Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/11/1999 08:08 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 1999
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Harold Smalley
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 2
"An Act relating to issuance of a motor vehicle registration plate
to or parking permit for a person who is disabled."
- MOVED HB 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to initiative and referendum petitions.
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act relating to salary caps and to the power to transfer
certain positions to the classified service and entitlement to
longevity increments for certain state officials."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 2
SHORT TITLE: REGISTRATION PLATES FOR DISABLED
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 18 (H) TRANSPORTATION, STATE AFFAIRS
2/02/99 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
2/02/99 (H) MOVED HB 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/02/99 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
2/03/99 129 (H) TRA RPT 5DP 2NR
2/03/99 129 (H) DP: HUDSON, KOOKESK, SANDERS, HALCRO,
2/03/99 129 (H) MASEK
2/03/99 129 (H) NR: KEMPLEN, COWDERY
2/03/99 129 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
2/03/99 129 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
2/11/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 45
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) WILLIAMS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 30 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 30 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
2/11/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) WILLIAMS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 17 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/11/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 74
SHORT TITLE: SALARIES FOR CERTAIN STATE OFFICIALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN, Kohring, Cowdery
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/03/99 131 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/03/99 131 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
2/11/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Aide
to Representative James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4963
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 2.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 7 and HB 45.
DANNA LATOUR, Administrative Officer
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-5347
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HJR 7 and HB 45.
BETTY ROLLINS
P.O. Box 55163
North Pole Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of HJR 7 and HB 45.
KYLE JOHANSEN, Legislative Aid to
Representative Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HJR 7 and HB 45.
TOM BOUTIN
P.O. Box 35116
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 789-7936
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 45.
ALISON ELEGEE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 45.
DON ETHERIDGE
Local 71
710 West Ninth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-0395
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 74.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-1, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Coghill, Ogan, Whitaker,
Hudson, Kerttula and Smalley.
HB 2 REGISTRATION PLATES FOR DISABLED
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HB 2," An Act
relating to issuance of a motor vehicle registration plate to or
parking permit for a person who is disabled."
Number 0019
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Aide to Representative James, Alaska
State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement:
House Bill 2, which is an Act relating to issuance of a motor
vehicle registration plate to, or a parking permit for a
person who is disabled, is very short and very simple. It
makes one simple change to Title 28, Vehicle Registration and
Title, allowing licensed nurse practitioners to provide proof
of disability for veterans to receive specially designed
license plates.
Currently, only licensed physicians are authorized in our
Alaska Statutes to provide proof of disability. Alaska has
many medical facilities in both rural and urban settings where
a nurse practitioner is the only licensed medical person
available, and this bill would allow much-needed flexibility.
MS. COTTING mentioned HB 2 was previously heard in the House
Transportation Standing Committee and then referred to a letter of
support from Anne Lilley, a nurse practitioner in Fairbanks. She
pointed out Ms. Lilley's veterans center requested the introduction
of HB 2 which details why nurse practitioners in the state of
Alaska need this flexibility.
MS. COTTING read Juanita Hensley's, Chief, Driver Services,
Division of Motor Vehicles, message that the Department of
Administration has no objection to HB 2 in its current form.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, "What was the purpose of -- I mean I can
understand the licensed physician and maybe at best nurse
practioners in some parts of the state act like a physician in
those areas. But, how would one get one before?"
Number 0071
MS. COTTING explained that the patients had to go through a series
of tests with a licensed physician. At the present time, that's
the only way they can be certified. Whereas, these nurse
practitioners are usually very familiar with their disabilities
because they're the ones that work with them most frequently. This
applies to all disabled people, not just veterans - there is a list
of requirements in federal statute that qualifies a person as
disabled. And we follow those statutes in Alaska that is our
criteria. It has to do with how far the person can walk without
assistance and other such things that a nurse practitioner can very
easily verify.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if this could be broadened to include
other people that might need this type of certification by a nurse
practitioner.
MS. COTTING replied, Mike Ford, Legal Services, drafter of HB 2,
assured her that this applies to all disabilities, to all disabled
people, not just veterans.
CHAIR JAMES further explained that vehicles owned by disabled
veterans, including persons disabled in the line of duty, and other
persons with disabilities is in existing law. The only change is
adding the advanced nurse practitioners as authorized to make those
determinations for any person who is disabled.
For purposes of this subsection, proof of disability may be
provided by a person licensed as a physician under AS 08.64 or
as an advanced nurse practitioner under AS 08.68.
Number 0118
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY indicated he could support HB 2 and stated,
"In looking at the criteria, it says a disabled veteran who is not
- and it is in the regulation - is not otherwise qualified under
this section, but he presents the department written proof that
this person is at least 70 percent disabled. So they would have to
bring that criteria to the nurse practitioner, and then the nurse
practitioner verifies it, is that correct?"
MS. COTTING replied she believes the nurse practitioner is the one
who verifies it, and then the form is taken to the Division of
Motor Vehicles.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out the only difference is that they can take
the form to a nurse practitioner or a doctor. Currently the
disabled can only take the form to a doctor and it's not
necessarily presumed that that's going to be the doctor that's
going to make the determination. She reiterated the requirements
to determine the 70 percent disability doesn't change, it only
allows a nurse practitioner to do the same thing a doctor would do
in verifying the documentation.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "The bill suggests that an advanced nurse
practitioner, under AS 08.68, and then it doesn't define it past
that. Alaska Statute 08.68 is the whole title of the Board of
Nursing. Might I suggest we tighten it down - and I'm looking for
the section under 'advanced nurse practitioner' - I'm not sure
exactly where it is."
CHAIR JAMES noted the legislature has been working on adding
language throughout the past few years. She reiterated that this
was required to allow nurse practitioners to operate in the rural
areas where a physician isn't available. They can contact a
physician and are able to pass on that authority given to them by
phone. Chair James said, "To me that's a separate issue, if you
really want to know what the difference is, we need to find that in
the statute where it is defined, it probably is also in
regulation."
Number 0183
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed his concern that it could be
interpreted broadly. He indicated, for example a nurse's aid can
issue a certificate if it's just under AS 08.68.
CHAIR JAMES informed Representative Ogan that is not true and
explained "advanced nurse practitioner" is a title, a person has to
qualify for that certification.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned HB 2 amends AS 28.10.181, which is
licensing and making reference to the advanced nurse practitioner
under AS 08.68. He said, "Typically speaking, that's what we do.
We just draw reference to that which is the nurse practitioner.
That's the nurse practitioner's section within the statutes."
CHAIR JAMES said she agrees, but believes what Representative Ogan
is asking what you have to do to qualify for certification.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated it doesn't matter for this purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated, "I think we could clear it up by
amending the bill to say [AS] 08.68 -- that 410 - there's a
definition of advanced nurse practitioner in the bill and I would
move that as an amendment, just as a technical amendment."
