04/27/2005 08:00 AM House RULES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB51 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 51 | ||
| = | HB 98 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 2005
8:16 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative John Coghill, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 51(FIN)
"An Act relating to contracts for the provision of state public
assistance to certain recipients in the state; providing for
regional public assistance plans and programs in the state;
relating to grants for Alaska Native family assistance programs;
relating to assignment of child support by Alaska Native family
assistance recipients; relating to paternity determinations and
genetic testing involving recipients of assistance under Alaska
Native family assistance programs; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 51(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to the compensation of certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by collective
bargaining agreements; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 98(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 51
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/12/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/05 (S) CRA, HES, FIN
01/26/05 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
01/26/05 (S) Moved SB 51 Out of Committee
01/26/05 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
01/27/05 (S) CRA RPT 4DP
01/27/05 (S) DP: STEVENS G, WAGONER, KOOKESH, ELLIS
02/07/05 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/07/05 (S) Heard & Held
02/07/05 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/09/05 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/05 (S) Moved SB 51 Out of Committee
02/09/05 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/10/05 (S) HES RPT 3DP 2NR
02/10/05 (S) DP: DYSON, ELTON, OLSON
02/10/05 (S) NR: WILKEN, GREEN
02/25/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/25/05 (S) Heard & Held
02/25/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/01/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/01/05 (S) Moved CSSB 51(FIN) Out of Committee
03/01/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/02/05 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP
SAME TITLE
03/02/05 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, OLSON, DYSON,
STEDMAN
03/22/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/22/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 51(FIN)
03/23/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/23/05 (H) FIN
04/18/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/18/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/18/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/19/05 (H) FIN RPT 5DP 1DNP 3NR
04/19/05 (H) DP: HAWKER, CROFT, MOSES, FOSTER,
MEYER;
04/19/05 (H) DNP: KELLY;
04/19/05 (H) NR: HOLM, WEYHRAUCH, CHENAULT;
04/25/05 (H) RLS AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/25/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 4/27>
04/27/05 (H) RLS AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 98
SHORT TITLE: NONUNION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARY & BENEFIT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) STA, FIN
02/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/17/05 (H) Moved CSHB 98(STA) Out of Committee
02/17/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/05 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 7NR
02/18/05 (H) NR: GARDNER, LYNN, RAMRAS, GATTO,
GRUENBERG, ELKINS, SEATON
02/19/05 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/05 (H) ELECTIONS
04/13/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/05 (H) Moved CSHB 98(STA) Out of Committee
04/13/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/14/05 (H) FIN RPT CS(STA) 5DP 3NR
04/14/05 (H) DP: MOSES, KELLY, FOSTER, MEYER,
CHENAULT;
04/14/05 (H) NR: HAWKER, HOLM, STOLTZE
04/20/05 (H) RLS AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/20/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/05 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
04/25/05 (H) RLS AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/25/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/05 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
04/27/05 (H) RLS AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SUE STANCLIFF, Staff
to Representative Mike Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented amendments to CSSB 51(FIN).
ELLIE FITZJARRALD, Chief
Policy & Program Development
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSSB 51(FIN), answered
questions.
STACIE KRALY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of CSSB 51(FIN), answered
questions.
MIKE TIBBLES, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 98, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:16:10 AM. Representatives Rokeberg,
Coghill, Harris, McGuire, Berkowitz, and Kerttula were present
at the call to order. Representative Kohring arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 51-PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
8:17:14 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 51(FIN), "An Act relating to contracts
for the provision of state public assistance to certain
recipients in the state; providing for regional public
assistance plans and programs in the state; relating to grants
for Alaska Native family assistance programs; relating to
assignment of child support by Alaska Native family assistance
recipients; relating to paternity determinations and genetic
testing involving recipients of assistance under Alaska Native
family assistance programs; and providing for an effective
date."
