Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/10/1994 03:00 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 1994
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Bill Hudson, Chairman
Rep. Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Rep. Brian Porter
Rep. Bill Williams
Rep. Eldon Mulder
Rep. Joe Sitton
Rep. Jerry Mackie
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 353: "An Act repealing the requirement of an annual
audit of the receipts and expenditures applicable
to certain property managed under the Horizontal
Property Regimes Act."
CSHB 353(L&C) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 381: "An Act relating to the commercial fishing
revolving loan fund and the fisheries enhancement
revolving loan fund; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 381(L&C) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 507: "An Act relating to licensure by the State Medical
Board and temporary permits for certain
optometrists."
CSHB 507(HESS) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 255: "An Act relating to application of the Public
Employment Relations Act to municipalities and
other political subdivisions."
SSHB 255 HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
REP. JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
465-3744
Position Statement: Sponsor of HB 353
BILL McNULL
921 W. 6th Ave., Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
276-2535
Position Statement: Supported HB 353
(Spoke via teleconference)
TRACEY RICKER
Remax of Southeast
8800-219 Glacier Hwy.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
789-4794
Position Statement: Opposed HB 353
CHERYL SUTTON, staff
Rep. Carl Moses
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
465-4451
Position Statement: Presented HB 381 and CSHB 381(L&C)
for prime sponsor
FRANK HOMAN
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Hwy., #109
Juneau, Alaska 99801
789-6160
Position Statement: Supported CSHB 381(L&C)
MARTIN RICHARDS, Director
Division of Investments
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 34159
Juneau, Alaska 99803-4159
465-2510
Position Statement: Discussed priority list
REP. CARL MOSES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
465-4451
Position Statement: Sponsor of HB 381
JERRY McCUNE
United Fisherman of Alaska
211 4th St., Suite 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801
586-2820
Position Statement: Supported CSHB 381(L&C)
GREG WINEGAR, Manager
Division of Investments
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 34159
Juneau, Alaska 99803-4159
465-2510
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 381
REP. CYNTHIA TOOHEY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
465-4919
Position Statement: Presented CSHB 507(HESS)
DR. JOAN GILINECK
1305 21st Ave., Suite 101
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
452-7524
Position Statement: Supported HB 507
(Spoke via teleconference)
DR. ROY BOX
9309 Glacier Hwy., Suite A-102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
789-3175
Position Statement: Supported HB 507
JOSEPH EASAW, JR., Staff
Rep. Al Vezey
Alaska State Legislation
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
465-3719
Position Statement: Presented HB 255
JOAN WILKERSON
APEA/AFT, AFL-CIO
211 Fourth St., Suite 306
Juneau, Alaska 99801
586-2334
Position Statement: Opposed HB 255
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS
NEA-ALASKA
114 Seward
Juneau, Alaska 99801
586-3090
Position Statement: Opposed HB 255 and SSHB 255
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 353
SHORT TITLE: CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/07/94 2020 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/10/94 2020 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2020 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, STATE AFFAIRS
03/08/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/10/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 381
SHORT TITLE: COMM'L FISH LOANS FOR CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES,Olberg,Grussendorf
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/18/94 2097 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/18/94 2097 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
03/10/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 507
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING OF OPTOMETRISTS AND PHYSICIANS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/16/94 2416 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/16/94 2416 (H) HES, LABOR & COMMERCE
03/01/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/01/94 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/02/94 2576 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 5DP 2NR
03/02/94 2576 (H) DP: KOTT, VEZEY, BUNDE,
TOOHEY, BRICE
03/02/94 2576 (H) NR: OLBERG, NICHOLIA
03/02/94 2576 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 3/2/94
03/02/94 2576 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
03/10/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 255
SHORT TITLE: LOCAL EXEMPTION FROM PERA
BILL VERSION: SSHB 255
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/26/93 794 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/26/93 794 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
03/29/93 838 (H) CRA AND FIN REFERRALS ADDED:
03/29/93 838 (H) CRA, STA, FIN
04/15/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/16/93 (H) CRA AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 124
01/14/94 2061 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/14/94 2061 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/25/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/25/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
01/26/94 2150 (H) CRA RPT 2DP 3DNP 2NR
01/26/94 2150 (H) DP: TOOHEY, OLBERG
01/26/94 2150 (H) DNP: WILLIS, WILLIAMS, DAVIES
01/26/94 2150 (H) NR: SANDERS, BUNDE
01/26/94 2150 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCRA)
1/26/94
01/26/94 2150 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/02/94 2229 (H) STA & FIN REFERRAL CHANGED TO
L&C & STA
03/10/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-21, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN HUDSON convened the meeting at 3:13 p.m., announced
there was a quorum, and invited Rep. James to present HB
353.
