ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 17, 2008
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act extending the statute of limitations for the filing of
complaints with the Alaska Public Offices Commission involving
state election campaigns."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
"An Act relating to a State Officers Compensation Commission and
establishing how legislators, the governor, the lieutenant
governor, and executive department heads shall be compensated;
providing for an effective date by repealing the effective dates
of certain sections of ch. 124, SLA 1986; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 262
"An Act relating to interfering with or obstructing a peace
officer's performance of official duties."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED to 01/19/08
HOUSE BILL NO. 296
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Parole;
and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED to 01/19/08
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 281
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN, GATTO
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA, JUD
01/17/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 260
SHORT TITLE: STATE OFFICERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DOOGAN
05/15/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/15/07 (H) STA, FIN
01/17/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE SICA, Staff
Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 281 on behalf of
Representative Lynn, sponsor.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281.
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 281.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 260 as prime sponsor.
SENATOR KIM ELTON
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As a private citizen and former member of
the salary commission, testified and answered questions during
the hearing on HB 260.
NICKI NEAL, Director
Division of Personnel & Labor Relations
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
260.
KARL KURTZ, Director
NCSL Trust for Representative Democracy Division
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comparison of other state
legislatures' commissions during the hearing on HB 260.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:05:04 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johnson, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Johansen and Doll arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 281-CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS
8:06:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 281, "An Act extending the statute of limitations for
the filing of complaints with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission involving state election campaigns."
8:07:33 AM
MIKE SICA, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 281 on behalf of Representative Lynn,
sponsor. He said the proposed bill will extend the statute of
limitations on campaign finance complaints from one year to five
years. Mr. Sica explained that the extended time limit on the
statute of limitations will benefit lawmakers, candidates, the
state, and the public. Furthermore, it will make the
investigation more credible, give people confidence in the
process, and will be fairer to everyone.
MR. SICA said the words "complaints," "investigations," and
"violations" have negative connotations, but the actions leading
to them are often unintentional. The cases in which someone has
intentionally committed a violation are, he said, thankfully few
and far between. Mr. Sica noted that since the statute of
limitations was lowered from four years to one, certain events
have happened that show the need to increase the statute of
limitations to at least four years, which is the amount of time
that has been recommended by the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC).
MR. SICA said a four-year statute of limitations was chosen
originally because "that is considered the norm on civil
violations that are tied to the election cycle of the longest
term of our state lawmakers." He told the committee that he has
spoken with representatives of APOC and those in the former
administration for an explanation of why the time was decreased
in 2003, and the answers he received varied from a desire to
streamline the process and save money to a wish to incorporate
APOC into the Office of the Attorney General, where the agency
would have more "teeth" for enforcement. But the end result, he
explained, was a one-year statute of limitation under the
auspices of an APOC with limited funding. He said, "What
happens is it looks like ... people are running out the clock
when that's in fact not what's happening." He continued:
The reason why we decided to go with five years was:
If we're going to fix it ..., rather than have four
years, why not have five years? If your maximum term
is four years and you can campaign as far out as 18
months before you're seated, that really is five and a
half years. So, ... if we're going to cover the
period, let's legitimately cover it. And I think most
of the people I've seen here in the last two sessions
are honest, hardworking people who are happy to be
held accountable. And I think it will just reflect
well on all of us.
8:11:40 AM
MR. SICA spoke of an expedited adjudication process. He said
from the time that APOC decides to investigate a violation to
the time that investigation is completed, 60 days have passed,
and that is not going to change. He added, "So, you still have
that speedy process, which, again, serves lawmakers, as well as
the public." Mr. Sica referred to a handout in the committee
packet showing statistics in other states. He said the statute
of limitations in other states ranges from none to a five-year
statute of limitations. He offered examples. He said some
states with shorter statute of limitations don't begin counting
the time until the discovery of a violation, as opposed to
counting from the time the violation was committed.