8:17:23 AM
SUE STANCLIFF, Staff to Representative Mike Kelly, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the amendment labeled 24-GS1089\G.1,
Mischel, 4/19/05, would insert language that's a statutory
reference rather than the language "tribal assistance program".
She characterized this change as a matter of continuity in
drafting. The amendment labeled GS1089\G.2, Mischel, 4/22/05,
inserts new subsections defining "organization" and "Alaska
Native organization" with statutory references.
8:19:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1, labeled 24-GS1089\G.1, Mischel, 4/19/05, which read:
Page 3, line 17:
Delete "a tribal assistance program in this
state"
Insert "an Alaska Native organization family
assistance program under AS 47.27.070"
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion.
8:19:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted that he and Representative Coghill
had the opportunity to meet with some of the Native leaders of
Alaska. One of the issues discussed during the aforementioned
meeting was the involvement of the tribes in the decision making
[of the Native organizations]. He inquired as to the reasoning
behind the changes embodied in Amendment 1.
MS. STANCLIFF explained that the federal government has approved
the tribal assistance program. The State of Alaska has to have
a federally approved program to administer it, which is the
purpose of AS 47.27.070. She informed the committee that
originally [the tribal assistance program] was placed in statute
as a pilot program, and [this legislation] will codify it due to
its success. Therefore, [Amendment 1] merely refers to the
organization that is approved by the federal government to
administer this program.
8:21:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS surmised then that the aforementioned
issue wasn't brought up when the legislation went through the
Senate.
MS. STANCLIFF confirmed that to be the case.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related his understanding then that a
tribal assistance program without a definition doesn't meet the
federal criteria required to receive funds.
MS. STANCLIFF disagreed and related the belief that the language
in the legislation and the program meet the federal criteria.
However, in order to have clarity and continuity with statute
the desire is to replace the language with statutory language.
A similar issue arose with the Department of Health and Social
Services budget. The allocation for the Division of Public
Assistance appropriation used the language "tribal assistance
program", which wasn't defined in statute and thus the budget
language was amended to be consistent with statute.
8:22:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the current language of CSSB
51(FIN) is patterned after federal [law].
MS. STANCLIFF related her understanding that it isn't federal
language, but was drafted by the Department of Law.
8:22:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ highlighted that the organizations
under AS 47.27.070 are essentially the regional nonprofits. He
asked if there are any village nonprofits or other forms of
tribal assistance programs.
MS. STANCLIFF replied no, and added that [the federal law] is
specific to the 13 [federally authorized tribal] organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ posed a situation in which the 13
regional nonprofits decided to create a new program to
coordinate efforts, which he suggested wouldn't be part of this
legislation under the proposed amendments.
MS. STANCLIFF said that she didn't know, but pointed out that
the legislation sets up a regional provision.
8:24:49 AM
ELLIE FITZJARRALD, Chief, Policy & Program Development, Division
of Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services,
explained that the federal law - allows the 12 regional Native
nonprofit organizations and Metlakatla Indian Association the
option to run temporary assistance programs. The federal
program refers to it as the tribal temporary assistance programs
for needy families. Part of the requirement is that they must
have a federally approved tribal temporary assistance program
plan for needy families. The [federal] law includes a provision
that requires that there be a comparable program in Alaska.
Therefore, village nonprofits couldn't apply, operate, and
receive federal funds directly, although they may be able to
subcontract with an organization and provide services similar to
the state.
8:27:15 AM
STACIE KRALY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, agreed with
Ms. Fitzjarrald.
8:27:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if the language in CSSB 51(FIN),
without the proposed amendments, gets the money to the programs.
MS. FITZJARRALD replied yes.
8:28:11 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG inquired as to the department's opinion of the
amendments.
MS. KRALY said that the department doesn't object. The
[Department of Law] is neutral with regard to the amendments
because they don't change the legislation to a point that there
would be concern with federal funding.
CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed interest in doing what's correct in
terms of the statute and in order to avoid any unintended
consequences. He asked if Ms. Kraly had an opinion with regard
to the drafting of the legislation.