HB 353 - CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT
Number 050
REP. JEANNETTE JAMES, Prime Sponsor of HB 353, stated that
HB 353 was introduced to correct a glitch in the law. In
1963 when the condominium law was enacted there was a
requirement for an outside audit for condo associations on
an annual basis. When the law was changed in 1985 it
eliminated the audit requirement. Rep. James stated there
is a committee substitute for HB 353 that changes the law so
that the requirements of condominiums built before 1987 are
the same as condominiums built after 1987.
Number 087
BILL McNULL, attorney, President of the Board of Directors
of the Alaska Chapter of Community Association Institute,
testified on HB 353. Mr. McNull stated that the concern of
the association is the expense of an audit for a small
condominium complex; i.e., 8-12 unit building. Mr. McNull
explained that an audit is approximately $2,500.00 to
$3,500.00 for a condo complex of this size.
MR. McNULL stated that the requirement includes using a
certified public accountant (CPA).
MR. McNULL stated that the secondary market has requirements
that include annual audits of larger condo complexes by
CPA's.
MR. McNULL suggested that HB 353 state that there is no
audit required unless required by the secondary market or
the association chooses to have the audit done.
MR. McNULL stated that each association requires that the
members pay money into a reserve account and should be
periodically looked at by a CPA to make sure they are in
order.
Number 160
REP. JAMES commented that whether or not there needs to be
an audit is a matter of philosophy. She added that the
condominium association should be able to decide for
themselves if they want one through their bylaws.
REP. JAMES asserted that if the requirement was to have an
audit every five years instead of annually the expense would
be the same.
REP. JAMES added that AS 34.08 is specific in its
requirement of the kinds of records you have to keep. These
records are required to be available to the members at any
time and could be used by the secondary market instead of an
audit.
Number 196
MR. McNULL stated that it's the responsibility of each board
to keep the complex marketable and this includes the ability
to get financing on the secondary market.
Number 215
TRACEY RICKER, Property Manager, Remax of Southeast,
testified in opposition of HB 353. She said she has been a
property manager in Juneau for ten years and stated that in
her experience an outside independent review of condominium
associations should be required at least annually. She
added that small complexes may not need an annual review.
MS. RICKER stated that there are three types of reviews that
a CPA can perform that would be effective. She said the
committee may want to require an annual audit by an Outside
CPA for associations of 50 condos or more and something less
for 50 and under.
Number 245
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked what the differences were between the
two committee substitutes.
Number 255
REP. JAMES stated one change was to "level the playing
field" between those condos built before 1987 and those
after. The other change provides for an audit if the board
or manager determines one is needed.
REP. MACKIE stated that present law requires an audit and
the CS would not require one.
Number 280
REP. JAMES responded that the old law enacted in 1965
required an audit every year by an Outside accountant. The
law changed in 1985, requiring that condos built after 1987
did not have to have an audit.
REP. JAMES asserted that the state should not be telling
condo associations that they need to have an audit. She
believed they should choose for themselves.
Number 299
REP. MACKIE asked if there were any other areas of business
where state law requires audits.
Number 303
MS. RICKER responded that it is good practice to establish a
review by an independent party on an annual basis for the
comfort of all parties involved.
Number 320
CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated he supported the language in the CS
that allows for owner discretion in requiring audits or
reviews.
Number 330
MS. RICKER stated she thinks a minimum standard should be
established by the state. She added that the standard
should be that a review or compilation by an independent
party or an independent CPA should be done annually based on
the size of the complex.
Number 340
REP. PORTER asked if it was her understanding that the
present law does not require any audits now.
Number 350
MS. RICKER responded that those associations that opt in to
the Universal Common Interest Ownership Act are required to
have audits.