MR. SICA said that after speaking with the administrator of the
Select Committee on Ethics, he found out that some states have
both a longer statute of limitation, plus a clause similar to AS
24.60.170. He cited the last sentence of AS 24.60.170(a), which
read as follows:
The time limitations of this subsection do not bar
proceedings against a person who intentionally
prevents discovery of a violation of this chapter.
MR. SICA explained, "That is not in this bill right now; it's
just ... an interesting point we came across after filing it,
and it's something you may want to consider." Regarding the
$156,000 fiscal note, Mr. Sica stated that the bill sponsor
believes, "If we're going to ... rightly give them enough time
to conduct a credible investigation, we should also give them
the resources to conduct that."
8:14:05 AM
MR. SICA said the legislature is learning that it needs to
loosen some ethics laws, while tightening others. He offered
examples. He said [the statute of limitations] is an area that
needs tightening.
8:15:13 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that Brook Miles would be retiring in March
and he thanked her for her long and dedicated service to the
state.
8:15:43 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), testified in support of HB 281. She said it
has become apparent that a one-year statute of limitations does
not provide APOC with sufficient tools to respond to the
public's concerns regarding violations of the laws that the
commission administers. She confirmed Mr. Sica's statement that
APOC made the request for the expansion of the statute of
limitations from one year to four years. Furthermore, she
assured the committee that the commission would have no problem
if that increase were to be to five years, because such a period
would "encapsulate the first reporting required of a candidate
who ... could begin her campaign 18 months before the date of
the election."
MS. MILES reported that APOC worked with the Department of Law
(DOL) after determining that it was interested in requesting an
expansion of the statute of limitations, and that discussion
resulted in a couple suggestions. First, she asked that each
applicable law administered by APOC be codified - not only the
campaign disclosure law, AS 15.13, but also the regulation of
lobbying law, AS 24.45, the financial disclosure for legislators
law, AS 24.60.200-260, and the financial disclosure law for
executive branch and municipal officials and candidates, found
in AS 39.50. She said APOC is requesting a five-year statute of
limitations under each one of those laws. Additionally, APOC
would request that the statutory requirement for retention of
records both by APOC and by the filer be expanded to cover the
statute of limitations plus one year, which would equal a six-
year retention of records.
8:19:10 AM
MS. MILES said APOC has placed a fiscal note on the request,
because in addition to the tools for responding to the public's
concerns regarding violations of Alaska's disclosure laws, the
commission would need the resources to ensure that it could
expeditiously and competently conduct and conclude the
investigations within the required time. The cost of the fiscal
note, she said, would cover an investigator position and
paralegal that would be dedicated to the area of enforcement
related to the disclosure laws.
8:19:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if APOC has an "increment in the
operating budget."
8:20:12 AM
MS. MILES confirmed that since it was difficult for APOC to
predict where funding would be needed, it did ask for an
increment for contractual services relating to fiscal year 2009
(FY 09). In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Johansen, she said APOC saw an increase in its
budget over the prior year. She said the increase in last
year's operating budget was to restore the single investigator
position that APOC has currently.
8:21:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated that he thinks it is important to
keep track of all the increments in the fiscal notes and the
operating budget.
8:21:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that HB 281 would be heard by the
House Finance Committee. He asked if there is enough work to
keep the aforementioned paralegal and investigator continuously
working on legislative violations.
MS. MILES pointed out that the people in those positions would
be working on other documentation and filing. In response to a
follow-up question from Representative Coghill, she said one
goal in moving toward electronic filing is to make the work less
labor intensive. She stated, "It has always been our
consideration that once that system is up and running, ... this
agency itself will look at the funding, the reallocations of
staff resources, and, in all hope, be able to identify
efficiencies that may well result in future budget reductions."
8:24:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL expressed appreciation of the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to Ms. Miles' previous reference
to other statutory language, and he said he would be agreeable
to considering those other statutes along with the bill.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that he had not considered doing that.
