Legislature(1997 - 1998)

03/25/1998 03:21 PM House L&C

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
    HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE                                
                   March 25, 1998                                              
                     3:21 p.m.                                                 
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman                                       
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chairman                                     
Representative Bill Hudson                                                     
Representative Jerry Sanders                                                   
Representative Joe Ryan                                                        
Representative Gene Kubina                                                     
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                 
Representative Tom Brice                                                       
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                             
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(L&C)                                                
"An Act relating to the state plumbing code; and providing for an              
effective date."                                                               
     - MOVED CSSB 269(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
* HOUSE BILL NO. 319                                                           
"An Act relating to an employee's expectation of privacy in                    
employer premises."                                                            
     - MOVED CSHB 319(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
* HOUSE BILL NO. 438                                                           
"An Act establishing an exemption for investment clubs from the                
business license requirement."                                                 
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                 
HOUSE BILL NO. 400                                                             
"An Act combining parts of the Department of Commerce and Economic             
Development and parts of the Department of Community and Regional              
Affairs by transferring some of their duties to a new Department of            
Commerce and Rural Development; transferring some of the duties of             
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the                    
Department of Community and Regional Affairs to other existing                 
agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and Economic                  
Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs;              
relating to the Department of Commerce and Rural Development;                  
adjusting the membership of certain multi-member bodies to reflect             
the transfer of duties among departments and the elimination of                
departments; and providing for an effective date."                             
     - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                 
(* First public hearing)                                                       
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                
BILL: SB 269                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: PLUMBING CODE                                                     
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST                                        
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
01/28/98      2335     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                  

01/28/98 2335 (S) LABOR & COMMERCE 03/03/98 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 03/04/98 2733 (S) L&C RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE 03/04/98 2733 (S) DP:LEMAN, KELLY, MILLER, HOFFMAN, MACKIE 03/04/98 2733 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (LABOR) 03/05/98 (S) RLS AT 12:25 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 03/05/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/06/98 2769 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/6/98 03/06/98 2770 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/06/98 2770 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/06/98 2770 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 03/06/98 2770 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 269(L&C) 03/06/98 2771 (S) PASSED Y15 N- E4 A1 03/06/98 2771 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 03/06/98 2775 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/09/98 2561 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/09/98 2561 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE 03/25/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 319 SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYEES: NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action


01/14/98 2040 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE

01/14/98 2045 (H) ADDITIONAL REFERRAL TO JUD 03/25/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 WITNESS REGISTER ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 113 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3844 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor's representative for SB 269. DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant Office of the Commissioner Department of Labor P.O. Box 21149 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149 Telephone: (907) 465-2700 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 269(L&C). RON WATTS, Building Official Building Safety Division Department of Public Works Municipality of Anchorage P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Telephone: (907) 343-8301 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 269(L&C), requested amendment. PETE JURCZAK, Lead Plumbing Inspector Sitka Office Mechanical Inspection Section Division of Labor Standards and Safety Department of Labor P.O. Box 2385 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Telephone: (907) 747-6380 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 269(L&C). STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official Building Department City of Fairbanks 800 Cushman Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 459-6725 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 269(L&C), requested amendments. LARRY LONG, Plumbing Inspector Building Department City of Fairbanks 800 Cushman Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 459-6720 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 269(L&C), requested amendments. SHARON MACKLIN, Lobbyist for Alaska Professional Design Council 315 Fifth Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-9518 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 269(L&C), requested amendments. RUSS CHANEY, Executive Director International Association for Plumbing and Mechanical Officials 20001 Walnut Drive South Walnut, California 91789 Telephone: (909) 595-8449 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 269(L&C). EDWARD SALTZBERG 14733 Oxnard Street Van Nuys, California 91411 Telephone: (213) 873-4752 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 269(L&C) representing the Industry Health and Safety Code Council. JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 24 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4968 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 319, explained amendments. SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Chairman Rokeberg Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 24 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4968 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 319. WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations University of Alaska P.O. Box 755200 Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 Telephone: (907) 474-7582 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 319, suggested changes. SYLVIA SULLIVAN, President Alaskans for a Just Society P.O. Box 264 Valdez, Alaska 99686 Telephone: (907) 835-3729 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 319. MIKE McMULLEN, Personnel Manager Division of Personnel Department of Administration P.O. Box 110201 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201 Telephone: (907) 465-4431 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 319. PAM LA BOLLE, President Alaska State Chamber of Commerce 217 Second Street, Suite 201 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-2323 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 319. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-37, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery, Hudson, Sanders and Kubina. Representative Ryan arrived at 3:30 p.m. The chairman mentioned committee procedures and testimony length. CSSB 269(L&C) - PLUMBING CODE Number 0181 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first item of business was CSSB 269(L&C), "An Act relating to the state plumbing code; and providing for an effective date." Number 0195 ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman, indicated she wished to allow the Department of Labor and other witnesses to make their presentations. The sponsor statement read: SB 269 simplifies the process for adopting the Uniform Plumbing Code for Commercial, Industrial and Residential plumbing systems and its related codes dealing with swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and solar energy. The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) is responsible for publishing these codes. They publish an update every three years. Alaska is presently working on the 1994 code. A new 1997 code is forthcoming and legislative action is required before the new codes may be used by contractors in Alaska. This legislation adopts the 1997 code and will hereafter, allow the Department of Labor to automatically adopt through the regulatory process the latest published version of the national code as provided by the IAPMO as the minimum state plumbing code. This is efficient government. The Department of Labor currently adopts other codes it is responsible to enforce such as the electrical, elevator, and boiler/pressure vessel codes in this manner. Number 0223 DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Labor (DOL), came forward to testify in support of CSSB 269(L&C). He said this bill mandated that the most current edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC); Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa, and Hot Tub Code; and the Uniform Solar Energy Code, as published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), would automatically be adopted as the minimum standards for the state. He said this legislation alleviated the need for legislative action every three years to adopt a new edition of the family of plumbing codes. He noted the legislature had taken similar action with regards to electrical codes, the boiler and pressure vessel codes, and the elevator codes, He indicated this action was efficient government, and said language was built in for the exception by regulation if, for some reason, a portion of the code would be inapplicable to Alaska, so that the state would not be compelled to comply with something that simply did not apply in Alaska. Mr. Perkins additionally indicated there was an amendment in the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee on page 1, lines 13 and 14, about the minimum plumbing facilities and the addition of Appendix Chapter 29, table A-29-A, the minimum plumbing fixtures of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code. He said the department had no problem with that amendment. Number 0363 MR. PERKINS noted there had also been some discussion about Appendix L which was intentionally left out in the legislation for a couple of reasons. He stated, "One is that in ... Appendix L of the ... code regarding