Number 413 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said under the terms of the welfare of the public, would the University of Alaska be able to hire a professor of widgets in their school of business. CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would suppose so only if they're teaching widget construction. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he would be more apt to be able to vote on that if the rest of the bill were deleted. He said we're going from a pay cut to a hiring freeze. He said he would like to hear that debate go forward. Representative Kubina said he has a proposed amendment that he may bring forward after all other amendments are brought up. Number 426 CHAIRMAN KOTT said Amendment 4 is before the committee and there is objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Sanders, Rokeberg, Masek and Porter voted in favor of adopting the amendment. Representative Kubina and Elton voted against the adoption of the amendment. So Amendment 4 was adopted. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were additional amendments. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he did have a proposed amendment, but seeing the turn of events he said he would like to move to table the bill until the committee has had time to study it and perhaps bring it up at a later date. CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would object to the motion for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for an at ease. An unidentified speaker said a motion to table is not debatable. CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would take a brief at ease at 4:37 p.m. The meeting was called back to order. Number 459 CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to table HB 236. The motion is not debatable. There is objection. He asked the committee secretary to take a roll call vote. Representatives Kubina, Masek, Elton, Sanders and Rokeberg voted in favor of tabling HB 236. Representatives Porter and Kott voted against tabling the bill. So HB 236 was tabled until further notice. HB 144 - NONUNION STATE EMPLOYEE SALARY INCREASE Number 470 The next order of business was HB 144, "An Act relating to salaries for officers and employees of the state who are not members of a collective bargaining unit; and providing for an effective date." At 4:45 p.m. CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee would take a five minute at ease. The meeting was called back to order at 4:50 p.m. He announced the committee had before them five labor contract bills and there are several people signed up to testify. He said it is the intent of the Chairman to pass the bills out in their virgin form. He said he would take them numerically, from HB 144 through HB 305. He asked if there was anyone to testify on HB 144. There being no response, he asked for a motion to move the bill. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass HB 144 out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, HB 144 was moved out of committee HB 298 - APPROP: MONETARY TERM APEA SUPERVISOR CONTRACT CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business would be HB 298, "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of the collective bargaining agreement with the Alaska Public Employees Association, Supervisory Unit; and providing for an effective date." He asked if there was anyone wishing to testify. There being no testimony, he asked if there was any debate. There being no debate, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass HB 298 out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of a comment. He said he has a problem with the fact that the prior Administration felt it needed to negotiate a contract which extended the work week by 2.5 hours and add a substantial additional increase for that amount of money. Representative Rokeberg said that concerns him from a conceptual standpoint, when we should be cutting the budget. He then withdrew his objection. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection. Hearing none, HB 298 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. HB 299 - APPROP: MONETARY TERM IBU CONTRACT Number 494 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next bill before the committee would HB 299, "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of the collective bargaining agreement with the Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific; and providing for an effective date." He asked if there was anyone to testify. There being no testimony, he asked if there was debate. There being no debate, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HB 299 out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, HB 299 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. HB 300 - APPROP: MONETARY TERM LOCAL 71 CONTRACT Number 500 HB 300, "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of the collective bargaining agreement with Public Employees Local 71, Labor, Trades and Crafts Unit; and providing for an effective date," was the next piece of legislation to come before the committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was anybody wishing to testify. There was nobody to testify. Chairman Kott asked if there was debate. There being no debate, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HB 300 out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, HB 300 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. HB 305 - APPROP: UNIV. OF AK LABOR AGREEMENTS Number 506 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced HB 305, "An Act making appropriations to satisfy the agreed upon monetary terms of a collective bargaining agreement for certain employees of the University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date," was the next order of business. He asked if there was anyone wishing to testify. There was nobody to testify. Chairman Kott asked if there was debate. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said in another meeting the committee heard testimony from the university. He asked if HB 305 ameliorates some of the problems that had been raised earlier. CHAIRMAN KOTT said he is sure it ameliorates some of the problems and alleviates some of the concern. WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University System, University of Alaska, said it is a very small unit consisting of about 200 employees. She explained it is just the crafts and trades. There being no further debate, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HB 305 out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, HB 305 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business come before the House Labor and Commerce Committee, CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting at 4:59 p.m.