8:25:58 AM
MR. SICA agreed that those areas in statute could be included in
the discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to Chair Lynn, said perhaps
the committee would need to expand the title, but that is a
point that could be weighed upon by the bill drafter. He said
if the committee is going to deal with the statute of
limitations, it would be good to consider all the areas in
statute at once, to avoid "unintended consequences."
8:28:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Ms. Miles if consideration of
additional factors related to the statute of limitations would
necessitate a higher fiscal note.
MS. MILES answered no. She explained that APOC would receive
complaints filed under the other laws, whether or not it expands
the statute of limitations under each of them.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON queried, "If you can double your work for
the same money, why can't you do the same work for the same
money now?"
MS. MILES said currently, with one investigator, it is not
always possible to meet the 60-day deadline. Furthermore, she
pointed out that with an extended period for the statute of
limitations, it would require more effort to find evidence and
interview witnesses. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Johnson, she stated, "If you don't expand statute
of limitations and you don't give us any funding, things will
stay the way they are."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarify: "If you can take this fiscal
note and double the work with it, could we cut it in half and
have you do the same work that you're doing, including just the
legislative and the elected officials?"
MS. MILES answered, "Probably not effectively."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said the math doesn't compute for him,
but he will address the issue later.
8:33:35 AM
MS. MILES, in response to a question from Representative Roses,
offered her understanding that the proposed legislation, if
passed, would not reopen cases that were filed and facts that
were alleged beyond the statute of limitations.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, in response to a comment made earlier by
Ms. Miles, asked who is reviewing the complaints currently, and
if the new investigator and paralegal would be working on them
in any spare time.
MS. MILES explained that currently, complaints are receiving the
most cursory review; they are not being addressed in a manner to
which the public expects.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said it appears there is more work to do on
the bill, and he recommended that the committee set it aside to
allow time for other considerations.
8:35:27 AM
CHAIR LYNN concurred, but said he would like to continue the
discussion at this time.
8:35:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN emphasized that he would like to see
technology make jobs easier, rather than seeing more jobs added
to each employee's check list because of the added technology.
He remarked that three half jobs are being done rather than one
job done well.
8:39:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she hopes there are employees paid a
lower wage for data entry rather than paying the investigator
and paralegal to do that work. She stated that it is clear that
analysts are needed.
8:40:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he disagrees with Ms. Miles' previous
statement regarding the public's expectations. He said he does
not think, for example, that the public expects details
regarding how many tenants he has in his apartments, although
that information is required in disclosure. What the public
expects, he stated, is that elected officials are representing
the best interests of everyone in the state - not just a
particular group, company, or individual with whom that elected
official may have some financial connection. He said a prudent
legislator is going to err on the side of caution and report
much more than he/she has to.
8:41:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN remarked that recent ethics training confirms
Representative Roses' comment that it is better to err on the
side of being overcautious.
8:43:53 AM
MS. MILES, in response to Representative Coghill, said it has
been almost over a decade since there has been a staff initiated
complaint. Ms. Miles reported that election cycles are usually
when APOC receives the most complaint activity. She noted that
in 2007, almost all the complaints filed with APOC were related
to the financial disclosure laws. Most complaints are usually
filed regarding the campaign disclosure law, although APOC also
receives complaints filed under the lobbying law. She said it
would be difficult to give the average of the number of
complaints. She recollected that APOC received 27 complaints
during the 2002 election cycle, approximately 12 complaints
during the 2004 cycle, and about 8 complaints during the 2006
cycle.
MS. MILES, regarding APOC's auditing process, said the document
would have to show an obvious and clear violation of law for
APOC to go forward with a staff-initiated complaint at that
point. The first contact, she said, would be to the filer, to
identify missing or inconsistent information and ask for
clarification from the filer. Since the agency is complaint-
driven with respect to its investigations, once a formal
investigation is commenced, she explained, the agency needs to
make clear to the respondent what is being alleged and offer
that respondent his/her full right of due process of law.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it has been his experience that when
he left information off a disclosure form, APOC has contacted
him, and he expressed his appreciation for that. Regarding the
statute of limitations, he said the committee could conjecture
whether or not the work load will increase for APOC; however, he
added, "Based on the complaint load, I just don't know that it
would." He indicated satisfaction with APOC's treatment of
staff-directed complaints as described by Ms. Miles.