MS. COTTING noted the bill drafter didn't think it was necessary.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Cotting to contact Mr. Ford since she isn't
aware of another reference to nurse practitioners under AS 08.68
and in 410. If that's the only place it is, then that would be
perfectly okay there.
Number 0235
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked Representative Ogan, "In the 410
section, is it defining only nurse practitioner, or is it specific
to advanced nurse practitioner?" He also said he is wondering if
it's even necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that he didn't know if it was necessary
or not. He indicated, under AS 08.68, a certified nurse's aid
could issue one of these. You may leave a loophole.
CHAIR JAMES said she doesn't feel uncomfortable with this and
referred to Anne Lilley's title, "Advanced Nurse Practitioner" is
capitalized in her letter. Chair James explained that it's a title
not a definition.
CHAIR JAMES called an at-ease at 8:20 a.m. and called the meeting
back to order at approximately 8:21 a.m.
MS. COTTING, after speaking with Mr. Ford, said the bill as written
would be referring to the whole chapter which regards licensing as
a whole procedure, not just a definition of a nurse practitioner.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN removed his motion for the amendment.
Number 0284
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move HB 2 out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
HJR 7 CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
HB 45 INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
Number 0300
CHAIR JAMES announced she would like to hear both HJR 7, "Proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to
initiative and referendum petitions," and HB 45, "An Act relating
to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an
effective date," together.
CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at-ease at 8:25 a.m. and called the
meeting back to order at approximately 8:26 a.m.
Number 0328
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS read his sponsor statement:
HB 45 and its companion measure, HJR 7, were introduced to
ensure statewide support of an issue prior to being put before
the voters.
The legislation would require signatures from 15% of those who
voted in the preceding general election in at least 75% of the
house districts for a question to reach the ballot.
Currently, because of our population dispersal, initiative
sponsors can easily gather the required signatures from single
areas of the state. The current system does not require a
statewide perspective in determining which topics will appear
on the ballot as amendments to state law.
I am concerned that the whole of Alaska will suffer as
question after question, of limited perspective, is placed on
the ballot.
I urge you to support this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS referred to the committee packet which
includes the summary of signatures gathered for an initiative vote
on the 1998 ballot sorted by election districts, including the
number of signatures gathered and whether the election district
would have qualified under HB 7 or HJR 45, and the section of the
constitution to be amended by this legislation. Also included is
a table showing the percentage of the state population in Anchorage
since 1990, tables showing the population of Anchorage from 1930
through 1970, a chart showing the population of the growth rate in
Alaska's five largest boroughs, and excerpts of the Constitutional
Conventional minutes regarding those subjects.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Representative Williams what recent
petitions or initiative issues, that have been on the ballot, does
he feel that maybe would not have passed if this were in place?
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied, "I wouldn't say any of the
initiatives wouldn't happen. What I'm saying is that you get a
better perspective from the whole state rather than one area. As
you can see on the billboard (initiative) for instance, that was on
this ballot, most of it came from one area and that was Anchorage.
And, I'm sure that it may have passed, but what I'd like to see is
these people that are getting the signatures, that they have to get
an overall state perspective rather than just Anchorage. Anchorage
is, as you see is, we have an influx of new people each year based
on out-of-state (indisc.) gather in the Anchorage area."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, "In order for this bill to be enacted we
have to - the constitution would have to be amended."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he believes that's how it reads.
Number 0389
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "If I'm interpreting it right, that means
that in two-thirds of the districts in the state, 15 percent of
those people within two-thirds of those districts will have to sign
the petition."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked it's currently 10 percent within
two-thirds.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS added, 10 percent of those who voted in the
last election.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reiterated, "If they get one person, in
two-thirds of the districts, and 10 percent of the aggregate of the
people that voted in the election, that qualifies (indisc.). Is
that correct?"
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied that he believes that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if 15 percent is an arbitrary number.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS responded that it is.
Number 0405
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated, "I really like this. ... I have
thought all along when we got to for example issues like the wolf
snaring and the billboard initiatives, and things of this nature,
they are important public policy. And expanding those to a broader
required sector of the state of Alaska and a little higher
percentage of them - we're only talking 15 percent of the
registered voters as opposed to 10 percent."
CHAIR JAMES pointed that out Anchorage holds approximately one-half
of the population of the state. If you don't live in Anchorage,
you're in a minority population and we need to have our voices
heard as well - to spread it around the state is a real benefit to
that. She mentioned we've seen the state of California manage
their government by their public vote and, in our representative
form of government, that is not the way it was intended to work.
CHAIR JAMES noted she is very supportive of this issue so
everyone's voice can be heard and referenced legislation that was
introduced last year regarding petitioners being paid for obtaining
signatures. She said it was found, by court cases, that we were
limited in that area, people can pay people to do things. Chair
James said she believes it's distressing when it can affect public
policy. However, we want to protect our rights and this extends
our rights to assure the minority has a place in that.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated he likes the 15 percent. However,
in districts that are large but sparsely populated, the ability to
get 15 percent might be a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS pointed out a good example would be the
district that covers Metlakatla to Kodiak. He said he believes it
would work with the types of communication and the transportation
system that currently exist.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she doesn't believe the Division of
Elections can accept fax or E-mail votes for petition signatures.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if a study has been done in Alaska's four
largest communities [Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and Ketchikan].
He said, "Obviously you're trying to raise the bar to what gets on
the ballot. ... I guess what I'm getting at is I'd like to see
rural Alaska be less disenfranchised in the initiative process
because a lot of these things are wildlife initiatives that affect
them very directly. And, I think it would be wonderful if they had
to fly around in a super cub, land in a village and start going
door to door, they'd probably get run out at that point - 'Do you
want us to stop snaring wolves,' you know. But rural Alaska is
disenfranchised in the process because in urban Alaska, they can
sit out there in front of the population centers - the way it's
written."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS deferred to the Division of Elections.
Number 0503
DANNA LATOUR, Administrative Officer, Division of Elections, Office
of the Lieutenant Governor, explained the division's responsibility
in this piece of legislation is essentially the same as they
currently operate under. This bill would require, when they do
their checking and verify signatures, that they would have to
assure through their computer programming change that signatures
have been verified, equal in the number of 15 percent of the people
who voted in the last general election in 30, or three-quarters of
the state's 40 election districts.
MS. LATOUR explained there are 25 election districts, counting the
Kenai Peninsula and the Mat-Susitna [Matanuska-Susitna] Borough,
those would be our urban districts. She noted the Division of
Elections feels this makes a change in their policy or the way they
do their work. The $3,000 fiscal note represents the minor changes
to their mainframe program that verifies those signatures.