MS. KRALY concurred with Ms. Fitzjarrald that the language in
CSSB 51(FIN) is sufficient.
8:29:47 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that it seems that there should be a correct
answer in this case or perhaps either reference could be correct
depending upon the context.
MS. KRALY opined that both [references] could be correct.
8:30:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he would agree with Amendment
1. However, he highlighted that Alaska has been struggling with
regard to the legal definition of "tribe". He surmised that the
sponsor merely wants to clarify that this refers to an Alaska
Native organization family assistance program. Representative
Coghill opined that this program works, provides much
flexibility, and allows these organizations to do things that
the state can't do under its program.
8:32:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his belief that Amendment 1
brings up other tribal issues. He characterized Amendment 1 as
an effort by those who aren't friendly to the notion of tribal
sovereignty. He imagined that there will be a battle regarding
whether [the language] is respectful enough for the existence of
tribes. He said that's a battle he didn't want to have.
8:33:07 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that Amendment 1 wants to replace the
language "a tribal assistance program in this state" with the
language "an Alaska Native organization family assistance
program under AS 47.27.070". However, page 3, line 16, refers
to "federal tribal family assistance plan". He asked if there
is a [federal] plan that uses the aforementioned language.
MS. FITZJARRALD nodded yes. She then explained that [the
provision on page 3, line 16] sets out that in order to receive
an Alaska Native family assistance program grant from the
department, the organization must have received federal approval
to operate a tribal assistance program in the state. The
federal law refers to it as a tribal assistance program, which
is what the federal government is approving. The federal
program doesn't approve an Alaska Native family assistance
program, which is what the department is responsible for doing
"and this is one of the contingencies." In further response to
Chair Rokeberg, Ms. Fitzjarrald specified that SB 51
reauthorizes and codifies the [Alaska Native family assistance
program] in law.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to page 11, line 13, of CSSB
51(FIN), which defines the [Alaska Native family assistance
grant] as such.
8:36:20 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that the amendments seem appropriate.
8:36:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS opined that it seems the "Alaska Native
family assistance program" and the "tribal family assistance
plan" both need federal approval. He asked if the language
"federally approved tribal family assistance plan" on page 11,
line 17, subparagraph (13), meets the federal plan.
MS. KRALY replied yes.
8:39:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE opined that Amendment 1 does make a good
point in that if the desire is to codify a successful pilot
program, then it should be made clear what program is to
qualify. Without the specific definition, any tribal assistance
program in the state could be operated in the state. The point
of the legislation seems to confine this to the newly created
Alaska Native organization family assistance program.
8:41:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ addressed the policy call and said that
when there is an effort to tie to existing organizations under
AS 47.27.070, it precludes the flexibility from leaving the
language open if the federal government might decide to accept
other entities. As a technical matter, there is reference to
"Alaska Native organization family assistance program".
Although the aforementioned language exists in AS 47.27.070, it
doesn't exist in the context of page 3, line 17. Therefore, it
seems that two terms are being used, when the desire seems to be
to use one term.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed, and opined that it should be
"family assistance program".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he wasn't sure which it
should be because the existing statute refers to "Native
organization family assistance program". Hopefully, such
inconsistencies don't cause a problem. In response to Chair
Rokeberg, Representative Berkowitz clarified that he believes
the reference to AS 47.27.070 in Amendment 1 is limiting.
CHAIR ROKEBERG restated Representative Berkowitz's earlier
question regarding whether any other organizations can qualify
under this new statute if they are not an organization specified
in AS 47.24.070.
8:43:44 AM
MS. KRALY explained that the authorization to provide these
services comes from a federal statute; the 13 organizations
authorized to administer this program are set forth specifically
in federal law and set forth in AS 47.24.070. Therefore, unless
there is a change in the federal law authorizing this program,
no other entity in the state could administer the program. If
the federal government amends its statute, then the state would
also have to amend its statute to mirror the authorization.