8:48:10 AM
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AKPIRG), testified in support of HB 281. He
said AKPIRG has been in Alaska for over 30 years and has
approximately 1,500 members across the state. The agency works
to protect consumers and ensure that government is "responsive
to citizens at all levels." He said AKPIRG has long advocated
for stronger tools for and enforcement by APOC, and it sees HB
281 as one tool to use in restoring the public's trust in its
elected officials. He related a story about statute of
limitations running out. He said in such an instance, it is
easy to think that maybe the person regarding whom the complaint
was filed may have been hiding something, when it could just as
easily be that that person did nothing wrong. The proposed
bill, he said, would allow APOC to investigate cases that they
didn't get to investigate.
CHAIR LYNN expressed appreciation for Mr. Cleary's having shown
both sides of an issue.
8:51:55 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 281 was heard and held.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:52:32 AM to 8:56:29 AM.
HB 260-STATE OFFICERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
8:56:36 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 260, "An Act relating to a State Officers Compensation
Commission and establishing how legislators, the governor, the
lieutenant governor, and executive department heads shall be
compensated; providing for an effective date by repealing the
effective dates of certain sections of ch. 124, SLA 1986; and
providing for an effective date."
8:57:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 260 as prime sponsor. He said the bill would bring back into
existence a Commission that existed [as the Alaska Salary
Commission] from 1977 through 1979. He noted that there was an
attempt to reestablish the commission in the 1980s, which failed
for reasons that Representative Doogan said are not entirely
clear to him. He said the commission was tied to a
constitutional amendment that was never offered. He added, "And
part of the repealer language that you read in the title takes
... those provisions out of the law, which I think are ...
essentially the only repealers in there."
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN explained that the commission would be
comprised of five public members appointed by the governor, with
a member recommended from each of the presiding officers of the
legislative house. He said the job of the commission would be
to examine the compensation of the legislators and principle
officers of the State of Alaska and submit a report at least
every two years. The members of the commission would serve
without compensation. The recommendations of the commission
would become law if they were not disapproved by the legislature
within a 60-day period of that recommendation. The legislature
would essentially keep final authority because nothing
recommended would be funded without legislative appropriation.
He pointed out that there is a $7,500 fiscal note accompanying
the proposed bill. In response to Chair Lynn, he explained the
purpose of having recommendations made by the presiding officers
of each legislative house is to ensure that the governor has the
ability to choose members who can provide extra information and
council for the other members of the commission. He clarified
that legislators would not be nominated for the commission.
9:02:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES augmented Representative Doogan's response
to Chair Lynn by directing attention to the language of AS
39.23.510, shown on page 3, beginning on line 13, which read:
(a) A member of the commission may not be employed by
the state, including the University of Alaska, serve
as a member of another state board, commission, or
authority, or hold elective state or municipal office
during membership on the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN stated his intent in having the bill
drafted was to not put legislators in the position they are
currently in, which is essentially acting as the arbiters of
their own compensation. He described the [Alaska Salary
Commission] as "the last thing we've had that actually worked."
9:03:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES directed attention to language on page 3,
beginning on line 18, which read as follows:
(b) A member of the commission may not have served in
an office or position for which the commission shall
submit a recommendation under AS 39.23.540.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Representative Doogan if it is his
intent that a former legislator not be able to serve.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN explained that he was attempting to put
the legislature at arms length; however, if the committee wants
to include former members, that would be fine.
CHAIR LYNN suggested the language could specify that it be
someone who has been out of office for a certain period of time.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN illustrated that a former legislator who
had just served the prior year, being put in the position of
making salary decisions for those legislators he/she worked with
who are still in office, would not be very far removed from
serving on the commission while still in office.