CHAIR JAMES remarked at least five of the rural districts will have
to participate in order to get the initiative on the ballot and
mentioned there are 25 in the urban areas.
MS. LATOUR replied that's correct.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned there are 15 and at least five would have to
participate in it. She said she believes that's better than it
currently is.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed with the correction [three-quarter not
two-thirds]. Currently it takes one signature from a district, you
have to have 10 percent of the aggregate of everybody that voted,
and at least one signature from two-thirds of the House district.
CHAIR JAMES agreed that one signature from two-thirds of the House
district isn't very many.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN added that it's not like a consensus in that
particular House district.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if it would be more difficult to get
petitions in the more sparse areas than it would be in the more
densely populated districts. He remarked he didn't believe doing
it electronically would work, that means we're going to have to go
from village to village in some of the rather large districts,
maybe the 15 percent becomes a hindrance for them.
Number 0546
MS. LATOUR explained how an initiative petition is circulated and
how they receive them. Typically the three prime sponsors on an
initiative petition, and the initial 100 sponsors recruit
additional sponsors for an initiative petition. She further
stated, "This bill, I guess would place more onus on those sponsors
to make sure that they have representation throughout the state so
they may go search out someone who looks at their issue favorably,
in a town like McGrath, and find a person in that community who
would serve as a signature gatherer. So, it's going to take more
work on the side of the prime sponsors and those people backing the
issue."
MS. LATOUR continued, "As far as getting the petition booklets
back, our requirement is that those booklets be submitted to our
office as one unit. So, it would take more time to gather those
booklets from across the state as the one-year calendar, the
clocks, you know continues to wind-down. Other than that, I don't
know any other impact it would have other than the sponsors being
responsible for finding people to circulate the petitions out
there."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that does answer his question,
getting sponsors in each locality obviously is going to be very
important. And, of course the empty petitions can be transmitted
electronically and then the sponsor would have to be designated by
whoever is driving that petition through.
Number 0565
MS. LATOUR informed the committee members that each initiative
petition booklet has to be sequentially numbered. She indicated
that she didn't recall talking about the prospect of faxing an
entire booklet. Ms. LaTour said, "We staple those booklets as
we're going through the verification process, we don't really
require that they come back to us stapled. But knowing that the
booklet ... comes back to us in the same condition that it went out
tells us that someone didn't take that book apart and spread those
pages out through a number of locations. It's the responsibility
of the petition gatherer to make sure that they're with that
booklet to gather those signatures. And so for that reason, we've
never considered electronically transmitting the booklets or having
prime sponsors transmit those booklets in that fashion."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reiterated that he likes the idea of moving
up to 15 percent in districts, and 30 as opposed the 27 for the
very reasons that were spoken here. Now they can't just be done in
the urban parts of the state. They'd have to go out to rural areas
as well. He concluded that he believes that's really good when
you're amending the constitution. Representative Hudson asked how
difficult it would be to get 15 percent of the voters at any given
time.
CHAIR JAMES said 15 percent of those who voted in the preceding
election - that's probably not very many even if there was a poor
voter turnout. She said she believes 15 percent would be a
reasonable number.
CHAIR JAMES remarked, "To follow up on Representative Hudson's, I
like the three-fourths only because of the numbers we've already
calculated, that there are 25 urban areas, and so, if you want to
get just to rural areas, that really isn't representative of the
rural areas. At least you got five out of fifteen, that's a third
of them, and so that's more fair I think to get - assuming that we
have a piece of legislation that's proposed that might be
detrimental to the people in the rural areas and that they would
want to have a strong voice against it. It may well be that that's
where the issue comes from - is that we are trying to do something
for them and not against them but to have a standard
responsibility."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. LaTour to provide the committee an
accounting of how many voted in each of the districts so that the
committee could determine what 15 percent would be [provided in the
packet]. He reiterated that currently some districts only have to
have one.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA implied the petition process in Alaska was
written to be an easy way for people to get things onto the ballot.
She asked Ms. LaTour if she knew of the constitutional history
behind that and why the drafters would have drafted it (indisc.)
that.
MS. LATOUR replied no.
Number 0627
BETTY ROLLINS testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 45. She said, "It's obvious that none of the
people that are speaking there today have ever stood on a street
corner or attempted to get an initiative on the books. If you're
Mr. George Soros, with a billion bucks in your pocket, you probably
can do it. Other than to thwart and deny the Alaskan's the right
to the initiative process, I can see absolutely no reason for the
change in this legislation."
MS. ROLLINS referred to the Constitutional Convention, pages 1028,
1136 to 1142, and pages 1180 to 1183. She stated, "You'll find
that they ... tried to make it 15 percent, some tried to make it 8
percent - the ones that did not want the citizens to have an
initiative process tried to make it 15 percent. And, it was very
evident ... that was the object. So, they finally did decide on 10
percent and the three-fourths. And, at the present time, I really
believe if state employees, Division of Elections, and other people
would seriously look at some of these petitions -- number one, the
question was also asked how many of these petitions would have
passed this past election if the 15 percent were in effect, none,
absolutely none. And if you look back at what happened ... most,
I think all but one had to go back the second time. They turn them
in, and then if they don't have enough, they come back and get more
signatures within a specific time period. And, there's only one
that had an adequate number of signatures during this last
go-around. So absolutely none of them would have made it, even
under Sharp's bill of last year. And under this, 15 percent is a
lot, a lot, a lot of people, let me tell you, I've stood on a
street corner."
MS. ROLLINS continued, "Now I find that the problem, and there's
really nothing you can do about it as you say there's court cases
that say you have to be able to pay sponsors. But in this last
election, I was very interested because of the marijuana
initiative. There were two people ... who gave an address of ...
Lyman Lane in North Pole. I tried to get in touch with these
people because I wanted to talk to them. These people don't exist
in the state of Alaska. I have reported this to the Division of
Elections. I reported to the Ombudsman. They have no driver's
license, they've never applied for a permanent fund - any record
that I could have checked, I have checked. And there's another
individual, who in an eight-week period got almost 8,000
signatures. I've stood on a street corner, I asked if they could
possibly check and find out if these signatures were valid, some
way to check."
MS. ROLLINS concluded, "I think, if we should sort of put our
finger in the dyke and try to get rid of some of these leaks of our
initiative process, maybe we wouldn't have the problems. People
with money can get anything on an initiative - the marijuana
initiative, the wolf snare, that was money from out-of-state.