engineer plumbing systems, in 'L' 2.2 ... it talks about that the designer of the system is to provide periodic inspection to the installation on a schedule found suitable to administrative authority. It also talks about the water heat ... exchanger. You may remember, a couple years ago we talked about the single wall heat exchangers; that is currently in statute ... we are not changing that at all. This is only to reflect the latest edition of the ... plumbing code, so we feel that that's being redundant. In statute we do - the department does ... grant exceptions from the code if they are requested and there is a procedure to do that, but in section 3 of the plumbing code it also talks about the ability to adopt some other type of system. So, it was intentional that the department did leave out 'section' L. We would like to keep that out, we don't see the need for it and ... that concludes my testimony and I'm available to answer questions." Number 0497 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY said the committee had some letters from the homebuilders and others which recommended adding the wording "other nationally recognized codes" for more flexibility in the future. He asked Mr. Perkins if he had problems with that. Number 0531 MR. PERKINS replied in the affirmative. He said the UPC was the current minimum standard, and had been since the early 1970s when the state of Alaska adopted plumbing codes. He said the other nationally recognized code being referred to had been written since 1995 and adopted in two states, to his knowledge. Mr. Perkins said he did not believe that was the code the state of Alaska would like to adopt at this time. If that code became the superior code for some reason, he believed it would come back before the legislature for that discussion. The department had adopted, and wanted to continue to adopt, the UPC as its minimum standard. Number 0595 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the language, "nationally recognized codes", referred to the code Mr. Perkins was talking about, or was it a broad or generic reference. Number 0607 MR. PERKINS replied the code they were referring to was the other nationally recognized code. The only one he was familiar with was the International Plumbing Code (IPC). He said it is not done by consensus as the UPC is. He indicated the IPC is written by a group of building code officials without professional mechanical contractors, engineers and the professionals in the plumbing and mechanical systems, so therefore the department would rely heavily on the UPC rather than what was been quoted as "the other nationally recognized code" and would like to stay with the UPC. Number 0672 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated CSSB 269(L&C) deleted subsection (a) of the existing plumbing code, AS 18.60.705, and replaced it with this language; leaving in subsection (b) and (c). He said (b) had to do with the pipefittings and the percentage of lead in solders, et cetera; and (c) was the famous single wall heat exchanger issue, which would remain allowable. Chairman Rokeberg indicated he understood from his discussions with people that this (indisc.) mentioned failure to adopt the Appendix L was because subsection (c) was in the law and would remain in the law. MR. PERKINS stated the chairman was absolutely correct and had a pretty good grasp. Number 0742 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG continued that one of the problems with adopting Appendix L were some inspection requirements which would result in undue burden and added cost to local and state building officials. Number 0753 MR. PERKINS said that was correct. He additionally stated that for design systems other than materials normally used in the designing of systems, under section 3 of the 1997 edition of the UPC, they could come to the administrative authority and ask for consideration for those kinds of waivers. He indicated that was set-up in regulation in AS 18.60.710, duties of the department. Number 0803 REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN apologized for his lateness, noting he had a bill up in the Senate. He asked Mr. Perkins if the department was for or against the bill. MR. PERKINS said the department fully supported CSSB 269(L&C), the version which came from the Senate. Number 0853 RON WATTS, Building Official, Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works, Municipality of Anchorage, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated the municipality would go on record as supporting the bill, but asked the committee to consider inserting the words "other nationally recognized codes" into Section 1, paragraph (a) of the bill; and deleting the words "a later edition of the following publication". He indicated in explanation that the current language would lock the municipality and any other home rule jurisdiction into having to adopt the UPC in the future. It would also prevent, particularly the municipality and, again, any other home rule charter, from adopting any of the family of consolidated and coordinated codes coming out in the year 2000. Also, he said they would think that the state of Alaska should have the option to adopt any other nationally recognized codes if it so chose, and not be locked into any particular code. Number 0923 MR. WATTS also addressed a couple points brought up by, he said, "Commissioner Cashen" (DOL). Mr. Watts indicated the code Mr. Perkins of the DOL was referring to, the IPC, would be a part of this consolidated family of codes in 2000, and that code was officially written a couple of years ago by a national committee made up of the plumbing industry, the mechanical engineering communities, plumbing and mechanical officials, industry people. It was patterned very closely after the "national plumbing code" and the "southern plumbing code" which have been in effect since 1924 and 1930, if he recalls correctly. Mr. Watts said, at any rate, it had been around for years; it is used in the northeastern and southern parts of the country. He said they would really like to make sure the option to adopt another code existed in the future if it was so chosen, indicating the situation, interest and need might not come up. However, if it did, they should not be restricted from that option, which this bill would definitely do as presently written. Number 1012 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG congratulated Mr. Watts on his appointment as the Municipality of Anchorage's building official, noting he has worked with Mr. Watts for over 20 years. Chairman Rokeberg asked Mr. Watts how long he had been with the municipality. MR. WATTS replied almost 25 years. Number 1040 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the UPC was written by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Number 1058 MR. WATTS replied it was written by the "international association of mechanical officials." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that organization was a member of the ICBO. MR. WATTS replied it was not. He noted there has been a long history over this whole issue, commenting that it boiled down to politics. Mr. Watts explained that the ICBO and "international association of mechanical officials" were basically joint owners of the code process up until about three years ago. He indicated the following groups and codes got together, attempting to consolidate all the codes nationally: the international and uniform code; the national codes published by the BOCA group [Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International, Incorporated], a northeastern group; and the southern group, "southern building code congress" [Southern Building Code Congress International, Incorporated (SBCCI)]. Mr. Watts said there was pressure from the architectural, engineering and construction communities for a consolidated group of codes. So, he said, the effort was undertaken to do that, and in consequence, ICBO signed up to this effort and actually asked IAPMO to be a portion of that. Number 1143 MR. WATTS said negotiations went on for well over a year, not proceeding satisfactorily, and then there were two lawsuits filed by the "international association of mechanical officials" against the "national conference of building officials" because of the effort in proceeding with the international code. He said what will be coming out in 2000 will be called the international code, and so this was the IPC basically versus the UPC. Mr. Watts stated, "The Uniform Plumbing Code is a very strict code. It is very rigid in terms of - of the requirements, the materials, the methods of installation. The International Plumbing Code is being written in a little more of a - a performance code format, and the reason for that is that all the national codes and international codes are going that direction. There's a real pressure push from industry to allow a little more flexibility in design and installation of not only plumbing but mechanical, electrical, building, structural components, all that combined. So the effort is an attempt to allow a little more flexibility ... into the design and installation. And that's the direction the codes are going, and whether I agree with it or not, I don't think that any one individual or probably any one group is gonna be able to stop that, because there is a definite push by the industry to go that direction." Number 1244 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Watts if he was on the board of directors or had an affiliation with the ICBO. MR. WATTS answered in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how long he had been on the board. MR. WATTS replied since 1992. Number 1259 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what would keep the state from adopting some other code in the future, or in 2000, if it was decided that was something that had to be done. Number 1274 MR. WATTS said nothing, except this language in this bill would definitely preclude it. He quoted from page 1, lines 5 and 6, of the bill, "and unless the department adopts by regulation a later edition of the following publications,". He said it went on to list those publications and the only plumbing publication was the UPC. Mr. Watts indicated that was the reason the municipality was recommending the deletion of the wording "a later edition of the following publication ["codes" stated on tape]" and the insertion of "other nationally recognized codes" so the flexibility would exist. He stated, "It doesn't say that you can't and may not go ahead and adopt the Uniform Plumbing Code, but at least you do have the option if something else came along and you so choose to do it. But that would be left up to, either local jurisdiction and/or to the state to do that, but you are aware that the state does have a requirement that says that you can't be any less restrictive -- I don't think [it] says that you have to adopt the exact code if you're a home rule charter, but then the question comes: Are there differences? And I will tell you right now that there's at least three or four major efforts going in terms of - of comparison, right down to individual word by word of these two particular codes. So there's a lot of work going on right now to analyze that, but the jury's still out, I think, as far saying that one is absolute totally superior over the other one, and/or the other one is such a new ... code that it hasn't been tested. And again, as I said earlier, basically the basis for the International Plumbing Code comes primarily from the ... national plumbing code and the southern plumbing code." Number 1381 PETE JURCZAK, Lead Plumbing Inspector, Sitka Office, Mechanical Inspection Section, Division of Labor Standards and Safety, Department of Labor, testified next via teleconference from Sitka. He said Mr. Perkins asked him to sit in on the hearing and offer comments. He concurred with the present language in CSSB 269(L&C), noting he has been a plumbing inspector for the state for 10 years