9:05:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL suggested the need for further study of the
bill issue - perhaps through a subcommittee.
CHAIR LYNN noted that the next committee of referral is the
House Finance Committee.
9:06:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked why the bill sponsor included a
handout in the committee packet showing age groups of
legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that he wanted to confirm his
suspicion that "the level of compensation in the Alaska
Legislature skews the composition of that body compared to the
[general] population." He said there are more legislators
serving who are of advanced maturity than those serving who are
"out there trying to raise families and make a living." He said
one possibility for that statistic is that the compensation for
legislators is not sufficient for the latter group. He stated
that Alaskans in the 30- to 50-year-old range are substantially
underrepresented in the legislature, while those 50 and older
are overrepresented compared to their numbers in the general
population. He concluded, "I think it would be difficult to
imagine a reason for that happening that didn't include the
compensation."
9:09:19 AM
SENATOR KIM ELTON told the committee that he was testifying, not
as a senator, but as a private citizen who had past experience
as a member of the aforementioned salary commission. He
reviewed that in 1976, voters - through a referendum - repealed
pay raises and a generous retirement system that the legislature
had given itself. Subsequently, the five-member salary
commission was established by law.
SENATOR ELTON related that, unlike the proposed commission, the
original commission was charged not only with looking at the
salaries of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant
governor, and the commissioners, but also to make
recommendations on deputy commissioners, division directors,
sitting members of the commissions, and judicial salaries. He
said the original commission members were appointed by the
governor, as they would be to the proposed commission. He
recollected that given the overwhelming voice of the electorate,
what struck him about the public hearing process was that "most
of the people that showed up were people whose salaries we were
going to be adjusting or making recommendations about." The law
related to the original commission was a "take-it-or-leave-it"
law. He explained, "You couldn't cherry pick from the different
recommendations." He stated his understanding of HB 260 is that
"it would not take a vote of the legislature unless they were
prepared to reject the recommendations of the salary
commission." He said that is a different and perhaps better
approach, "given what happened back then."
SENATOR ELTON told the committee that the original commission
recommended a salary of $11,750 and a schedule for payment of
that salary to address the fact that the vast majority of a
legislator's expenses are spent at the start of the session in
order to move to the capital. Furthermore, that commission even
voted to provide one round-trip airfare for the legislator to
use to fly back to his/her district to meet with constituents.
The commission also recommended some benefits that he said now
he is not certain were good ideas. For example, for every bi-
annual term, a legislator reelected would be given a $500 pay
increase. Senator Elton said the legislature accepted the
$11,750 component, but did not accept the rest of the
recommendations. He stated that the former commission spent a
lot of time trying to figure out whether, regarding parity
issues, to "start at the bottom and work up" or "start at the
top and work down." He explained that because the purview of
the salary commission was broader than envisioned in HB 260, it
wanted to ensure that the scale of pay was commensurate with
rank. He said that was a difficult challenge, but it is one
that is mostly avoided in the proposed legislation.
9:16:13 AM
SENATOR ELTON commented on the length of time since that
original commission made decisions. He stated, "I think the
problem that actually prompted that salary commission informs
this bill, and it is certainly, perhaps, a better alternative
than asking legislators to do what they did in ... 1975, which
is to set their own salary." He noted that the State of
Washington uses an ongoing salary commission.
9:17:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON, in response to a question from
Representative Roses, said the original commission did not
require confirmation of the legislature, but was strictly
appointed by the governor. He said the purpose was to try to
separate the legislature as far from "any of the product that
might be presented back to them."
9:18:38 AM
SENATOR ELTON, in response to Representative Doll, regarding
what led to the commission's demise, said he thinks one issue
that became problematic was the notion that that salary
commission would present something; "it was kind of an all or
nothing." Also problematic was the broad scope of the
commission. The proposed legislation would have a much narrower
scope.