Number 360
REP. MACKIE asked if he was correct in his understanding
that this legislation would take out the requirement for
audits for everyone.
Number 371
MS. RICKER responded that he was correct.
Number 374
REP. JAMES added that she felt it was out of the realm of
the state to require that associations of people should have
their books audited.
REP. SITTON stated that he believes a secondary audit is the
function of a loan application. He added that he believes
government has gone too far in micromanaging the public's
affairs.
Number 420
REP. PORTER moved the adoption of the 3/9/94 committee
substitute. No objections were heard; it was so ordered.
REP PORTER moved passage of CSHB 353(L&C) with zero fiscal
note. No objections were heard; it was so ordered.
HB 381 - COMM'L FISH LOANS FOR CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS
CHAIR HUDSON announced that HB 381 as the next bill before
the committee and introduced Rep. Carl Moses, the bill's
sponsor.
Number 450
CHERYL SUTTON, Fisheries aide to Rep. Carl Moses, asked if
the committee would like her to speak to the committee
substitute or the original bill.
The Chair asked that she discuss the 3/9/94 work draft
version first.
Number 482
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked that the record reflect that HB 381
was placed in a subcommittee for discussion of the IRS and
child support provisions. He added that his staff worked
with the subcommittee and prime sponsor and produced the
3/9/94 version presently before the committee.
REP. WILLIAMS moved adoption of the CS referenced above. No
objections were heard; it was so ordered.
Number 500
MS. SUTTON read a sponsor statement for CSHB 381(L&C). She
said CSHB 381(L&C) adds four new elements to AS 16.10:
1) refinancing of private bank loans
2) loans to upgrade existing vessels and gear for quality
improvement
3) loans to satisfy federal tax obligations with specific
qualifications
4) transfer of funds that are not needed for current loan
demand between the commercial fishing revolving loan
fund and the fisheries enhancement revolving loan fund.
MS. SUTTON said the Commercial Fishing Loan Program is a
primary source of loans to Alaska fishermen and one of only
two lenders authorized by law to take Alaska Limited entry
permits as collateral. One of the basic tenets of the
Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund was to maintain a
resident Alaskan fishery. If permits go up for auction
because of seizure, there is no control over keeping them in
state.
MS. SUTTON said the IRS currently is not receptive to making
pay arrangements with fishermen who are in arrears on their
federal tax obligations. According to the IRS, 74% of the
Alaska resident limited entry permit holders in arrears who
have filed tax returns owe $10,000.00 or less. These
Alaskans are not tax evaders, but simply fishermen facing a
crisis. CSHB 381(L&C) adds a new section on page 3, Section
2, which sets forth loan criteria for the Department of
Commerce to follow. The first criterion would be the
individual has to have filed past and current tax returns;
the second, the individual would have to have executed an
agreement with the federal government for repayment; and
third, the individual may receive only one loan during his
or her lifetime to satisfy past tax obligations; and the
fourth, the loan may not exceed $30,000.00.
MS. SUTTON stated the refinancing provision would allow
fishermen to combine debt service on permit loans and boat
loans or with loans from other private lending institutions.
It would also provide for a better interest rate and more
reasonable repayment schedule. There have been instances
where a fisherman owned a limited entry permit free of
encumbrances and held a boat loan through a private banking
institution. Through circumstances beyond the fisherman's
control, the debt obligation on the boat could not be met
and the boat was confiscated by the lender. In this
situation, a fisherman has no means of participating in the
fishery and no means of meeting the debt obligation.
MS. SUTTON said CSHB 381(L&C) would allow the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development to transfer funds that are
not needed for current loan demand between the Commercial
Fishing Revolving Loan Fund and the Fisheries Enhancement
Revolving Loan Fund.
MS. SUTTON stated this bill addresses constituent needs of
every legislator. The crisis in salmon fisheries has
affected every area of the state. Much of what has happened
in the salmon industry is well beyond the control of
fishermen. The CSHB 381(L&C) would provide some small
measure of support and help through a secured loan process
in these difficult times.
Number 543
REP. PORTER asked, What is the other fund that can take a
permit?
Number 558
MS. SUTTON responded that the other fund is the Commercial
Fishing and Agricultural Bank.