8:44:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his understanding that under
CSSB 51(FIN) [a new organization] would automatically be
recognized and wouldn't require an amendment to AS 47.24.070.
CHAIR ROKEBERG interjected that the aforementioned would be a
strange construction because the statute reference would have to
be replaced with U.S. code.
8:46:16 AM
MS. FITZJARRALD, in response to Representative Berkowitz,
clarified that under CSSB 51(FIN) and current law an amendment
would be required if the federal government changed its law such
that other Native organizations could run tribal family
assistance programs. In further response to Representative
Berkowitz, Ms. Fitzjarrald confirmed that Amendment 1 has no
impact on the flexibility of the program.
8:47:50 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
8:48:01 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McGuire, Harris,
Coghill, and Rokeberg voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Berkowitz, Kerttula, and Kohring voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
8:48:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved that the committee adopt Amendment
2, labeled 24-GS1089\G.2, Mischel, 4/22/05, which read:
Page 9, following line 21:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(q) In this section, "organization" means an
organization identified in AS 47.27.070(a)."
Page 11, following line 11:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) In this section, "Alaska Native
organization" or "organization" means an organization
identified in AS 47.27.070(a)."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He, again, highlighted the
difference in terminology.
8:49:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to the language on page 3, line
13, which he believes provides enough consistency.
8:49:43 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Harris, Coghill,
Kohring, McGuire, and Rokeberg voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Berkowitz and Kerttula voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
8:50:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE moved to report CSSB 51(FIN), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
51(RLS) was reported from the House Rules Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:51 a.m. to 9:02 a.m.
HB 98-NONUNION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARY & BENEFIT
9:03:04 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 98, "An Act relating to the compensation of
certain public officials, officers, and employees not covered by
collective bargaining agreements; and providing for an effective
date."
9:03:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved Amendment 1, labeled 24-GH1099\G.5,
Craver, 4/25/05, which read:
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 39.20.080(a) is amended to read:
(a) The monthly salary of the head of each
principal executive department of the state is not
less than Range 28 nor more than Range 30 [EQUAL TO
STEP E, RANGE 28] of the salary schedule in
AS 39.27.011(a) for Juneau, Alaska."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "sec. 1"
Insert "sec. 2"
Page 3, line 10:
Delete "secs. 2 and 3"
Insert "secs. 3 and 4"
Page 3, line 19:
Delete "sec. 1"
Insert "sec. 2"
Delete "secs. 2 and 3"
Insert "secs. 3 and 4"
Page 3, lines 22 - 23:
Delete "secs. 1 - 3"
Insert "secs. 2 - 4"
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that he brought forward the discussions
on this matter. He related his understanding that Amendment 1
was offered, in concept, by former Governor Tony Knowles at the
end of his last administration. He opined that the
commissioners in the state are underpaid.
9:03:49 AM
MIKE TIBBLES, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Administration, explained that the salary of
commissioners are unique in that they are tied to a range and a
step in statute. The aforementioned results in a situation in
which directors and deputy commissioners, through longevity,
receive a higher salary than commissioners. Furthermore, in
reviewing the Council of State Government's information
regarding Western [states], Alaska doesn't offer competitive
salaries.
9:04:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if Amendment 1 could result in a
commissioner starting at a lower range, and therefore those
[commissioners] who haven't already been in state service could
receive a 28A rather than a 28E. She suggested that the
language should be "not less than step E Range 28".
MR. TIBBLES said he read Amendment 1 to allow the option of a
the full scale of Ranges 28-30 for the commissioner, including
Range 28A.
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised then that Amendment 1 creates
flexibility.
9:06:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE agreed that there would be the desire for
more discretion on the lower end. However, she questioned
whether on the upper end there should be the sideboard of a step
E.
MR. TIBBLES expressed concern with placing a step with a Range
30 because it doesn't take that long in a Range 28 before one
equals a Range 30A. Therefore, as one moves up, he/she would
run into barriers, even at a different step because an
equivalent can be calculated.