and has been in the industry for 25 years. He said he thought it would really be a hindrance to the industry if two different codes were adopted throughout the state; in other words, having the different municipalities and the state on different codes. He indicated that engineering-wise, and also for the industry, the contractors and the plumbers, it would create a lot of confusion about the requirements. Secondly, he said, the 1997 UPC published by IAPMO was an international or national code; it was an amalgamation of the UPC, the ANSI/A-40 (ph) plumbing code, and the "national standard plumbing code." He said it has been adopted throughout the country in many states, it is not a regional code. Mr. Jurczak noted he was not there to debate the better code, and he said he did not know that the UPC was more restrictive. From his experience, he said he thought the UPC had an advantage in that it definitely was a broader code and covered more areas of the plumbing industry than the IPC did. He thought that for a plumber or an engineer to use the IPC, published by ICBO, a contractor, plumber would be required to carry three or four additional code books because not all the information that the UPC currently contains was in the IPC. He stated the UPC was the more user- friendly plumbing code. Number 1510 STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official, Building Department, City of Fairbanks, testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks. He commented on the helpfulness of Chairman Rokeberg's staff. Mr. Shuttleworth noted a March 11, 1998, letter to the committee indicating the amended language the city would like to see in SB 269 [From the March 11, 1998 letter: "... We recommend that Section 1, Paragraph (a) be revised to read as follows: (a) Except as provided otherwise in this section, and unless the department adopts by regulation other nationally recognized codes [a later edition of the following publications] the following publications are adopted as the minimum plumbing code for the state:"] He said that, realistically, all they are asking is to have an option. He said he is not so sure what the best code may be three or four years from now, stating, "(Indisc.) the industry for 19 years, I can't predict which would be the best code or the most appropriate course of action for the state of Alaska." Number 1567 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH continued, "Mr. Perkins certainly cannot state unequivocally that that would be the best way to go as well, nobody can. And because none of us have a crystal ball, it's only prudent public policy to give yourself an option, and if we put that amended language in that we requested, it will at least allow us to engage in a technical discussion and debate with the Department of Labor at - at a later time period. Technocrat will be able to speak to technocrat persons, we won't have to belabor the legislature when you're embroiled in issues such as subsistence, finance and education bills, etc. But if we're just looking at this to be politically expedient, we are really doing the wrong thing. I don't know why we'd want to eliminate an option, I think it is just a little shortsighted. The other comment that we have is that if the state is so confident that the Uniform Plumbing Code is the best, then what are we afraid of by having an option in there? I think we ought to discuss on the base of merits." Number 1616 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH continued, "A couple of other comments would be is that Appendix L really needs to be adopted, it is not redundant. Section, subsection 2.2 does put a burden on the designers to go ahead and inspect this work but that doesn't invalidate the entire appendix. If a ... designer wants to use that and he wants to fly to Fort Yukon to make sure his approved or his alternate system is in right, that's his option. If he can't do that then he has to go back to the body of the plumbing code and perform in a proprietary fashion, but at least gives them the option. If you eliminate Appendix L, home rule cities such as Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, et cetera, that have full-service building departments, we would not be able to use this. And it doesn't make sense that, for instance, a professionally-licensed mechanical engineer would be enjoined from ... practicing his profession. So, realistically, if we ... just go with recognizing only the UPC as sole source, it's really analogous to saying that if you're in the state all you can do is buy Fords, you can't buy Chevys or anything else that - that's out there. And I think that's where I had a philosophical problem with, and I've discussed this with the mayor, and the city concurs that we would just like to have an option and we'll let the merits of the ... actual codes (indisc.) themselves out." Number 1680 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH continued, "And the last comment is that the UPC is - is more stricter. That could be good, that could be bad, but I do know that the UPC is - is somewhat intolerant of plastic pipe; they have a long track record of being somewhat adverse to plastic pipe and I think therein lies some differences fundamental from the IPC. And it's interesting to note that in your Appendix L that the UPC does finally address the single wall coils that we debated two years ago ... and I - I think it just shows that this code is somewhat ultraconservative in areas that may be detrimental to plumbing installations in the Bush, as well as home rule cities. So again, I just ... appreciate to give this another look. As being an ex-high school baseball coach, I can tell you, I like to go into a game having an option, and if I'm not given an option, I'm not too successful, and I don't see why the state legislature would want to paint themselves in a corner, and I think that's just not prudent policy ...." Number 1732 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA said, "You stated that the city council and the mayor agreed ... with this statement, yet ..." MR. SHUTTLEWORTH responded, "I had a meeting personally with Mayor Hayes and went through the language that we submitted down to you, and we discussed that at - at some length. And I could not tell the mayor that I thought the IPC was the best or the UPC was the best because, as Mr. Watts has articulately stated, that debate is ongoing right now, and I really don't have a dog in that fight, but I do know that philosophically he agreed that we do need to have at least an option. It only makes sense." Number 1764 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the city council had passed a resolution or something similar on this. MR. SHUTTLEWORTH answered in the negative. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said, "I'm just looking at a letter from you that sort of says something opposite from - from Mr. Swarner, and ..." Number 1781 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the committee had a letter from Romar Swarner, Fairbanks City Council, taking exception to Mr. Shuttleworth's position, and he asked if Mr. Shuttleworth was aware of that. Mr. Swarner's letter reads: You have received a letter from the City of Fairbanks' Building Official stating the City of Fairbanks does not support Senate Bill No. 269 in its present form. This statement is not correct. To the best of my knowledge, the City of Fairbanks Code Review Commission has not discussed this issue nor does Mr. Shuttleworth have the authority to make this statement. The Fairbanks City Council certainly has not taken any position or action on this issue and to the contrary of the earlier statement, would support the present form of this bill. Giving local municipalities a full range of options, if and when they become available, is not good public policy when life/safety issues involve something as important as the State Plumbing Code. Until such a time as the unknown is stated and can be reviewed, it is my opinion, the Uniform Plumbing Code has served the City of Fairbanks well. [Mr. Swarner provides a contact phone number for further questions.] MR. SHUTTLEWORTH answered in the negative, commenting that was not particularly unusual as well. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that was what Representative Kubina was referring to. Number 1794 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said, "I guess ... I'm just concerned that someone, without any (indisc.) position taken from the City of Fairbanks, is representing the City of Fairbanks' position, and normally, if where somebody's gonna represent it, the city would send us something in a resolution form or something, rather than just taking an individual's word for it, that's all." Number 1820 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH said he cannot send letters out in this format without approval from his boss, the mayor. He said he works for the mayor, not the city council; the mayor directs the policy for the city. He stated, "There may be constituents within the council that agree and/or disagree, but I take my direction from the mayor and this letter was not written without that process and without that thought, and it is not unusual to have some ... difference of opinion in various council or assemblies' level. We did not, last time, when we went through HB 224 on the single wall coil, we did not have to debate the issue or put the issue in resolution form at that time, so I don't know why this letter would be invalidated because one city councilman takes exception to it." Number 1858 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Shuttleworth, noting he most vividly remembered their discussions in 1995 over adoption of the last plumbing bill, and he said this legislature did not want to see another one in quite some time. Number 1871 LARRY LONG, Plumbing Inspector, City of Fairbanks, testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated he has been the plumbing inspector in Fairbanks for 17 years, and has been in the trade for 30 years. He agreed with Mr. Watts and Mr. Shuttleworth that not leaving an option open was somewhat blind. Mr. Long said he had worked with the UPC, been at their conferences, seen how the system was devised. At the present time, if he were asked, he would say the UPC was the code he would like to enforce. However, he indicated he would not like to ignore the fact that there might be a better plumbing code in the future. Referring to Appendix L, Mr. Long stated, "I think as diverse and as complicated as our plumbing systems are, trying to keep 'em working in arctic conditions, I look forward to and enjoy working with professional people that come up with innovative designs and can't take the time to put these in code form, and this Appendix L would leave things open to innovative designs and improved systems that wouldn't have to go through the rigorous code adoption processes. I think Appendix L would be extremely helpful in the Bush communities where you have unique situations that -- let's face it, the Uniform Plumbing Code is written and designed by people in Southern California who wouldn't know an icicle if they saw one. So I think the adoption of Appendix L is rather important and I think leaving (indisc.) options open in the future for different codes is important." Number 1943 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was the last of the teleconferenced testimony. Number 1957 SHARON MACKLIN, Lobbyist for Alaska Professional Design Council, came forward to testify in Juneau. She stated the Alaska Professional Design Council is a coalition of architects, engineers, landscape architects and land surveyors; representing approximately 1,400 licensees in the state. She said, "We definitely support the bill, we think its -- well, it's an issue, the whole adoption of the plumbing code that's been around for a long time as most of you know and we feel the Department of Labor should have the ... ability to adopt the latest