Matter in fact, the marijuana initiative was never written by an
Alaskan. It was written by 'Americans' for Medical Rights' in
California, ... it was funded by George Soros. These are the
problems that we have in Alaska. And, because of their rights and
the court cases, there's very little that can be done about some of
these things. But at least we could check when we find problems
with an initiative. People that don't exist, we could check and
find out about them."
Number 0685
CHAIR JAMES referred to Ms. Rollins comment that "None would have
passed under this new rule." Chair James said she suspects they
may have passed anyway, however, they would have a different
configuration of signatures and that might have made it more
difficult. As more and more people are moving into the Anchorage
area, and many of the rural people are moving into the urban areas,
we get a more disproportionate representation of the people in the
sparsely populated areas. Anything we can do to be sure that their
voice is heard is a positive step.
CHAIR JAMES explained "mob rule" is when we make decisions by
poles, petitions, or anywhere where the influence over the
decision-making process is done without taking a vote, and without
being sure that you have proper representation from all the
districts. We have a district plan in our government to protect
the people in every district to give them a voice. Alaska is
probably more out of balance on those issues than any other state.
She said, "As long as we have no surface transportation to many of
the areas in our state, it's going to continue this way because as
rural people get employment, they're going to have to come to town
to be able to get their employment. So we want to be sure that we
protect the entire state."
CHAIR JAMES further stated, "We keep saying, 'Well all these other
states do it this way,' I have that favorite saying, 'We don't care
how they do it out there. We have to do it our way and we have to
deal with our conditions and our 365 million acres of land in
Alaska, with shortly over 600 thousand population. That's a
different kind of configuration than any other state has to deal
with. There's no one who has those kinds of proportions." Chair
James asked what are the other committee assignments for HJR 7 and
HB 45.
Number 0721
KYLE JOHANSEN, Legislative Aid to Representative Williams, replied
the next referrals are Judiciary and Finance Committees for HJR 7,
and Finance for HB 45.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned he would provide minutes from the
Constitutional Convention on referendums.
CHAIR JAMES suggested, "It might be, Representative Ogan..." [End
of tape].
TAPE 99-1, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIR JAMES stated she is very supportive of the constitutional
form of government because it sets the parameters. And, before the
parameters are changed, you have to have good reasons. It's not
necessarily easy to do that. She pointed out, "When we do things
by popular demand, it does not necessarily always fall under the
purview of our constitution. So, I think that's really an
important thing to see what they were thinking at the time.
However, I'm past understanding that they couldn't possibly have
thought of everything. Most of the time, when your setting up
parameters, there are some people who can figure out how to make it
to their advantage. And what happens when too much - of people
taking advantage of something - that they couldn't have seen when
they wrote the constitution, or couldn't have thought of - then
that's when we need to make an amendment."
CHAIR JAMES summarized that we need to be sure that we follow the
proper steps in making an amendment. To get an amendment out to
the people to vote, 67 percent of the districts have to say yes we
want that on the ballot. So, that's a real control for our
constitutional amendment and we should not change our constitution
easily.
Number 0037
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL called attention to the statistics included
in the committee packet. He reported 38 percent of the districts
passed the last five referendums. This is an average of 15
districts. This also indicates that the urban districts can have
a tremendous amount of clout.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reiterated that he supports this initiative
because they're going to have to go through the standing rules to
get this. He also mentioned he is concerned about the logistics of
getting petitions out through rural areas and that it hasn't been
answered to his satisfaction. He concluded that he supports this
initiative simply because it makes the vast majority of our
districts accountable to have changed our constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated we are trying to strike a balance to
make sure everybody is equally represented. He declared his
concern is in the 15 percent of each of the districts and would
feel somewhat more comfortable if that were 10 percent because it
would still require some effort and initiative. And, of course, it
would require that they go out to at least three more districts -
which isn't currently required.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he believes the one vote in any one
district is wrong. He mentioned he would like to have more time to
consider this legislation.
CHAIR JAMES explained she understands the current reading is you
have to have an accumulation of 10 percent of the voters that voted
in the last election, and they have to be from at least two-thirds
of the House districts, one in a House district is enough. Isn't
that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied it's currently 15 percent in each one
of the 30.
CHAIR JAMES further remarked, "You're talking about - under this -
but under the old way, they could get one and that's not enough.
That's not enough particularly when almost every decision that we
have made ... in the legislature, and every initiative that is
passed, has a different effect on the urban areas than it does on
the rural areas." Chair James said she doesn't know if 15 percent
or 10 percent is too many, but one is not enough. She said she
believes they need to have some kind of a challenge to be sure that
-- even 10 percent isn't a popular vote in that district. A small
number of people could put an initiative on the ballot that was
totally averse to the area.
Number 0149
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY explained his understanding of an initiative
and a referendum petition is to make readily available the public's
ability to bring about change in government. And, we're talking
about representative government in the House and the Senate by
representation by the majority. He said these changes actually
redefine majority. It's not necessarily the majority of the
population, it's the majority of the districts represented within
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY noted his concern is that we're changing the
definition of representative government. He said, "Is it up to
change - to strike the balance as you suggested because we're
changing the stripe."
CHAIR JAMES said that she understood Representative Smalley's
concern. She further stated, "It's true that we are changing the
stripes of this and that 51 percent then, instead of the two-thirds
in the existing bill if (indisc.) now - then 51 percent of the
districts could make the decision to put this on the ballot.
However, that was only one vote out of many of districts. So, I
think that, if we're going to stand by your definition of the
majority which is in cases of legislation, 51 percent - then that
would mean that in order to get it on the ballot we'd need 51
percent of the people in at least 51 percent of the districts - and
if we were going to get a true majority view. And so, I don't
think that in the initiative process that it's intended to be
strictly with the representative form of government, but certainly
we have to protect the minority. That's the whole issue of
parliamentary law is that the majority rules, but the minority's
heard. In this particular case the minority is not heard, so I
think we need to make some changes. I don't know what the changes
need to be but I think we need to expand that."
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY explained it wasn't his point to change the
51 percent. Changing it to three-quarters is the problem that he
is having.
CHAIR JAMES agreed. She said the only time she was convinced that
the three-quarters was necessary was when she received the numbers
that 25 percent of the districts could qualify as urban and only 15
percent in the rural area. She further stated, "If you even stay
with two-thirds, it's only a couple of them. And that's too small
a percentage of the rural area to satisfy me. We have to have a
bigger representation I think, otherwise, they're run over with a
truck."
Number 0221
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she would like to know why the
drafters actually made it so broad because this does change the
constitution. Secondly, no matter what happens, everyone has the
right to vote and has less of a concern because this is a route by
which individuals can get things on the ballot where the whole
state gets to vote. She stated, "If we are concerned about
impacting rural Alaska, I too am concerned about the 15 percent
because I think that in some of the rural districts that's going to
be extremely hard to get. And that in a weird way it kind of turns
around the problem and may make it more difficult for those people
to have a voice."