9:19:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Senator Elton to discuss the
public's expectation and the commission's expectation regarding
what a reasonable compensation package was.
9:21:00 AM
SENATOR ELTON recollected that there was not a lot of angst from
the public. Voters accepted the fact that the commission method
was a fairer process, because those getting raises were not
setting them for themselves. He said the angst occurred mostly
inside the building, where legislators would react to the
recommendations of the commission. For example, when the one
round-trip ticket was proposed, some legislators asked why it
would only be one, while others were concerned that their
constituents might feel one was too many.
9:24:20 AM
NICKI NEAL, Director, Division of Personnel & Labor Relations,
Department of Administration, answered questions during the
hearing on HB 260. She stated that the department has no
opinion on the bill at this time, but did prepare the fiscal
note. She stated that in preparing the fiscal note, the
division accounted for the cost of conducting meetings and
associated travel expenses. She noted that the division has the
means within its existing staff to, for example, survey other
states; however, if a more comprehensive study were needed,
there would be an added cost, because the state would have to
"contract out" to have it done.
9:25:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Neal to tell him what the scope
of availability is regarding contracting.
MS. NEAL said there are contractors available to conduct
studies. The division, she said, has a method of surveying
other states quickly and efficiently. She interpreted the
proposed legislation as providing that "it would be up to the
committee if they wanted us to go out and do something more
extensive; it would get their direction."
9:26:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN added:
One of the reasons for reducing the scope - the people
who are covered under this bill, as opposed to the
last salary commission - was to reduce the complexity
of the task in front of the salary commission .... I
tried to take what I considered to be the politically
sensitive salaries and limit it to that, so ... it
wouldn't have the necessity of going through any
expensive salary studies or anything like that,
because we're not going far enough down in the pecking
order or broadly enough, in terms of numbers, to
require that in all probability. At least that was my
thinking.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he concurs with Representative
Doogan in terms of bargaining, because that is a complicated
subject. He commented that everyone is competing for a smaller
workforce, he mentioned the demographics of the legislature, and
he indicated that he needs time to ponder what other states are
doing.
9:28:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said he does not think people run for the
legislature because they want to get rich, or become
commissioners because they cannot make money some place else.
He stated his intent is to keep the compensation from being a
barrier. He explained, "It's not really a recruitment and
retention issue to me so much as not just erecting a complete
barrier to people who would otherwise at least attempt to do
what it is we're doing."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred. He said the commission would
be tasked to look at equitable rate, so the word equitable is a
huge issue. He said he thinks "this public record" will help
the commission to find some direction in that regard. He added,
"Because otherwise they have to look at what ... probably could
be termed competitive rates rather than equitable rates."
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN reiterated his aforementioned point
regarding removing the barrier to public service.
9:31:03 AM
KARL KURTZ, Director, NCSL Trust for Representative Democracy
Division, National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL),
provided a comparison of other state legislatures' commissions
during the hearing on HB 260. He said he would talk about what
legislators are paid around the country compared to Alaska, and
what methods are used to calculate their compensation.
MR. KURTZ directed attention to a handout in the committee
packet, entitled, "Perspectives on Legislative Compensation."
He said it is often difficult to find out what legislators are
paid, because, for example, in extreme cases, some legislators
are paid only $5 a day in salary, but they get a lot of other
payments that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would count as
compensation. Mr. Kurtz said he did his best to show an
estimate of what an average legislator in each state earns from
legislative service, and he did that by combining salary, any
taxable per diem payment, and any other expense payments without
voucher that members could keep for themselves if they wished to
do so. Not included in his estimate, he said, are the
additional compensations given to Senate Presidents, Speakers of
the House, Majority Leaders, or committee chairs in many states.
9:34 a.m.