CHAIR HUDSON asked for people who would like to testify on
this bill.
Number 560
FRANK HOMAN, Commercial Fishing Entry Commission, testified
in support on CSHB 381(L&C). He stated that he testified
before the subcommittee and would be glad to answer any
questions.
Number 574
REP. WILLIAMS moved the following letter of intent:
It is the intent of the House Labor and Commerce Committee
that the Division of Investments exercise particular care in
forecasting loan demand in order to fully accommodate all
new commercial fishing lending needs that arise from the
modification of the commercial fishing loan program by the
Eighteenth Alaska State Legislature. It is further the
intent of the House Labor and Commerce Committee that use of
the Commercial Fisheries Revolving loan Fund for loans for
refinancing purposes succeed all other commercial fishing
lending needs in priority. Finally, it is the House Labor
and Commerce Committee's intent that transfers of excess
funds from the Commercial Fisheries Revolving Loan Fund be
permitted only after commercial fishing loan needs,
including any anticipated loans for purchase of Individual
Fishing Quotas, have been met.
Number 579
REP. SITTON suggested that the committee make the law
clearer instead of using the letter of intent.
Number 584
CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded that it was a matter of
prioritizing the available funds.
Number 610
MARTIN RICHARDS, Director, Division of Investments,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, testified
that at the subcommittee meeting the Division offered a
proposed list that showed how the Division would prioritize
if funds were short. The intent language follows this list.
Number 630
REP. PORTER asked if there was still a set of requirements
fishermen would be held to before the state would lend any
money out of this fund.
Number 636
MR. RICHARDS responded that all the qualifications that
exist in the program would stay there.
TAPE 94-21, SIDE B
Number 001
REP. WILLIAMS moved adoption of the letter of intent. No
objections were heard; it was so ordered.
Number 030
MS. SUTTON stated that the letter of intent hopefully would
offer some level of comfort as to how the loans would be
administered.
Number 037
REP. MACKIE asked why the intent of the letter wasn't put
into statute so the intent would be law.
REP. MOSES stated that he felt it important to leave some
discretion to the division as times change.
REP. WILLIAMS stated that the priorities are covered by
regulations that the Division of Investment works under. He
added, "what we're trying to do is move the IFQ loans up
underneath the IRS loans, have them third in line. The IFQ
loan bill is still in Finance."
CHAIR HUDSON asked the next witness to testify.
Number 066
JERRY McCUNE, United Fisherman of Alaska, testified in
support of CSHB 381(L&C). He dittoed Ms. Sutton's
statement.
Number 087
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. McCune if he was satisfied with
the letter of intent.
Number 087
MR. McCUNE responded that he was.
Number 130
REP. MULDER offered a technical amendment to the letter of
intent: delete the word "expansion" and insert "modify."
Number 166
REP. GREEN suggested that subsection (I) be deleted in AS
16.10.320 so that you could borrow for the permit and then
the boat and vice versa. He read that subsection.
Number 188
GREG WINEGAR, Loan Manager, Division of Investments,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, explained
to Rep. Green how the program came about. He answered
questions regarding AS 16.
MR. WINEGAR stated that he thought the deletion of
subsection (I) would be a substantial expansion of the
program.
Number 225
REP. GREEN asked Mr. Winegar to look into this issue and be
prepared to explain it to the next committee.
Number 237
REP. MACKIE asked Rep. Moses if HB 381 would encourage
rather than discourage fishermen to not pay their taxes.
Number 248
REP. MOSES responded that he couldn't imagine a person
having that attitude and that the restrictions in the bill
provided plenty of protection.
Number 258
REP. WILLIAMS moved passage of CSHB 381(L&C) with individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note. No objections were
heard; it was so ordered.
HB 507 - LICENSING OF OPTOMETRISTS AND PHYSICIANS
CHAIR HUDSON announced that HB 507 was the next bill before
the committee.
Number 296
REP. CYNTHIA TOOHEY, Co-Chair of the HESS Committee, read
the following sponsor statement on CSHB 507(HESS):
Section 1 addresses the concerns of the State Medical Board
for interviewing applicants for licensure in person. They
would like it to be expanded to "the board or its designated
representative." This would lessen the cost in time, money,
and inconvenience for applicants who wish to practice
medicine in the state.