CHAIR JAMES announced she is willing to hold the bill for further
consideration.
Number 0275
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON offered Amendment 1, page 1, line 11 of HJR
7, remove 15 and replace it with 10 percent. That there be at
least 10 percent in each House district.
to at least ten percent of those who voted in the preceding
general election in the house district.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected. He said, "If we lower it to 10
percent, then I would like to see it all the House districts in the
state. And there's precedence for that, and I have, in a committee
packet on another bill, a breakdown of different states and what
they have done. ... I guess I might move that as a friendly
amendment to the amendment if the mover of the first amendment
doesn't object and I'd certainly like to have the bill sponsor
weigh in on that. I could tell you that would get my vote on this
bill."
CHAIR JAMES stated that amendment is too complicated, that they
should handle that in a separate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN maintained his objection. He suggested the
bill should not be amended at this meeting, possibly at the next
meeting.
Number 0362
CHAIR JAMES asked for a roll call vote on Amendment 1.
Representative Hudson, Smalley, Coghill, Kerttula and James voted
in favor of the amendment. Representative Ogan and Whitaker voted
against the amendment. Amendment 1 of HJR 7 passed by a vote of 5
to 2.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked for a point of clarification. He asked,
"Did we amend the House Joint Resolution."
CHAIR JAMES confirmed that the amendment was made to HJR 7. She
pointed out the committee also addressed HB 45.
CHAIR JAMES suggested assigning HJR 7 and HB 45 to a work session;
creating a CS and then bring that to the committee.
HB 74 SALARIES FOR CERTAIN STATE OFFICIALS
Number 0433
CHAIR JAMES announced HB 74, "An Act relating to salary caps and to
the power to transfer certain positions to the classified service
and entitlement to longevity increments for certain state
officials," is before the committee and that she didn't plan on
moving it out of committee today.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that she had a conflict with this
piece of legislation, because her husband, her sister, and her
cousin all work for the State of Alaska and could be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY objected.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Please consider this bill, not as an
end, but as a beginning in making the necessary reductions to our
new fiscal reality. You have in your packets a comparison of the
governor's budget and the legislature's from 1996 through 1999.
Also provided is a summary by Pam Varni from Legislative Affairs
outlining the very responsible consistent reforms the legislative
branch of the government has taken to respond to public demands for
a leaner more efficient government. Please take time to review it.
It is an excellent model for the Administration to use as an
example of how to do more with less."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN continued, "Also in your packet is a fiscal
note that shows a savings of at least $3 million in salaries in
certain partially-exempt, and exempt persons within the
Administration were capped at a range 21, step F. I fully expect
the Administration to raise arguments of the people who supervise,
now being paid less than those they direct. This bill is not
unique in that regard. In fact there are many employees who not
only make more than directors, or commissioners; they make more
than the Governor does. Perhaps someone in the Administration
could tell the committee how many employees in our state have a
high salary higher than the Governor's. I expect the
Administration to show us the list of some 32 legislative employees
who are not capped at 21-F."
Number 0468
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "I recognize that these employees, with
a high degree of education credentials or responsibility, should be
offered more in wages. In HB 74 I have intentionally provided a
section for similar exemptions for the Administration. And we're
open to expanding that list and I think a good example of that is
something I read in the newspaper about a gentleman who has to be
a doctor, whose a director of a division, and certainly that would
be a rational exemption. I also expect to hear the argument that
qualified people will not work for salaries that are too low."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN continued, "The expertise argument fails on at
least two counts. First, many of these political positions are
political. If expertise and institutional knowledge were important
there would not be a huge turnover in these positions. ... With
each administration that comes in a lot of people that had these
positions were removed, not because they were doing a poor job, but
simply they were in the wrong party. And that is, of course, the
prerogative of the Governor, because they serve in his pleasure.
If these positions were advertised at a 21-F, as the legislature
currently offers, the Administration would undoubtedly find many
applicants, especially during this downturn period. I think there
are at least 600 people that were laid off a week or two ago from
one of the major oil companies and I imagine a lot of those guys
would be good managers. They might have the wrong letter behind
their name, but they would be good managers."
Number 0493
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN continued, "For example, our new Commissioner,
Ed Flanagan, has taken, as have other administrator's in the past,
pay cuts when he was promoted. In Mr. Flanagan's case it has been
reported the cut would be about $3,000 a year as he goes from
deputy commissioner to commissioner. Perhaps the Administration
could give other examples of cuts for promotions."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "I have also heard comments about the
recent wage and benefit study showing top-level ranges being within
the standards of the private sector. Madam Chair, could this be
the same study, which was criticized just few short weeks ago by
the same Administration as being politically motivated and not
accurate? Let's take a look at the executive summary of the study.
On page 2, if you have it in your packet, the executive summary
shows":
The costs of benefits for state employees are substantially
higher than the survey participants. Now I think the study
shows that the high level of exempt employees, their salary
compensation is fairly consistent. But it also says the state
contributions toward medical is 31 percent higher than the
private sector. The state contributions toward SBS
(Supplemental Benefits System) and PERS (Public Employees'
Retirement System) is 25 percent higher and paid time off
benefits for state employees is 48 percent higher than the
average surveyed participant.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN further stated, "The question of whether or not
a person takes a professional position needs to be asked, not on
salary alone, but on the entire package available. And we haven't
even addressed in those figures the travel, and we've got some
information in there on what the travel of a lot these people are
and the airline miles. Now I know, I'm consistently taken to task,
as a legislator, for my high salary, and my opponents always point
out what the total package for the cost of me being a legislator,
which includes my office account, any travel that I do, my moving
expenses, and those. And they all say well you max x-amount of
dollars per year. And if we look at it critically with that point
of view, some of these folks are pushing $200 thousand."
Number 0528
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "The committee needs to know what the
total typical benefit package is worth for a range 28, step F
position. I respectfully ask the chair to request that
information. This is a political business, not a corporate
performance driven entity. Many of the positions in this bill are
political appointees, first and foremost. I do not mean to suggest
that credentials are not necessary, but experts of the wrong
political persuasion are simply not hired for these positions. In
other words, expertise is not always the primary hiring criteria."
Number 0535
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN continued, "This Administration contains at
least 30 persons who once worked for the legislature. Just like
our staff, they once traveled to Juneau twice yearly without
reimbursement, they managed two residences, worked long hours and
received no travel budget or area pay differential. And I would
suggest Madam Chair that we have some pretty fine employees around
here who are pretty highly qualified. And actually I know some
employees who are pretty highly educated. .... With a few
exceptions these employees are all capped at range 21-F. Why were
these professionals originally attracted to the legislative jobs?