9:07:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that due to the four-year
gubernatorial cycle, commissioners change rather rapidly.
Therefore, he said he didn't know whether it's a "big deal."
9:07:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related his belief that the governor
should be the highest paid person in the state bureaucracy,
higher than the commissioners. He inquired as to the highest
step in a Range 30.
MR. TIBBLES answered that a Range 30M is at the end of the pay
schedule, which amounts to $117,000.
9:08:49 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to a handout in the committee packet
entitled "COMMISSIONERS", which relates that under CSHB 98(STA)
[Range 30M] would [increase] to $124,752 from the current
$117,000.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said that he would have a difficult time
with "having anything more than whatever step and Range 30 would
be ... $115,000 or less." He reiterated that the governor
should have a higher salary than commissioners.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that several specialties and
practitioners make more than [$115,000].
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS highlighted that most often commissioners
are political appointees, not specialists. He reiterated that
he has difficulty with commissioners making more than the
governor.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that Amendment 1 offers flexibility,
and the commissioners wouldn't necessarily make more than the
governor.
9:10:20 AM
MR. TIBBLES provided the following scenario. Within the
executive branch a number of directors have been in place longer
than the commissioners. These directors have expertise in a
certain area and are a good applicant pool to move up when
vacancies occur. However, at the Range 26 director level, first
year in longevity at seven years, the individual is at Range
28E, which is the current salary for the commissioner. Caps
result in the same situation that exists now in which the caps
become barriers to [promoting] those already in the state
system.
9:11:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS highlighted that people who work with the
state long term aren't normally subject to the change in
administrations, but commissioners are. Commissioners have no
expected longevity beyond the term of the governor; although
state employees expect longevity, if they do good job.
9:12:39 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if a division director can also be
terminated during the change of an administration.
MR. TIBBLES noted that although division directors are partially
exempt, they are frequently [terminated] with the change of
administrations.
CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to a spreadsheet in the committee packet
[from CSG information] regarding the 13 western states. Of the
12 states, excluding Alaska, listed, [the salary for department
heads] in 10 of the states is higher than the proposed salary of
$115,000 that's being proposed for the governor. Chair Rokeberg
said that he is in support of Amendment 1 without any
modifications. He indicated the need to have competitive
salaries in order to recruit [qualified individuals].
9:14:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA maintained her concern with [the
possibility of Amendment 1 allowing a commissioner] to receive a
lower step than E.
9:14:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that Representative Harris
brings up a good point in that commissioners are hired and fired
at will. He opined that the proposed range is good. However,
he wasn't sure about the argument that [the governor] should
have a higher [range than commissioners]. He indicated that the
governor receives a "package" beyond his salary, which may
outweigh the actual dollar amount.
9:15:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS withdrew his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:16:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved that the committee adopt Amendment
2, labeled 24-GH1099\G.3, Craver, 4/21/05, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "compensation of":
Insert "the governor, the lieutenant governor,
and"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 39.20.010(a) is amended to read:
Sec. 39.20.010. Annual salary of governor. (a)
The annual salary of the governor is $115,000
[$81,648].
* Sec. 2. AS 39.20.030(a) is amended to read:
Sec. 39.20.030. Annual salary of lieutenant
governor. (a) The annual salary of the lieutenant
governor is $100,000 [$76,188]."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 39.20.010(b), 39.20.010(c),
39.20.030(b), and 39.20.030(c) are repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "sec. 1"
Insert "sec. 3"
Page 3, line 10:
Delete "secs. 2 and 3"
Insert "secs. 4 and 5"
Page 3, line 19:
Delete "sec. 1"
Insert "sec. 3"
Delete "secs. 2 and 3"
Insert "secs. 4 and 5"
Page 3, lines 22 - 23:
Delete "secs. 1 - 3"
Insert "secs. 3 - 5"
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected.
9:16:28 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that Amendment 2 would increase the
annual salary of the governor to $115,000 and the annual salary
of the lieutenant governor to $100,000.