Section 2 deals with granting a temporary permit for locum
tenens for the purpose of providing temporary medical
coverage for an underserved area as approved by the board.
Under current statute, locum tenens permits may only be
issued to physicians who are substituting for an absent
physician. With this change, a temporary permit may be
issued to a physician who will be practicing in an area that
does not have a regular residing physician.
In Section 3 of this bill, a locum tenens permit may be
issued to a nonresident optometrist for the purpose of
assisting or substituting for an optometrist licensed under
AS 08.72.
Alaska has a lot of solo practitioners in remote and semi-
remote areas of the state. If a practitioner becomes
injured, seriously ill or must leave temporarily, he
presently must close down his clinic. This can bring a
hardship to his patients, especially if the time away
extends to several months.
REP. TOOHEY explained that the only change from the original
bill to the committee substitute appears on page 1, line 6:
the word "shall" was changed to "may."
Number 328
REP. SITTON asked why medical professionals need interviews
when they have extensive backgrounds and degrees that could
be looked at instead.
Number 337
REP. TOOHEY explained that the testimony in the Health,
Education and Social Services Committee held that it was
very important to have face to face interviews rather than
just looking at the paper trail of someone's educational
experience alone.
REP. SITTON asked if the rest of the medical profession was
handled in the same way as HB 507 proposes to handle
optometrists.
REP. TOOHEY replied yes.
Number 357
DR. ROY BOX, a licensed optometrist who practices in Juneau,
testified in support of the locum tenens addition to HB 507,
saying it was basically his idea and that's why he got
appointed to testify on it. Dr. Box stated that there are
only approximately 50 optometrists practicing in the state,
and ten of them work for various and sundry government
agencies, and that leaves 40, so if anyone gets sick or
needs to leave their practice for a period of time, as a
practical matter there is no one to fill in for them. He
said HB 507 would protect the public as far as the licensure
is concerned because that it requires that the medical
personnel filling in be licensed by another state or
province.
DR. BOX added that this provision would also help in the
area of specialty care. Small towns often don't have enough
business to have their own specialist, but under this bill
specialist could come to these towns to hold clinics
periodically.
Number 372
DR. JOAN GILINECK, board member of the State Medical Board,
testified in support of HB 507 and the interviewing process.
She said the board feels the interview process provides a
window of observation that is not otherwise available to
scrutinize the applicant and compliment the written
application. She said there are 19 states that require an
interview with a board member; there are three states who
require an interview with the full board; there are five
states who require an oral examination; there are eleven
states that require a possible interview; and there are 15
states she thought that require no interview. She said
these statistics say something about the value that other
states attach the interviewing process. Of course the value
of the interview will be in direct proportion to the
experience and the skill of the interviewer.
Number 420
REP. PORTER asked if the changes being discussed would
affect licensing for all physicians.
Number 430
DR. BOX stated that the first two sections apply to the
medical licensing law and Section 3 applies only to
optometrists.
Number 447
REP. PORTER asked Dr. Gilineck if HB 507 would allow phone
interviews.
Number 452
DR. GILINECK responded that a telephonic interview would be
allowed under certain circumstances.
REP. MACKIE moved passage of HB 507 with individual
recommendations and fiscal note. No objections were heard;
it was so ordered.
HB 255 - LOCAL EXEMPTION FROM PERA
CHAIR HUDSON announced HB 255 as the next bill before the
committee. He introduced Rep. Al Vezey as the prime sponsor
of the bill and asked him to join members at the table.
REP. VEZEY stated that Mr. Easaw was prepared to give the
opening statement.
Number 480
JOSEPH EASAW, JR., staff, Rep. Al Vezey, provided the
following sponsor statement on HB 255:
The intent of HB 255 is to allow municipalities the option
of removing themselves from PERA (Public Employees Relation
Act). Under this proposed legislation, a municipality could
make such a decision with the approval of the voters of the
municipality.
It was the intent of the 1972 legislation to allow
municipalities to opt out of PERA. As the law currently
exists, a municipality under PERA, for all practical
purposes, cannot remove themselves. This determination has
been brought about by decisions of the court. This
condition has resulted in diminished control over local
self-determination.