Were they any less talented or ambitious when they held positions
here? The point is, we have similarly qualified professionals
working with vastly different compensation packages."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN added, "As members look at these financial
notes, please also consider all the benefits and additional perks.
The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee examined the travel of
deputy commissioners and directors and we have that handout.
Please note the costs to the state with airline miles being
accumulated as additional personal benefits to all who travel. We
don't address that in the bill, but I would just like to state for
the record that if everyone in the state was willing to give up
their airline miles as a perk, I would certainly be willing to go
along with that and as we build up our accounts - be able to credit
those for our state travel. What's good for the goose is good for
the gander."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, "Can we afford to make further
legislative cuts and leave the Administration whole? Should we
eliminate positions rather than reduce salaries? Should we reduce
benefits and leave salaries and positions alone?"
Number 0564
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN followed, "I do not have the final answer. I
do know the governor has asked the private sector; our constituents
to sacrifice and cut their budget. As the Governor himself has
emphasized we are all going to have to make some adjustments. I
have asked the persons affected by this bill, many I know very
well, to please suggest their ideas for responding to our revenue
shortfalls. I am asking them to step up, as they support their
governor who is asking the public to pay taxes."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN closed, urging the committee to use this bill
as a place to find facts, to ask hard questions, to encourage
solutions and not controversy. Let it be a beginning point for
those, who the public looks to for leadership, to do so by example.
He said, "As we discover positions, which should be exempt, we may
add them into the section in the bill established for that purpose.
After all that has been examined, and if we find adjustments to the
caps in this bill are fair and necessary, I am prepared to discuss
those changes."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Representative Ogan if his concept
takes into consideration the level of responsibility in the pay
structure.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied, "Yes sir, I think (indisc.--a
teleconference network glitch) as far as the responsibility with
the governor, and many directors, and many deputy commissioners,
and even commissioners are paid more than the governor. And many
directors are paid more than commissioners."
Number 0579
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he believes that is a wrong comparison.
For example, director of the Alaska Marine Highway, is responsible
for one of the largest passenger liners in America, which entails
managing 700 personnel, a fleet of ships, and all of the politics
and rigors of the schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned that he has taken into consideration,
there being certain exemptions, as stated in a section of the bill
on page 2, line 4. Some people have a certain level of
responsibility that the committee may wish to give deference to.
There is something wrong with the system when people that have the
ultimate responsibility are paid less than the people under them.
Number 0627
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether or not there was going to be
a geographic differential, for example are people in Nome going to
get paid the same as people in Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that's correct and urged the
Administration to use the legislature as an example.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mentioned some of the legislative staff
don't work year-round.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the legislative staff does work
year-round.
CHAIR JAMES clarified that some employees work year-round and some
don't.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to Section 4. She said it
wouldn't allow for any pay increments for the deputies. They could
never get a pay increase once they came in that would be as it is
drafted.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that's correct. If they're at their
maximum pay range, that's the maximum they could get.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, "Was it your intention to never
allow a pay raise, though, because that appears to be how it's
written right now?"
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that would be correct.
Number 0647
CHAIR JAMES asked, "We're talking about political appointees, not
people that are hired for long periods of time. We're talking
about political appointees in this case aren't we? ... Political
appointees not people that are hired through the hiring process ...
in collective bargaining and those kinds of things?"
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied, "That's correct Madam Chair. It's
simply political appointees and it's pretty well defined I believe
and they'd be held at the same standard as our legislative
employees because they are essentially political employees. I mean
we hire them at our will and they serve at our pleasure."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "We are talking about deputy
commissioners, assistant commissioners, and directors. I guess the
problem that I have is that we have many people down beneath the
directors and the commissioners who are already up in range 22 to
24 -- and the high salary grades because they've been around for
many years. My concern is that, and while I accept the prime
sponsor of the bill as a point to start from and to really start
thinking seriously about how we can reduce are cost of government,
we have collective bargaining, we have responsibilities and they're
almost contractual responsibilities. I think we'd have to really
look seriously at whether or not we don't have to go back; if we're
going to take care of the division director are we going to then be
forced to go back in and take care of everybody else that would
earn a higher salary, because they've been there longer or because
they have earned it and they're collectively bargained for a
particular position."
CHAIR JAMES stated, "This is my seventh year here. And I've been
concerned about the parameters in which we hire legislative staff.
... They are more restrictive I believe than the Administration.
But for legislative staff there is the number movement. If you
started at a 21 and ... the next year you get a merit increase.
But if you get to 21-F you're at the top and you can't go any
further. Some of these folks that have been hired at 21 already
are at 21-F because they have been working elsewhere in the State
... and are qualified for a higher appointed amount. It's very
difficult to compare ... with other employees, where legislative
employees are hired for seven days a week, 24-hours a day ... with
no overtime." People that are not from Juneau have to pay their
own way and we're not having a shortage of finding people who want
to work. It is like comparing "apples and oranges" when people are
hired to work for the Administration, and when people are hired to
work for the legislature."
TAPE 99-2, SIDE A
[Approximately three minutes of testimony was lost due to recorder
malfunction].
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that what spurred this legislation was a
discussion with some high-level executives of the oil companies
attending the Alliance Conference. One of the oil companies said
that their executive budget has been cut by 50 percent. They have
profit-driven programs as opposed to constitutionally mandated
programs, which is different, but the reality is that they are on
the same fiscal stream. He said that he has yet to see any cuts on
the upper echelon of the bureaucracy. The legislature has made a
lot of cut backs, but the upper levels need to be made to
reorganize.
Number 0056
TOM BOUTIN mentioned he has lived in Alaska since 1973 and has
lived in Juneau since 1983. He said supports HB 74 and that he
believes the government needs to move toward solving its fiscal
problems, before asking the private sector to help. He said,
"State government took its oil money and bulked up and now it has
to adjust to reduce circumstances, that happens in the private
sector very often. Alaskans have a government that was built by
oil. Now a process needs to take place to determine how much
government we can have without oil. This bill brings an important
stakeholder, the executive branch management and professionals into
that process and certainly gets everyone's attention. I think the
legislature needs to do that and it needs to be done very soon.
Before coming here today I talked with people who currently have
state government positions that could be directly impacted if HB 74
became law. I think if you polled state employees the majority
might favor this bill over alternatives. I would not be surprised
if those who would have their salaries reduced by this bill would
favor this level of pay roll reduction over a state income tax."
MR. BOUTIN continued, "One person pointed out that salary cuts that
might result from HB 74 would be before tax and therefore the real
impact on take home pay would be better. I hope everyone could
agree that state payroll reductions would certainly would be more
efficient than new taxes and have a much smaller impact on the
Alaska economy. It will be interesting to what the fiscal notes
say; none were available when I checked yesterday."