9:16:38 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG referred to an attachment to Amendment 2, which
specified the language of AS 39.20.010, AS 39.20.020, AS
39.20.030, and AS 39.20.040. He highlighted the following
statute:
Sec. 39.20.020. Date of entitlement of governor's
salary.
The governor is entitled to receive the salary
established for the office effective from the date on
which the oath of office is taken by the governor.
Sec. 39.20.040. Date of entitlement of lieutenant
governor's salary.
The lieutenant governor is entitled to receive the
salary established for the office effective from the
date on which the oath of office is taken by the
lieutenant governor.
CHAIR ROKEBERG specified that the current statutes specify that
the enactment of any increase to the governor's or lieutenant
governor's salary wouldn't be impacted until the swearing in of
the next governor in December 2006. Chair Rokeberg reiterated
that he brought this issue forward on his own accord, not at the
request of the governor. In fact, the governor has said he
doesn't need a raise, but acknowledged that it might be good for
the next occupant of the position.
9:18:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 2,
which would increase the governor's salary from "$115,000" to
"$130,000" [on line 8 of the Amendment 2]. Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2 would allow the governor to be paid more than the
highest Range for a commissioner.
CHAIR ROKEBERG objected for discussion purposes. He explained
that one of the initial reasons for selecting the $115,000
salary for the governor was that of the 13 western states,
excluding Alaska, the average compensation for the governor is
approximately $113,000.
9:20:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS compared the salary of the President of
the University of Alaska to that of the governor. The salary of
the President of the University of Alaska is approximately
$250,000 annually. However, the governor of the state has more
responsibility than the President of the University of Alaska,
and therefore $130,000 isn't out of range for the governor's
responsibilities. Representative Harris opined that the
governor's salary has been unfairly held down for years. He
reiterated that the governor shouldn't be paid lower than the
people who work for him, save those in specialty positions.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that if Amendment 1 to Amendment 2
was adopted, the Alaska governor in 2006 would be fifth from the
top in terms of compensation - equivalent to Wyoming. He
commented that Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 isn't out of line.
9:22:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE opined that she liked raising the
governor's salary to $130,000 because the differential is more
in keeping with the position. She indicated agreement with
Representative Harris in that this wouldn't benefit the current
governor. Furthermore, it's time to raise the governor's
salary, she opined. She also opined that she didn't think the
governor's salary would be raised again for a long time.
9:23:27 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked what other benefits accrue to the Office of
the Governor in terms of expenses, housing, et cetera.
MR. TIBBLES said that he isn't able to speak to that. However,
he highlighted that the salary provided in statute is considered
complete compensation.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if the governor receives any expense
accounts or housing allowances.
9:24:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related that in doing the budget, the
governor has funds available just as the legislature does to pay
for its members' travel. He assumed that the governor didn't
have to pay rent to live in the mansion and has access to a
state vehicle. Representative Harris then informed the
committee that the President of the University of Alaska
receives a free car, a free house, and an expense account.
9:25:14 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG requested this information be provided before
this legislation goes to the House floor. He related his
understanding that the governor is required to live in the
mansion and receives some allowances and does pay some salaries.
CHAIR ROKEBERG maintained his objection to Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2.
9:26:38 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kerttula, Harris,
McGuire voted in favor of Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
Representatives Coghill, Kohring, and Rokeberg voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-3.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:27 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
9:30:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2
to Amendment 2, which would increase the governor's salary from
"$115,000" to "$125,00" [on line 8 of Amendment 2].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
9:30:21 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kerttula, Harris,
McGuire, and Rokeberg voted in favor of Amendment 2 to Amendment
2. Representatives Coghill and Kohring voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 to Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of
4-2.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that Amendment 2, as amended, is before
the committee.
There being no objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
9:32:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 98(STA), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying and forthcoming fiscal notes. There being no
objection, CSHB 98(RLS) was reported out the House Rules
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Rules Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:33:20 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|