Existing legislation as interpreted by the courts has put
local governing bodies in a position where one governing
body can obligate all future governing bodies. This bill is
intended to correct what the legislature has inadvertently
allowed the court to mandate on local governments by placing
the decision making process back into the hands of local
governing officials and the people.
Number 540
REP. SITTON asked what HB 255 would do to employees
currently in collective bargaining agreements in
municipalities.
Number 548
MR. EASAW responded that if there is a collective bargaining
agreement in place it will remain in effect.
Number 555
REP. SITTON stated he saw the list of municipalities who had
the chance to opt out of PERA and didn't and wondered if HB
255 was requested by them in order to give them another
chance.
Number 560
MR. EASAW replied that the intent of the language does not
give any time frame for those municipalities to act. That
decision came by court decision in 1975 in the case of
Petersburg vs. State. Mr. Easaw stated that some interpret
the decision to still allow municipalities to opt out.
REP. MULDER asked if his understanding was correct that
current law provides that municipalities will be included in
PERA unless they opt out and HB 255 would change the law to
say that PERA would not apply to municipalities unless the
municipality holds an election as set out in subsection (b).
MR. EASAW stated that under current statutes if you are a
new municipality forming you have a reasonable amount of
time to opt out of PERA. He said PERA does not permit a
municipality to opt out of it after its employees have
started to organize.
Number 592
REP. MULDER asked if under HB 255 a municipality is out of
PERA unless they opt in.
Number 595
MR. EASAW replied that that was true.
Number 600
CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that it was his understanding that
the court has ruled that a political subdivision may not opt
out if there is any organizational steps being taken by the
employees.
Number 606
MR. EASAW stated that the court has said that you cannot opt
out of PERA unless you have done so in a reasonable time
frame after organization.
Number 616
REP. PORTER asked if a city currently under PERA would be
able to opt out of PERA without a vote of the people if HB
255 passed.
Number 619
MR. EASAW replied that HB 255 expressly states that in order
for a community to opt out they must go to a vote of the
people.
TAPE 94-22, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. EASAW stated that as he understood labor contracts, if a
negotiation is ongoing, the expired contract remains in
effect.
Number 020
REP. PORTER asked, if a city is currently in PERA, can they
take a vote of the community to determine if they want to
opt out?
MR. EASAW answered that he was correct.
CHAIR HUDSON asked Joan Wilkerson to testify.
Number 057
JOAN WILKERSON, Southeast Regional Manager for APEA/AFT,
testified in opposition to HB 255. Ms. Wilkerson stated she
was also speaking for the Alaska AFL/CIO and its 50,000
members state wide.
MS. WILKERSON provided the following statement for the
record:
We adamantly oppose HB 255, as should all supporters of
collective bargaining because this bill is intended to do
nothing less than eliminate collective bargaining for
thousands of Alaska's workers. By establishing a revolving
door system of opting in or out of PERA, the bill would not
only deny the basic human right to collectively bargain with
their employer to employees in political subdivisions which
opt out of the system, but would also render meaningless the
system left behind for those areas which continue to bargain
with their employees, since the notion of "good faith
bargaining" will cease to exist when an employer can always
threaten to opt out if it doesn't like the way things are
going in negotiations.
The immediate practical effect of this legislation will be
full employment for attorneys, to the detriment of both
taxpayers and employee groups. The legal issues raised by
an election to opt out while a collective bargaining
agreement is in effect will tie both the courts and the
labor relations agency in knots. Even where a healthy and
viable bargaining relationship exists between the local
government and its employees, a small number of anti-union
voters in a community, sufficient to put the issue on the
ballot by initiative, can require annual elections with the
attendant expenditure of public and private resources better
used elsewhere.
PERA has governed public employment relations in this state
for 20 years. There was nothing "inadvertent" about its
intent to apply to political subdivisions. A floor
amendment allowed a one-time "opt-out," of which many
municipalities have made use. Some, such as Fairbanks and
Cordova, have subsequently elected to opt back in.
Some decisions must be final and binding. The decision to
engage in good faith bargaining with employees is one such
decision. We urge you to go on record in support of
collective bargaining and keep this bill in committee.
Number 150
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Wilkerson what the positive
benefits of PERA were for municipalities as well as for
employees.