MR. BOUTIN said, "Like many people in Alaska that I know - I've
worked for both the private sector and government. In working for
the government, I worked first for the Alaska Department of Revenue
and then for the Department of Natural Resources. The positions
were in the professional service and therefore exempt or partially
exempt. The Department of Revenue job was paying about $73
thousand a year; when I took the job at the Department of Natural
Resources that job paid $83 thousand a year. Public service should
not pay as much as the private sector. I have never worked for a
private sector firm which gave any where near as much paid
vacation, any where near the 13 paid holidays, nor the other
benefits, such as not having to pay social security and having the
Supplemental Benefits System, the additional Public Employee
Retirement System and a Deferred Compensation Plan."
MR. BOUTIN continued, "I have to tell you it was an eye-opener for
me to see people not only take sick leave when they were ill -
something I never encountered in the private sector, and also take
sick leave when family members were ill. Most importantly of all,
all of my private sector jobs had a normal work week of six,
ten-hour days including my first job in Alaska, which was a logging
engineer position at 'Ketchikan Pulp'. So, as far as I know,
professional positions, and that is what HB 74 impacts, continue to
be six tens in the private sector. The private sector manager has
to turn a dollar into jobs, costumer satisfaction, and at least a
dollar ten or a dollar and a quarter. Productivity is measured and
managers either earn their keep or they show them the door."
Number 0127
MR. BOUTIN said, "The type of budget cut proposed by HB 74 is not
unreasonable given the budget cuts that need to come. Hardly a
week goes by that some large lower 48 private sector firm doesn't
announce major payroll cut backs. Now Alaska government has to cut
back; it's unfortunate, but it's not unhealthy. It would be
unhealthy to not first reduce the costs of government. I think
that cutting the Alaska government payroll must take place, and
beginning at the higher echelons is good process and good
management."
MR. BOUTIN continued, "The rank and file should be much more
willing to understand the other changes that need to come if a
professional staff has first had to tighten its belt. If General
Motors had just lost all sales of the Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick
and Pontiac divisions, cutting the pay of top executives and
grounding the corporate jet fleet would be a meaningful symbol and
an important preliminary step to solving the problem. I think
symbolism is important in managing; I think that bringing every
part of an organization into the solution is good process.
Sometimes government people like to talk about the public as their
customers; I think that before you go to your customers to try to
raise prices, you need to reduce your own costs. HB 74 is a small,
but an important step."
MR. BOUTIN further stated, "State government is spending at least
$3 million more than it is taking in each day, about $7 thousand
per minute based on a 7.5-hour day, therefore, I'm expecting many
measures like HB 74 to be enacted. I think that the private sector
is expecting measures like this to be implemented before any
discussion of new taxes, I know I am. I keep reading in the
newspapers that this budget situation needs to be explained to the
public; the thinking seems to be that a person who works 30-hours
a week at K-Mart and 30-hours a week at Costco, with no benefits,
would say fine to an income tax if only she understood how much
state revenues have diminished. I think it's curious that no one
is first trying to bring the 21 thousand state employees into the
process."
MR. BOUTIN said, "HB 74 goes a long way toward doing that, a good
beginning. I also think the public would take notice if it were
quickly enacted. For several years now the Alaska legislature has
shown leadership, taken the heat. HB 74 demonstrates the sort-of
leadership that is needed right now."
Number 0174
MR. BOUTIN concluded, "The final point I want to make is that in my
experience, legislative staffers work very hard compared to
Administration personnel. Of course there are hard working people
in every administration, but I'd be quite surprised if anyone does
not believe that legislative staffers work harder. The key point
is that every legislative staffer works hard, by hard worker I'm
talking about people who come in early and work late, always
working against deadlines, always producing. The Administration's
managers can spend a lot of time traveling, going to meetings,
churning, going to the Anchorage Board Room any Friday night, yet
you call their offices on Saturdays and most of those people aren't
at work; they don't work Sundays either. After a while you come to
realize they do not intend to make up the work they missed when
they were traveling and sitting in meetings. If the top pay of a
legislative staffer is going to be used as a benchmark for
government workers, then I don't think that any government pay
level should exceed what the legislature pays even if oil goes back
to $25. Please move this bill on behalf of the legislative staff
that will be on this floor working this Saturday, and for the woman
who works 30-hours a week at Costco and 30-hours a week at K-Mart
just to make ends meet."
Number 0203
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration,
said that she is here on behalf of the Administration to oppose HB
74. The concern is one that Representative Hudson has already
expressed. That is qualifications are very important for these
positions, but the underlying responsibility is really the
benchmark against which we determine our compensation policy. When
you look at the responsibilities of the director level people, and
the Alaska Marine Highway example is a good one, where the
management responsibility includes management of several millions
of dollars and several hundred employees on a year-round basis. It
is difficult to compare that job with that of a staff assistant to
the legislature. We need to be competitive not only internally to
state government, but also externally to attract good qualified
people to take these positions. She mentioned the Department of
Administration prepared the attached fiscal note.
MS. ELGEE explained, "There are a couple of points that I would
like to make on the benefit analysis that was raised by
Representative Ogan. He picked three specific areas of benefits
that the study showed were higher than their comparables that they
used in conducting that study. The overall benefit package, they
said, was only 7 percent higher than the comparables. When you
take apart the pieces, the retirement and benefits are identical to
every public sector employee in the state of Alaska - be it a state
employee or a municipal employee. And, that is also recorded by
their 'KPMG' study, the retirement and benefits are identical. The
health benefits are I think overstated in their comparisons,
because they have compared a number of employees from outside of
the state of Alaska that participate in managed care plan
environments which we do not have available to use in this state."
MS. ELGEE further stated, "When you look at a comparison that is a
direct conventional plan comparison to the state of Alaska's costs,
on the employer side our costs are running from zero to 8 percent
higher. On the employee contribution side, our employees
contribute as much as 50 percent higher than the comparables that
are used in that study. And when you look at the paid time off
benefits, you end up with a distorted comparison because what
'KPMG' did was take the number of days off, convert it to dollars,
and then run it against a base level comparison where the dollars
that you're starting with are substantially different. If it is
look at it on a day-by-day basis, the people that we have working
for state government in an annual and sick leave environment do
have more paid days off than their comparables in the study. But
the majority of our employees are in a personal leave environment
and those employees actually receive less paid time off than the
comparables that were cited."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Ms. Elgee would be affected by the
passage of HB 74.
MS. ELGEE replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked why didn't the Administration send a
commissioner that does not have a conflict to testify on this.