plumbing code. As far as the proposed amendments to allow an - an option for the department to select another code, we are supporting that. We feel very strongly that although this new code is not in force, ... the Department of Labor should have that option and that would be the right place for the discussion to be held about it. So, we are supporting that and I ... appreciate your time and effort." Number 2013 RUSS CHANEY, Executive Director, International Association for Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, came forward to testify next. He said the IAPMO was the author of the UPC and was headquartered in Southern California, approximately 30 miles east of Los Angeles. He said he would give some background and address some of the assertions made. Since 1972, as Mr. Perkins has stipulated, the state of Alaska has adopted the UPC, and to his knowledge there has been no problem at all with the implementation or the maintenance of that document. The industry within this state has been, and continues to be, trained on the provision of the UPC. Additionally, there are a number of people from the state of Alaska who participate in the IAPMO's code change process, and he said that is really the crux of this issue, in so far as adding additional wording with regard to an alternate plumbing code. Mr. Chaney said that, as Mr. Watts pointed out, there is a transition occurring in the building community. Without getting into great detail, he said as an example, about three years ago there were seven nationally recognized plumbing codes promulgated in the United States. In an effort to standardize the provisions of those codes and make it easier for the users of those codes to comply with those provisions, two different processes began. One process was instituted by the membership of the ICBO; the "building and code administrators international" [Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International, Incorporated]; and the "southern building code congress, incorporated" [Southern Building Code Congress International, Incorporated (SBCCI)]. Those organizations are predominantly made up of building officials or local administrators, and he said that is the organization Mr. Watts has served as a board member for since 1992. Number 2098 MR. CHANEY said the other process has seen the development of the UPC through an industry process. As he said Mr. Jurczak pointed out, the 1997 UPC is an amalgamation of three previously recognized codes: the 1994 edition of the UPC; the 1993 edition of the United States-only ANSI (ph) consensus plumbing code, the A-40 (ph) code; and the 1996 edition of the "national standard plumbing code," which had been recognized by the federal government. Those three documents went into the provisions of the latest edition of the UPC, which, Mr. Chaney said, is by far the most technologically advanced document that has ever been produced in the United States. The processes that the IAPMO utilizes to develop the contents of the UPC differ from the process that is utilized to develop this alternative code, the IPC. He said the IPC is developed by inspectors, and only inspectors are permitted to vote on the provisions contained in that code. Number 2150 MR. CHANEY continued that alternatively, the process used by IAPMO and its industry allies, the National Association of Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors (NAPHCC); and the Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA), is more open. He said any affected party within the plumbing industry is provided the opportunity to vote; nobody is denied the opportunity to vote. He stated, "If we wanted to participate in the development of the International Plumbing Code, and you are not a working inspector that happened to belong to one of the three organizations that I had mentioned earlier, you could not vote. We would simply be relegated to testifying at code change hearings, and that's as far as our influence would go. We could not stand up and be heard as to what our position would be, and that's the philosophical difference that drove IAPMO and ICBO apart in 1994. IAPMO decided to go to a pure consensus open process to allow all affected industries the ability to participate and ICBO decided to join together with their sister organizations who have traditionally developed the building code." Mr. Chaney said the UPC is adopted in more than 30 states, and he is very proud to announce the government of Vietnam has adopted the UPC as that country's recognized plumbing code. He noted the UPC is used in at least ten other countries outside of the United States and is a true international document. He stated, "It's used as a basis, just as it's used here in Alaska. They are minimum requirements." Number 2216 MR. CHANEY address Appendix L, indicating the DOL had inadvertently created some confusion. He said, "Appendix L, and in particularly, the single wall heat exchanger coil, resulted from the problems that were experienced here in Alaska two years ago. We never had Appendix L in the body of our code and in particular provisions for the indirect heat exchanger coil. The reason it is there is to address the issues that were correctly raised by the community here in Alaska. So what we have done in essence is provide provisions in Appendix L for the other 49 states as well as the international countries that adopt our code, and introduce that document now into Alaska, not realizing that you've already provided for those provisions in statute. So the Department of Labor made a judgement to eliminate Appendix L because the - the provisions were already provided for in the statute that was passed two years ago." Number 2255 MR. CHANEY said, "Alternatively, the issue has been raised about engineer design systems, which is another provision that's contained in Appendix L. ... Section 301.2 [UPC] provides the criteria that is contained in Appendix L also. So design professionals, contractors, material manufacturers, government representatives, whoever it may be, has the opportunity to design systems consistent with the provisions in Appendix L or the provisions in section 301.2. It's the same information, it doesn't deny anybody from deviating from the minimum requirements of our code. We recognize that as a model code developing organization, we can't possibly provide all of the criteria that people need throughout this country. There are geographical differences, there are climatic differences, there are political differences. We provide a minimum code, you make judgments locally as to whether or not the provisions ... of this code is suitable for your use. ... We're prepared to continue support the adoption and maintenance and implementation of the Uniform Plumbing Code here in Alaska, ... we've done it for 26 years without any problems that I'm aware of, we will continue to support government, the industry, plumbing inspectors, anyone who needs our assistance. We provide seminars on a regular basis here and we continue to train anyone that needs the training." Number 2320 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked Mr. Chaney if he'd ever seen an icicle. MR. CHANEY replied he had, stating he was from New Jersey not Southern California. Number 2335 EDWARD SALTZBERG came forward to testify next. He said he was a consulting mechanical engineer and stated, "I'm representing today the Industry Health and Safety Code Council [IHSCC] group that undertook, because of their concern about the health and safety of the public, undertook the code comparison that I think all of you have been given a copy of." Number 2352 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG directed the committee members' attention to the copies in their packets, noting the author was sitting before them. Number 2359 MR. SALTZBERG said, "I am a registered mechanical engineer ..., registered in 16 states in the Lower 48. I have ... spent the last 50 years installing plumbing and designing and inspecting plumbing systems. I am a co-founder of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers, known as ASPE, and I am a past national president; [I] currently serve on ASPE's code committee. I'm the past national education chairman for ASPE and have taught plumbing system design at UCLA [University of California at Los Angeles] Extension and I'm also on their national code committee. We've heard some testimony here today about the relative merits of the Uniform Plumbing Code and the IPC. You have before you, an impartial review of the two documents, and many of the statements that were made about the performance basis of the IPC and the conservative nature of the Uniform Plumbing Code are absolutely invalid and not true. In some aspects, the IPC is far more conservative for no reason whatsoever. For example, it says that you shall have two water services to every hospital. Period, end of discussion, whether there's a water main out there ... that's it, it's in the code. So, the legislature has the right to adopt any document they want, but I, as a professional engineer and the plumbing community, we've heard comments that the IPC is a performance document. The profession doesn't want performance, they want a minimum criteria, they don't want to have to do a research project every time they design a plumbing system." Number 2443 MR. SALTZBERG continued, "The Uniform Plumbing Code provides a minimum standard for the design of an installation of plumbing. The IPC does not, and I'd like to give a - a minimal example if I can, I don't want to get real technical. In the water section there is no criteria for the sizing that is - is to be installed in a structure. They do have a section, 604.3, that gives the requirement for fixtures, and, for example, a - a shower says 3 gallons a minute at 20 pounds pressure, and - and this is in the body of this document. The next table over, 604.4, lists shower at 2.5 gallons a minute at 80 pounds pressure. Well, you can't provide 2 1/2 gallons at 80 pounds pressure and 3 gallons a 20 pounds pressure, the two are incompatible. Then in - in addition, on 604.5 it says that showers shall have ..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 98-37, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. SALTZBERG continued, "... (indisc.) you shall reduce it one size. You may not be able to, if you reduce it one size you can't get the flow so you have all of these conflicting, and there is no basic statement of how to size a water [?], it's in the appendix, and the appendix conflicts with the body. So, therefore, the Uniform Plumbing Code has been the accepted national standard as the minimum document for the health and safety of the public and it has served Alaska well and it's served about 30 other states extremely well. And it has got the input of the entire cross section of the plumbing community: the engineers, the manufacturers, the contractors, the installers, the building officials; all of 'em have come together and have come up with the document. This, the IPC, is done solely by the building officials, and therefore, I urge that this committee adopt the - the current language that you have, that the Uniform Plumbing Code be adopted. The Appendix L is already in the body of the code under alternative methods and procedures; it allows any professional to come in with any sort of design for unique installation." Number 0069 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Saltzberg had had a chance to look at the Alaska Statute which refers to the single wall heat exchanger. MR. SALTZBERG said he was aware that Alaska has it but had not looked at the language. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he also had a question about lead pipes, suggesting Mr. Saltzberg might review the statute before CSSB 269(L&C) passed out of committee. Number 0093 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN questioned whether it was single wall or double. Number 0095 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied it was single. He said they have had this argument too many times and were not going to have it again. He indicated this might be the bill's last committee of referral before it reached the House floor. Chairman Rokeberg stated that concluded the public testimony on CSSB 269(L&C), asking if the committee had any discussion. Number 0125 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON said he was somewhat confused because the committee had heard from representatives of the City of Fairbanks as well as professional bodies that it would be good public policy to give some options. Representative Hudson indicating he was referring to the suggested addition of the language, "other nationally recognized codes". He said he liked to believe that flexibility or options were good when establishing state law and asked for an explanation, stating, "I really hope somebody could maybe give me a better understanding of why we should not have that other (indisc.) -- because it's so technical, I - I got lost a little bit by the last two ... folks that testified here. Number 0163 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said his answer would be, "We have adopted this code by statute. The only thing that ... this bill is allowing is the updated version to be put in by regulation. If somebody wants to bring a different code back, then they can do so, and we're the ones that would make that decision whether that is. We decided this one was the one that we wanted, we have adopted it, and if somebody wants to bring us another code, then we could say, 'Alright, we want to change that one to this one at some time in the future.' But, I'm afraid to where we go because of the controversies we get in with these bills, and you know of much of the debate and arguments. I would not just want to put it out to the department to then -- who knowing's running the department next year or the year after, and what kind of -- then changes come that we would then have to get into the middle of a real donnybrook because somebody has changed codes and it's caused us problems. So, my feeling is, allow them to use the updated version, but if somebody wants to change the code, come back to this committee with a bill and explain to us why." Number 0220 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he agreed with Representative Kubina's analysis. He asked if there were any other comments. Number 0224 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "From what I've seen of building departments throughout the state and the difficulties that people have trying to (indisc.) their own (indisc.) into residences or buildings with the arbitrary nature of city employees, the more uniformity and the less option for local employees to exercise their discretion, the more I'm for it. I think that a person should know going in what it is they have to do and if they do it, they shouldn't have to put up with a bunch of folks coming down and reading them chapter and verse." He asked if the chairman wanted a motion. Number 0247 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called for a brief at ease [THE TIMES THE COMMITTEE WENT AT EASE AND CAME BACK TO ORDER WERE NOT NOTED IN THE TAPE LOG NOTES]. Number 0253 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move CSSB 269(L&C), dated 3/4/98, out of committee with accompanying zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. There being no objections, CSSB 269(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Number 0306 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at ease at 4:18 p.m. The committee came back to order at 4:20 p.m. HB 319 - EMPLOYEES: NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY Number 0311 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business was "An Act relating to an employee's expectation of privacy in employer premises." HB 319 read: * Section 1. AS 23.10 is amended by adding a new section to article 7 to read: Sec. 23.10.450. No employee expectation of privacy in employment site. In the absence of a specific agreement to the contrary, an employee has no expectation of privacy with respect to premises and equipment supplied by the employer, and an employer may have reasonable access to premises and equipment supplied by the employer to the employee. In the absence of an agreement permitting the employee to limit the employer's access to premises and equipment, an employee shall permit the employer to have access to the employer's premises and equipment, including information stored on a computer or computer network supplied by the employer. Number 0321 JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, came forward to present HB 319. She stated the sponsor became interested in this area because of the case in Fairbanks involving the University of Alaska. She said HB 319 basically said an employee would have no expectation of privacy on an employer's premise or using an employer's equipment, absent a specific agreement. This was to encourage employers and employees to set out parameters for use of an employer's premises and equipment. Ms. Seitz noted the bill packet contained support letters from the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce and the Alaska Miners Association. The sponsor statement read: House Bill 319 addresses a contemporary issue. With the advent of modern technology and the use of same in office places, many employees are using employer's equipment to access the Internet and send e-mail messages. While some employers have policies in place that make the employer's policy on this use plain, many do not. House Bill 319 would make it clear that, absent an agreement to the contrary, an employee has no expectation of privacy on an employer's premises. My 1998 House District 11 survey posed the following question: Should state law allow an employer the right to regulate all employee use of employer facilities and equipment? (i.e., internet, computer games, etc.). An overwhelming majority (341) favored such a law while a minority (86) opposed. A lawsuit involving the University of Alaska at Fairbanks brought this matter to my attention. An employee should not have the ability to use an employer's equipment and then not expect the employer to be able to terminate that employee for improper use of such equipment. House Bill 319 does permit the employee and employer to negotiate an agreement regarding access to premises and equipment. It is a step towards protecting both the employer and the employee and helping each party understand the other party's rights in the areas of workplace privacy and use of premises and equipment. I would urge your support of this legislation. MS. SEITZ asked if the chairman wished her to address the amendments. Number 0356 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the affirmative, noting the amendments were marked A.1, A.2 and A.3. He designated amendment A.1 as Amendment 1, indicating the amendments clarified some issues in the bill. Number 0376 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 0-LS1211\A.1, Cramer, dated 3/20/98, for purposes of discussion. Amendment 1 read: Page 1, line 5, following "specific": Insert "written" Page 1, line 8: Delete "an" Insert "a written" Number 0389 MS. SEITZ stated Amendment 1 added the language "written" to ensure those agreements are specific written agreements. Number 0400 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. There being no objections, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0409 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 0-LS1211\A.2, Cramer, dated 3/25/98. Amendment 2 read: Page 1, line 4, following "site.": Insert "(a)" Page 1, following line 11: Insert a new subsection to read: "(b) In this section, "employer" means a person who has one or more employees and includes the state, the University of Alaska, the Alaska Railroad, and political subdivisions and public corporations of the state." MS. SEITZ stated Amendment 2 inserted a definition of "employer" so there would be no question in that section as to what an employer was. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that for clarity it meant private as well as public entities. MS. SEITZ answered in the affirmative. Number 0434 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0438 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 0-LS1211\A.3, Cramer, dated 3/25/98. Amendment 3 read: Page 1, line 6: Delete "premises and" Insert "business premises and business" Page 1, line 7: Delete "premises and" Insert "business premises and business" Page 1, line 9: Delete "premises and" Insert "business premises and business" Page 1, line 10, following employer's": Insert "business" MS. SEITZ stated Amendment 3 added "business", making it clear the premises were to be the business premises, and the business equipment of the employer. She said there were some employers who provided residential lodging for their employees, such as construction and logging camps, and the ferry system. She indicated the amendment was intended to make sure those residential areas were not covered by the legislation. Number 0464 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Amendment 3. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 0478 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated this bill represented no guarantee of privacy but negotiations would be allowed to be made. He asked if this would become subject to a collective bargaining negotiation as condition of employment. Number 0496 MS. SEITZ replied the state had an agreement for its employees to sign, noting it was in the bill packet [State Policy Regarding Personal Use of State Office Technologies, revised October 9, 1996]. She said perhaps Mr. McMullen from the Division of Personnel could answer the collective bargaining aspect of it better than she could. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he certainly could not and the committee would wait for that, if Representative Ryan did not mind. Number 0509 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY gave the example of an employee who owned his own personal computer and asked if this addressed that situation. Number 0522 MS. SEITZ replied that she was not an attorney, but said they had inserted the word "business" in front of "premises and equipment", to read "employer's business premises and equipment". Ms. Seitz said she did not know, indicating it might be different relating to Representative Cowdery's own computer and Mr. McMullen or Ms. Redman might be able to expound on that since they dealt more with personnel matters. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if they were talking about a privately- owned computer in a business premises. Number 0548 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY answered in the affirmative, noting he had his own computer in his office as well as state-owned computers, and he indicated he hope only he would have access to his personally-owned computer. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was business equipment and on the premises. Number 0561 MS. SEITZ said Ms. Redman was indicating it would not cover a personally owned computer. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that would be his reading of it. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he hoped so. Number 0577 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said that brought up a point, noting he was not sure who their employer would be. He commented they were state employees in a way and he asked if this gave somebody in the state, Legislative Council, the right to look on their personal computers as legislators. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he hoped not. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN expressed his displeasure at that thought. Number 0594 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he wanted that cleared up and that was why he spoke of that. SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, directed the chairman's attention to the language, "business premises and equipment supplied by the employer". She indicated that did not include personally-owned computers. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "What if it's connected at ... (indisc.) expense?" Number 0620 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "Inasmuch as that we're a separate branch of government we ... can develop our own policy, but without an express contract to the contrary, there would be -- but who employs us is the issue, right?" REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA agreed it was a good question. Number 0636 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented they had received a medical package the previous year he had not been asked if he wanted, noting the decision had been made for him. He said there were certain policies on computers and service and whether someone had a personal one and so forth, noting these policies had been made without any consultation. Representative Ryan stated he had asked "leg (indisc.)" to give him an opinion on that. He said, "So there are a lot of people around here who like to take it upon themselves to make a lot of decisions that affect everybody else, and (indisc.) talk about that in caucus, (indisc.) special orders (indisc.) day, but I think you should be advised that - that possibility is there. Power abhors a vacuum." Number 0667 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he was in favor of the legislation, referring to letters in the bill packet about past abuse, if there was the assurance that their personally-owned equipment was not subject to this. He indicated he had known of people using municipally-owned equipment for their personal business when he worked for the Municipality of Anchorage. Number 0700 WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations, University of Alaska, came forward to testify. She said, given the conversation she had just heard, her testimony would probably would not be viewed as particularly helpful. She stated the Tuttle case which had precipitated this action was the case at the University of Alaska [Fairbanks] where pornographic information was found for an employee. She noted the material was held on a "Zip" drive which was the employee's own piece of equipment in the workplace [Note: a Zip drive is a computer memory drive made by Iomega Corporation which stores information on removable Zip disks]. Ms. Redman said, therefore, in order to make the legislation effective in that instance, it would have to include language which said "property and information located on or within the business premises" to cover personal equipment people might have in the workplace. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA commented, "A lot stronger." MS. REDMAN agreed. Number 0753 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that was Representative Kubina's analysis of a stronger language than the bill maintained. Number 0759 MS. REDMAN said stronger in some aspects, noting she would certainly recommend that there be language in there, and she said she thought "reasonable" probably did not go far enough. She said the university's suggested there be a statement that any access be for "good faith managerial purpose", that it be more specific than just "reasonable". According to the university's attorney, "good faith managerial purpose" was a phrase with some legal meaning and it excluded property of an employee which was obviously of a personal nature. She indicated this would include purses, lunch boxes or anything people brought into the office and took home in the evening. Ms. Redman noted, however, if employees chose to bring their own equipment into the workplace - computers, filing cabinets, Zip drives, whatever - it would be implied that if the employees were using this equipment in the workplace, then these employers should have the same access to this equipment that they have to equipment provided by the employer to the employee. She noted this would be the university's contention. Number 0832 MS. REDMAN said the university was clearly not interested in doing, nor had any history of doing, unreasonable searches of people's computers, offices or anything else at the university. However, she said the university did make it clear to its employees, as she thought the state did, that no one had a right to believe anything they were doing in the workplace was private. She said everything that went on that computer was subject to access by the supervisor. Ms. Redman indicated the university did not expect its employees to be using university time, computers, or equipment for personal business, or for any kind of communication of such a nature that it couldn't be viewed by anyone else. She added the university made that very clear to its employees. Number 0883 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he thought the bill language, "an employer may have reasonable access to business premises and equipment supplied by the employer to the employee", would not apply to his own computer because it was not equipment supplied by his employer. He asked if he was correct, noting he could understand something like a Zip drive used in a state-owned computer, but was concerned about something like his own computer. Number 0913 MS. REDMAN replied she thought the way the bill was currently written that Representative Cowdery was correct. It would not cover his personal equipment. She indicated the university was suggesting a way to strengthen the bill and a way to get at the issue the university was faced with in the Tuttle case. She said the university would ask the bill be strengthened, as she said Representative Kubina had mentioned, to include all property and information located on or within. She indicated this would then include an employee's personal computer brought into the workplace. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he could not support that. MS. REDMAN indicated she had somewhat guessed that. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he thought they could make the bill clear that something brought in and used in a state-owned computer was included but a legislator's personal computer brought into his or her office could be excluded. Number 0958 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Ms. Redman to brief him on the lawsuit, noting he thought he understood what happened but asked what the courts had said. Number 0965 MS. REDMAN replied the case was currently on appeal. An employee had brought in a personal Zip drive and was pulling pornographic information, which was illegal because it was child pornography, off the Internet and storing the information on the employee's Zip disk, using the employee's Zip drive and this information came to the supervisor's attention. Ms. Redman said the person was terminated and sued. She noted the first court had been supportive of the university's position. She stated they knew of only one other similar case in the country. Ms. Redman said the issue then revolved around whether the university had a right to search the employee's personal property, the Zip disk, on which the information was found. She indicated it was the university's contention it did have that right because it was in the workplace, even though it belonged to the employee. Number 1025 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the university had a policy at the time. MS. REDMAN answered in the negative and stated, "We (indisc.) not have a policy." REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the state had a policy now. MS. REDMAN answered in the negative. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the university had a policy now. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the state did have a written contract. MS. REDMAN indicated she believed Mr. McMullen could probably speak to that. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked about the university now. MS. REDMAN replied it did not have one yet either. Number 1047 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated universities, especially the University of Alaska, were known as bastions of academic freedom and he found this intriguing. He stated, "Perhaps it would be good to ratchet this down and name the university of Alaska could do this, could go after anything the employee brought in and to make that particular portion and the rest of us -- one thing I want to bring to your attention, if you purchase your private computer with your office funds that you have the LAA [Legislative Affairs Agency] go buy rather than taking the cash money up front, you're subject to the ethics law, and the ethics committee and everybody and his brother can come down [and] find out what's on your computer. I mean it's a wonderful situation of big brother around this joint, and it's getting worse every time you turn around. We have a privacy statute, (indisc.) constitutional provision which hasn't been tested very much. I think perhaps it's time that we start (indisc.) let the courts decide just what this really means." Representative Ryan noted he had his personally-owned computer in his office, stating, "If you come in there and try to read my e- mail or look at my history list to where I've been on the Internet, and I catch you, I guarantee you you're going to require medical attention." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that was not what the bill did. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he knew and was just informing them of his personal office policy. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Redman how Mr. Tuttle had downloaded the information onto the Zip drive, questioning if he had used university equipment and an Internet service provider (ISP) supplied by the university. MS. REDMAN said that was correct. Number 1157 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he thought that was the foundation of the university's case, commenting he was not so sure that the bill sponsor or the committee was willing to expand the scope to other privately-owned equipment. The chairman indicated he was going to entertain a conceptual amendment to clarify and make absolutely clear that privately-owned equipment was exempt before the bill moved out of the committee. Chairman Rokeberg also stated for the record that he had a legal opinion from legislative counsel regarding the constitutionality of the bill, particularly with the amendments the committee had made. He said the legal opinion indicated the term "reasonableness" needed to be included because of case law in Alaska citing Jones vs Jennings (ph) in 1990, an Alaska Supreme Court case. Number 1203 MS. REDMAN said she had one further question or clarification. She said she thought, and in discussing the legislation with the university's attorneys, that the second sentence of the bill, which began, as amended, "in the absence of a written agreement", seemed unclear and unnecessary. She said they were not clear what that added to the legislation and thought it actually seemed to make it a little more confusing. Ms. Redman noted, "If you're saying if the intent of the bill is that - that the employer ... has right to reasonable access to information on the business premise, then the second sentence seems to say now that the employee must actually permit the employer to come and look, ... which is -- maybe you intended it that way, but it does seem to negate the right to have access to information, so I'm a little unclear as to what the intent is." Number 1263 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied the intent was to make sure they had the ability to go into the computer memory itself, asking, "But you want to wordsmith that?" MS. REDMAN said she thought the terms "business premises" and "business equipment" actually included that last clause; the phrase "information stored on a computer or computer network" was no longer necessary with the amendment just adopted regarding "business premises" and "business equipment". Number 1288 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he thought the way it was currently written just made it clear the ability was there for employers to negotiate policies different from what the legislation stated, whether through collective bargaining agreements, individually, or anything else. He stated, "It's saying if there is no written agreement, that that also then implies, 'You may have a written agreement that says something different than this law.'" Number 1330 MS. REDMAN indicated she would leave it to the committee, stating, "But it seems ... to be clear that ... an employee, I mean I certainly wouldn't give an employer an agreement to -- I mean I'm not gonna sign anything [that] says you can come search anything I have, nor do I think any employee would. So - so you then end up in the situation where because you say now that an employee must - shall permit the employer to have access ..." REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA commented he did not think that was what it said. MS. REDMAN stated, "'In the absence of a written agreement permitting the employee to limit the employer's access,' the employee must permit it to be ... searched." Number 1372 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he agreed with that reading, stating, "So in a collective bargaining agreement ... so in some kind of an agreement, the ... employer may agree to limit his own access because he's agreed to that with the employee." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that was correct. Number 1387 MS. REDMAN said, "So ... your intention is, ... these are collective bargaining agreements as opposed to personal or contractual agreements between an employee and an individual." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered, "No, I think it would apply either way. That could be a term of it or ... in the absence. Let's see, (indisc.) in the absence of a written agreement." Number 1409 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA added, "My point, you may hire someone at the university and ... the guy's going to have ... equipment. He wants to make it clear, 'Hey, I'm coming here to work on this research project and I want to make sure that this stuff is all proprietary stuff and you don't have any right to stick your nose into it,' and so you would sign an agreement ... saying so, and this law would not (indisc.) then prohibit that from happening." Number 1441 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked Chairman Rokeberg, as the sponsor, if his intention was that this would be a default provision. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he did not understand the question. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN clarified, "In the absence of anything ..." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "Well (indisc.), that's right ...." REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that was a default. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN added, "But the door is open, except as ..." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated an affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, "Good, so it's understood for the record." Number 1461 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if this would allow an employer to tap or monitor the phones of employees. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative. MS. REDMAN answered in the negative. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented if it did, he would withdraw it "in a heartbeat." Number 1479 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it would allow an employer to use monitor cameras, for example. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative and then indicated he was not sure. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON added, "'Cause it's giving 'em access to the information, it doesn't say limitations." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY added, "Banks and ..." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he thought it would. MS. REDMAN stated she believed employers currently had those rights. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed, adding for security purposes or anything else. MS. REDMAN said, "For reasonable managerial purposes." Number 1530 SYLVIA SULLIVAN, President, Alaskans for a Just Society, testified next via teleconference from Valdez. Ms. Sullivan stated the bill had apparently been reworked with three amendments since she faxed her letter to the committee that afternoon. She commented one of the members, she was unsure which one, had spoken about the constitutionality of the bill which she said she had indicated in her letter. She stated, "This may seem like a simple bill to correct a situation for the university but it certainly has huge overriding problems with other industries as I had indicated -- with lodges, camps and that sort of thing, where ... the employer is requiring the employee to have the computer front desk activity files and stuff in their living quarters. Until this bill is very limited for the purposes that you want, we will have to oppose the bill. I also didn't receive from you, Representative Rokeberg, the drafting attorney's memorandum. Do you have one on this bill?" Number 1633 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative and stated that was not an issue currently before the committee. He asked if that concluded her testimony. MS. SULLIVAN indicated she had very recently received the sponsor statement, noting the intent was what she thought but she thought the bill did not say that. She commented that was why she felt it was very important that the drafting attorney, "not any of the civilians, Janet Seitz or this other lady," be drafting the legislation for the sponsor without an attorney. Number 1671 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Ms. Sullivan and assured her the legislation had been drafted by counsel. He noted to Mr. McMullen there had been a question about collective bargaining, and indicated other comments were welcome. Number 1695 MIKE McMULLEN, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel, Department of Administration, came forward to testify. Mr. McMullen stated he thought he had been invited to answer questions. He said he understood Ms. Redman's point on line 9 to be that the last "permit" seemed to imply the employee still had some option of permitting or not permitting the employer to have access at that juncture. Mr. McMullen noted the committee might consider language like, "employee may not prohibit or interfere with an employer's access to the premises, equipment, et cetera". He said he thought the point was that absent an agreement, the employee had no choice; it was not a question of the employee permitting or not permitting, and the last "permit" in that line raised the question. Mr. McMullen indicated he thought he was there to answer the specific question of what does the state do and what has the state been doing under the telecommunications policy since it was adopted. Mr. McMullen noted the labor relations section for the executive branch was in the Division of Personnel, stating, "We see issues either at a ... consultation level when departments have an issue that they're not quite sure how to deal with it, we also see all the grievances that ... result from ... disciplinary actions taken." He noted that six cases of people misusing computer technologies had risen to the level of their attention since the executive branch policy went into effect. In one case the employee had resigned when confronted with the information. Three employees had been terminated, one received a suspension and one was reprimanded. Number 1838 MR. McMULLEN continued that in terms of discovering what might be going on out there, the Information Technology Group (ITG), formerly the Division of Information Services, monitored the state's World Wide Web traffic just in terms of managing the resource. He stated ITG noted when large documents were going across the system. He commented there was a standard about not sending large documents during daytime hours even as e-mail because it bogged the system down for everybody else. Therefore, he noted when ITG saw large documents going through it periodically checked those sorts of things for web site connections to inappropriate sites and passed that information along to the departments to follow up on. Mr. McMullen commented that potential violations were being identified and brought to the attention of management in the general maintenance and managing of the system. Number 1902 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he had not caught who was monitoring. MR. MCMULLEN replied it was ITG, the Division of Information Services. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed it was an in-house ability. MR. MCMULLEN answered in the affirmative. He said ITG was the "computer folks" who ran the telecommunications system, data processing. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if they could snoop and see what was on the World Wide Web traffic and the e-mail traffic. Number 1929 MR. MCMULLEN indicated large documents going through came up in ITG's tracking and ITG would check the receiver and sender. He noted it basically went down to which account was producing the volume and also the site which may have been involved. Number 1953 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked for confirmation that the Department of Administration was blocking out certain web sites so that people could not reach those sites. MR. MCMULLEN said he had not heard that the department had, but it would not surprise him if the department was doing that. Number 1967 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he believed the department was, stating he thought they had been notified the department was identifying web sites which should be blocked. He commented that seemed like a never ending job as the World Wide Web continued to change, and he could not believe they were spending money doing that, but this was his understanding. He noted this was in the Department of Administration, asking if that was correct. MR. MCMULLEN confirmed it was in the Department of Administration. Number 1997 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if wasn't possible to buy blocking software, without having a lot of personnel time involved. Number 2007 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated he wanted to know what pay range those purveyors of the public moral were employed at. MR. MCMULLEN confirmed Representative Ryan meant the personnel monitoring the web traffic. He stated they were probably in the state's 16 to 19 range. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked Mr. McMullen to show him where these people were employed in the BRU [Budget Review Unit] component, indicating he was not pleased with money being spent on "people sticking their nose in other people's business." Number 2060 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented he was sure that wasn't the only thing these people were doing and asked Mr. McMullen to let them know, possibly in the same process, what else these people were involved with. Number 2072 MR. MCMULLEN stated the monitoring was the full traffic monitoring for the state's system, and any large volume traffic was being examined, whether illegal use of pornography after hours or someone sending large documents during the day, bogging the system down for everyone else. He indicated he would find the BRU. Number 2100 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said there had been an earlier question about any relationship between HB 319 and collective bargaining agreements. He asked if the legislation would impact any of that. Number 2113 MR. MCMULLEN replied not directly, stating the language allowed for specific agreements, which he was sure could be either an individual or a collective agreement. He noted the committee members had copies of the executive branch's policy each employee was being required to sign on hire. Mr. McMullen said violation of that policy subjected an employee to discipline in the same manner as violation of any other policy. He indicated the employee was subject to investigation, confrontation; the employee had to explain his or her side if covered by a grievance process including collective bargaining processes and the employees had a right to (indisc.) discipline which resulted from that, and so on. He stated this was just another sort of behavior the employer dealt with in the workplace. Number 2185 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Mr. McMullen if the bill did him any good. MR. MCMULLEN replied he had not seen Amendment 2 which he had been curious about, noting the bill as originally written did not cover the state but Amendment 2 might have taken care of that. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed the committee had done that with Amendment 2. Number 2206 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked, with the current policy, if the legislation really did anything. Number 2216 MR. MCMULLEN said he would defer that to the Department of Law, stating his impression was that for the state as a public employer, it probably already had almost everything the bill would give. He said it all had to do with that expectation of privacy, commenting, "As public employees in public buildings using public facilities there's not much that an employee should ever expect to be private." He indicated things like purses and purchases made during lunch hour to be taken home after work might be expected to be private, but not much else. Number 2264 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated to the chairman he would like to hear the Department of Law's or Legislative Legal and Research Services's response to that question, stating, "I mean it may mean how that is different -- what is this really doing compared to what they have the right to do? And maybe the question may be also ... how 'bout with private employers, ... is this law actually doing something other than what they already have the right to do?" CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the bill's intention was ensure a statutory foundation for companies to do this. Number 2313 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he asked this because it was his impression from the university that HB 319 did nothing for the situation the university had been in which did cause a lawsuit. Number 2329 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that was because of the ownership of part of the equipment used in the "chain," but noted that situation was still in question. He stated, "Point of fact, there's a huge employment/employee (indisc.) number of different things, this one element of it that has to do with ... e-mail messages, ... computer games, all kinds of other activities; and frankly there's certain protective rights under, as I understand it, under federal law under even the Taft-Harkley (ph) Act as far as employee transmissions of messages, that unless there's an agreements to the contrary. So, this allows private companies ... and other -- even governmental subdivisions, to enter into agreements that specifically spell out those responsibilities. And this is the ... reoccurring theme of all employment relations law is to have a written policy so there is a complete and clear understanding between the employee and employer. The state of Alaska has been proactive in that and does have that particular contract and policy set forward. ... I would guess the majority of private businesses don't and they should. ... This is intended to encourage private people to do that and to implement those policies. In - in the absence of a policy they still have the right to avoid the litigation that ... could be caused by (indisc.). That's the intention of the bill ...." Chairman Rokeberg stated he would not take a recommendation from Representative Kubina to hold the legislation hostilely if he had any serious questions about this. Number 2478 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he thought it could be done in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 98-38, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN "... (indisc.) this bill, and it basically says employer does not mean the Legislative Council for members of the state legislature. I want that clear so that no one gets theirselves thinking that they can start setting more policies and dictating what we're gonna do in our offices." Number 0047 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any further questions for Mr. McMullen. There being none, he stated, "So Representative Ryan, going back to your conceptual amendment, you want to exempt the legislature from this law." Number 0053 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "No, it says 'employer does not mean the Legislative Council or members of the state legislature'. I want that just clear that - that we don't work for them. I personally consider I work for 14,600 or now 15,000 people and I don't want someone coming along from 'leg' council putting out new policies and telling me all of a sudden that (indisc.) not gonna do something, 'cause I try to avoid a fight if I have to ..." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he also felt his constituents were his employers. He asked, "If there was a petition from 14,000 of your constituents would you let 'em?" REPRESENTATIVE RYAN replied not if he paid for it out of his own pocket. Number 0109 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he had asked for a private phone line into the Capitol Building when he brought his private computer to Juneau for the legislative session but they would not allow him a private line. In lieu of that he was told he could use their line in there and thought he might be using the line for the facsimile machine. He said he guessed the cellular phone option did exist but would be kind of expensive. Representative Cowdery stated he just thought if he owned his own equipment the mere fact he used the state's line did not allow the state to go into his equipment. He said he wanted to make that sure. He indicated he understood there were real problems in the area addressed and commented he had had this problem in business with an employee. Number 0188 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated Ms. La Bolle had just arrived and she wanted to testify briefly on the bill. Number 0198 PAM LA BOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, came forward to testify. She stated she was speaking in support of HB 319, commenting, "It is our feeling that if we own the equipment or the premises and have any of liability for the use ... of the equipment or the facility, then we should have access to that." She said she thought the amendment on written agreements was very good and mentioned written agreements in response to Representative Cowdery's concerns, indicating a written agreement might address legislators' concerns. Number 0303 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated he had been referring his own personal equipment, indicating it had not been supplied in any way by the state. He mentioned bringing in a portable computer, for example, indicating he felt this was private and hoped this would not be unacceptable. Number 0336 MS. LA BOLLE said, in her interpretation, the legislation did not address equipment owned by the employee or someone other than the employer. She said she would expect to have access to computer files and such that were done on the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce's equipment on the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce's premises. Number 0375 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was anyone else who wished to testify on HB 319. There being no one, he stated the public hearing was concluded. Number 0389 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated he would like to support HB 319 but hold the legislation over so that he could examine it. Number 0404 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested the committee could make a conceptual amendment excluding privately-owned equipment. He indicated there was also a draft of another conceptual amendment relating to the legislature. Chairman Rokeberg indicated the bill could then be moved and worked on in the House Judiciary Standing Committee, noting he would appreciate any more input. He asked for a conceptual amendment from the committee excluding privately-owned personal property. Number 0440 SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, stated, "The bill does not, as written, include personal equipment because it says your personal equipment is not supplied by an employer; and then what I just gave Representative Rokeberg with regard to (indisc.) being an employee of the Legislative Affairs [Legislative Affairs Agency], you could say in the definition that ... for purposes of this section a legislator is not considered an employee of a political subdivision, because you really aren't." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated,"Which is in the new definition [Amendment 2] and - and to Representative Cowdery's there, and voiced by a number of us, that's on line 6 ... 'supplied by the employer' ...." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he was aware of the language. Number 0512 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the conceptual amendments, and asked to simply have that explanation for the record transmitted to the next committee of referral. Confirming the legislative exemption was to be conceptually added to the definition, he noted he thought that was all they needed. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the personal equipment. MS. ARMSTRONG noted they could check to make sure that it was not covered. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented he thought it was covered. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed with Representative Hudson, but asked the will of the committee. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated he thought the committee should move the legislation to the next committee with the current language and the addition of the definition of legislators. Number 0569 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented he would put a "no rec" on it if the chairman wished to move the legislation. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that was okay with him. He asked Representative Kubina if he had a problem with that. Number 0577 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if the amendment exempting the legislature was going to pass in this committee. Number 0590 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the affirmative. He said the motion by Representative Hudson before the committee was to adopt a conceptual amendment, stating, "To the effect that 'for purposes of this section a legislator is not considered an employee of a political subdivision' or words to that effect." There being no objections, the conceptual amendment was adopted. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the bill would be examined and legislative counsel consulted to ensure that it did not apply to personal equipment. He noted this would be taken up in the next committee. Number 0633 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 319 as amended, with the attached zero fiscal note, to the next committee of referral. There being no objections, CSHB 319(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Number 0668 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at ease at 5:09 p.m. [NOTE: THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR ADJOURNMENT AT 5:11 P.M. WHILE THE COMMITTEE WAS AT EASE AND THE COMMITTEE DID NOT COME FORMALLY BACK TO ORDER.] ADJOURNMENT Number 0668 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting at 5:11 p.m.

Document Name Date/Time Subjects