Number 152
MS. WILKERSON replied that the bill as it currently exists
is essentially a bill of rights for public employees in the
state of Alaska. It allows them to exercise their
fundamental constitutional rights to association by virtue
of their relationship with each other as employees of a
public government, as a public entity. It creates and
answers to the Alaska Labor Relations Agency. It permits
corporations to form through the associations of these
employees and to collectively bargain with employers. In
her limited exposure to municipalities and boroughs who have
opted out, the employees have virtually no rights at all.
It was her understanding from PERA itself, that the initial
intent of the legislature was that if a political
subdivision was going to opt out of PERA, that they should
pass an ordinance which would more or less take the place of
PERA. She has seen this in action in a municipality in
Southeast Alaska that did opt out and passed personnel rules
which are so vague in nature that they do not afford the
rights incumbent in PERA. The most basic of those rights,
which are at issue right now, are the right to bargain, and
for the employee the right to defend themselves through
exercising the right to strike, or to send a matter to
binding arbitration.
Number 179
REP. PORTER stated that it was his understanding that if a
municipality wanted to opt out of PERA they would have to
provide some mechanism for bargaining. He added that he
disagreed with Ms. Wilkerson regarding an employee's rights.
He does not believe an employee would lose any rights if
they were not in PERA.
Number 193
MS. WILKERSON said she was not specifically speaking to the
Anchorage Municipality, which Rep. Porter referred to, but
she was speaking of another municipality. She added that it
would be important to note that each municipality is
different without PERA.
Number 215
REP. MULDER stated that in 1992 the Anchorage teachers were
included in PERA. He asked, if Anchorage has opted out of
PERA, are the teachers out as well?
Number 230
REP. PORTER answered that teachers are still in PERA.
Number 235
REP. SITTON asked for an elaboration regarding binding
arbitration noted in the resolution from the City of
Fairbanks.
REP. PORTER replied it only applied to Class 1 employees,
which are only cops and firemen.
Number 250
MS. WILKERSON added that binding arbitration was also
dictated by statute. She stated that there were two kinds
of binding arbitration: (1) interest arbitration -- the
negotiation process itself and (2) the grievance process.
Number 250
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President, National Education Association
testified against HB 255 and SSHB 255. Ms. Douglas read the
following statement for the record:
The bill will allow municipalities or other political
subdivisions, including school districts, to conduct an
election to determine if employees are to continue under the
provision of AS 23.40.070 - 23.40.260.
Since the early 1970's state policy extended the statutory
right to bargain to public employees. School employees
struggled for over ten years to establish their rights under
PERA. The schools and school employees have developed a
successful pattern of bargaining under PERA for nearly four
years.
Bargaining provides public employees a good participatory
way to influence decisions that affect the work place. At
the bargaining table public employees share in the decision
making process affecting wages and working conditions. They
have become more responsive and better able to exchange
ideas and information on operations with their
administrators. Successful businesses are moving to
management models designed to involve employees in a
meaningful participatory role. Studies have shown that
successful school reform occurs in school districts where
mature bargaining relations exist.
If SSHB 255 were to become law, labor relations between
school districts and school employees would be disrupted.
Good faith bargaining would give way to politics.
Management and school boards would have greater latitude to
delay and forestall the bargaining process. Some school
districts could submit the question of continuance under
PERA to voters annually or during each round of bargaining.
In short the school, municipal, borough or state employee
would lose. Inconsistency between units and school districts
would occur. The bargaining process would be weakened and
in some instances destroyed.
The bill calls for a vote of the people. Who pays for the
election? Will the election activate adversarial clashes
between the special anti-labor groups with agendas opposed
to working people?
We live in a republic where representatives are elected to
make decisions for their constituency in view of the public
good. The issue of inclusion of school employees under PERA
has been debated on the state level. A majority of the
legislature, after weighing carefully the facts and
information, decided it is good policy. In its declaration
of the policy, it said, "the legislature finds that joint
decision-making is the modern way of administering
government." We urge you to oppose this bill.
Number 308
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced that he did not intend to move HB
255 at this time. He stated that he wanted the committee to
hear the opposing sides.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON adjourned the meeting at 5:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|