MS. ELGEE replied that the time demands on the staff varied and she
agreed to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, "Is it the position of the
Administration that they take no cuts in salary or benefits?"
MS. ELGEE said she felt it's inappropriate to say that the
Administration is unwilling to consider any kind of reduction, but
they feel this approach is a wrong approach in terms of just taking
across the board action that ignores the level of responsibility of
the people that we're asking to perform these duties.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Elgee if the Administration is
willing to come up with some alternatives, with some changes.
MS. ELGEE replied that she was not in a position to make that
commitment, but would discuss that with the Administration.
Number 0287
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Elgee is she was the person who
normally would come before a committee to discuss salaries and
employment.
MS. ELGEE responded yes, as Deputy Commissioner of Administration,
this is one of her responsibilities.
Number 0293
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated for the records, "For exempt
employees, such as this bill would affect, they don't receive any
overtime pay for any of the extra hours that they work. Is that
right?"
MS. ELGEE replied, "The employees that would be impacted by this
bill, that is correct. There is no overtime compensation."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what percentage of our reduction would
this represent - approximately.
MS. ELGEE replied there is no one percentage reduction, because
you're impacting people in the commissioner's offices that are
anywhere from a range 23 to a 28. You're impacting directors that
are at a range 26 but in a variety of incremental steps. So, the
percentage reduction would be different for each employee.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it would be 15 percent, 20 percent,
25 percent.
MS. ELGEE said she would provide that information.
Number 0310
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to the fiscal note saying that it
provides for a cost savings of about $3.1 million. He said he
presumed that was made according to the specific position and step
that these affected members have at the present time. He said that
he believes the actual fiscal note would be many, many, many,
millions of dollars for this reason that you do not reduce the
salary of the boss without going down through the scales and
reducing the salaries of everybody that works for the boss.
CHAIR JAMES stated legislative staff is paid more than the
legislator at a range 10.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN gave the governor's and his chief of staff's
salary.
CHAIR JAMES explained there's a lot of unfairness out there. She
said in her first job that she took was with the Department of
Motor Vehicles and she made $166 a month, which included vacation
time and holidays. By the time she paid the babysitter, she
couldn't work for $166 a month so she went to work in the private
sector and made $1.26 per hour or approximately $2600 a year. The
private sector provided her with all the same benefits as the state
and more pay. She said the reason she says this is, at that time,
in 1950s, is people said that - especially women going back to work
after their families are gone, they could go to work for the state,
because you didn't have to have any special skills. So people
would go to work for the state for the benefits and assumed that
they would be making less money in their paycheck than what they
earned in the private section, that's the choice they made. Over
the years that has turned around, where working for the state, or
any kind of government, provides more pay plus great benefits.
Now, state jobs are much more sought after than private sector
jobs.
Number 0392
DON ETHERIDGE District, Local 71, appeared before the committee.
He stated, "None of our folks are effected by this bill directly,
but indirectly they all will be. And, I too, when I started with
state government was making a whole lot less than the private
sector, but we've worked to get it up, comparable. During pipeline
days, the state jobs weren't that well paid and the industry went
skyrocketing and ours held pretty much level. Now it's going the
other way, they took a big cut, our private sector folks, but our
state folks have been able to hold the line. One of our major
concerns if we start cutting state salaries then everybody else is
going to start losing also. And that's a major concern out there
because we don't need another 86 (1986) here, because there's too
many houses that were walked away from - and giving the keys back
to the banks and so forth."
MR. ETHERIDGE further stated, "First of all, I believe that all of
you deserve higher pay, I would do what you guys go through for the
pay you get and I don't know why you do. ... In response also to
the comment made that every time the Administration changes,
directors change, I know that's not true, I worked under a director
of the 'Highways Department' [Department of Highways] that was
there for over 20 years. He stayed on and on, through not only
different administrations but a different party - taking over the
Administration and he just kept right on going. And, if you get
some of these directors that get entrenched in there and they can't
afford to get rid of them because they know too much to do that.
I think that we need to protect these folks that are making the
decisions. When we're talking to people that are out spending our
state dollars, I want somebody that's qualified out there to spend
our state dollars. ... I want somebody that's got the
responsibility and will stay there and has an incentive to stay
there and do the job."
MR. ETHERIDGE continued, "When I worked for 'Marine Highways', I
made more money than the director. I made more money than the
governor did at certain times, but I also worked an excess of 1,000
hours a year of overtime in those years in order to do it because
we were so shorthanded we couldn't afford to hire help to give me
the break - which I would loved to have had. When you look out
there, there's many instances where the people are going to make
more money because of the hours they have to put in."
MR. ETHERIDGE further stated, "The comment of one of the gentlemen
testifying earlier, that you don't find directors and commissioners
in the offices on weekends, I've got news for him. I find lots of
them in here. I spend a lot of time in my office over the
weekends, especially when you guys are in session, and I have no
problem getting a hold of those people. I know that when you dial
the phone numbers for their switchboards, there is nobody at the
switchboards to answer them, but if you have the direct number to
their offices, you can get those folks, because they are there. I
spend a lot of time on the phone with them over the weekends. I
even call them at home at night, or whatever I have to do, if I've
got an issue that I need to work on - they are available. I've
never had one yet tell me, no matter what time of day or night I
call him, that he isn't going to talk to me."
Number 0456
MR. ETHERIDGE said, "I believe that you're going backwards in the
idea of equality here. Instead of trying downgrade the folks that
are doing these jobs, I believe the staff for the legislators -
they're underpaid, they're overworked, they put in so many more
hours than should be called for, but they deserve more and I'll be
the first one to stand here and argue it. If we could organize
them and bring them up - I'd love for the chance to do that. But
you guys don't let us do that for some reason. I also see a lot of
staffers here that are using this as a stepping-stone. ... And, I
would hate to see anything taken away from them - just to bring
them down to somebody else's level. I don't believe that's the
fair way to do this."
Number 0476
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Etheridge, "Is it your position that
there shouldn't be any salary reductions at all -- of the pain of
this budget shortfall should be more on the backs of the
taxpayers?"
MR. ETHERIDGE replied, "Yes, I believe that everybody in the state
should have to foot the bill of running the government. I see that
right now were talking of cutting public employees, commissioners,
and all these folks, wages on the facts that - well, we got less
oil dollars. People are getting laid off in the industry. The pay
cuts in the industry, and so forth. The state does not go up when
the product price goes up. State salaries don't do that. We have
to negotiate the prices to get them up and we have to work at them
to get them up. The oil industry, when the prices go up, their
executive get raises. ... But, our public employees - they've got
the same job every day and they're doing more with less out there
every day."
[HJR 7 and HB 74 were heard and held].
Number 0499
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee at
10:12 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|