MR. KURTZ drew attention to a map in the aforementioned handout,
labeled, "Estimated Annual Compensation, 2007." The map shows
the 50 states, color-coded based upon the salaries of the
legislators. The categories are: more than $60,000 a year,
which includes California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New
York, Massachusetts, and Maryland; from $45,000-$59,000, which
includes Washington, Oklahoma, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, New
Jersey, and Delaware; from $30,000-$44.999, which includes
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North
Carolina, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Iowa, Minnesota,
Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii; from $15,000-$29,999,
which includes Idaho, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas,
Georgia, Indiana, West Virginia, Vermont, and Maine; and less
than $15,000, which includes Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and New Hampshire. Mr.
Kurtz said he figured the average for Alaska legislators is
approximately $33,000, which he arrived at by taking the $24,000
salary and adding the average $9,000 in interim per diem
payments. He noted that there are a number of Alaska
legislators who do not claim any interim payments, while others
claim substantially more. He noted that the states in the over
$60,000 category, for the most part, are those with the largest
population, in which the members of the legislature serve full-
time; therefore, it may seem surprising that the big state of
Texas pays its legislators such a low salary, but that state's
salaries are embedded in its state constitution, and the state
has had difficulty in changing that. The members of the
legislature in New Hampshire, he said, are paid $100 a year,
plus mileage compensation for their vehicles.
9:38:47 AM
MR. KURTZ directed attention to the next map, entitled, "Red,
White & Blue Legislatures." Those states shown in red have
legislators who are virtually full-time, well-paid, and have
large staffs. Those states are: California, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, and Florida. Those states shown in blue are the
classic citizen legislatures that meet only two or three months
of the year, have low pay and small staffs. Those states are:
Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, Indiana, West
Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island.
Those states shown in white are "hybrid." Those states include:
Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Connecticut.
MR. KURTZ directed attention to the next page of the handout,
which shows, "Compensation of Legislators." The chart shows the
average pay of legislators in 2007 versus 1972, for "red,"
"white," and "blue" states, with Alaska shown separately, and
the U.S. Congress included, as well. Alaska is slightly below
the average of those states in the white category, he noted.
Mr. Kurtz said he chose the year 1972, because that is the year
in which he began work for NCSL.
9:42:19 AM
MR. KURTZ turned to the next page, which shows "Real
Compensation" in "Constant Dollars," which uses the same groups
for comparison as the prior compensation chart. He stated, "In
most categories, there's been virtually no change in real terms
in the amount of compensation given to legislators over this 35-
year period of time;" however, both U.S. Congress and the State
of Alaska have suffered a significant decline in the value of
their salary against inflation.
MR. KURTZ highlighted the information on the next page, which
shows "Compensation Methods." The first category is states that
either have no commission at all or whose commission is on the
books, but is inactive. Well over 30 of the states fall into
that category, he noted. The second category is states in which
there is a commission, but that commission only makes
recommendations that can be accepted or rejected either by the
legislature or some other entity. Those states include:
Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, Virginia, and West Virginia. The
third category is states in which commission actions take effect
unless they are rejected by - depending upon the state - the
legislature, the governor, or - in the case of the State of
Arizona - a vote of the people. The fourth category is states
that have tied their salaries automatically to some kind of an
index in the state. He explained that that index could be
related to some kind of category of state workers or a cost of
living index or some other kind of economic index. The states
in this category are, with one exception, large population
states - Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin - but also include Montana.
MR. KURTZ said the fifth and final category applies only to the
State of Washington, where the commission has the complete power
to determine the compensation for the governor, the cabinet
officers, and the legislature, and according to that state's
constitution, the only way to overturn the Washington
commission's recommendation is through a citizen initiated
referendum. Mr. Kurtz remarked that in the course of the 20-
some years that the State of Washington's commission has been in
existence, that has never happened. He stated that the
Washington commission is comprised of 16 members, nine of which
are randomly drawn from the list of registered voters - one from
each district. Then there are seven other members selected from
five specific professions set forth in law. Those seven members
are selected by the Speaker of the House and the Senate
President.
9:49:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN described the proposed bill as a
positive step in considering the matter of compensation.
9:51:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN, in response to a question from
Representative Johansen, said the reason that the bill would
form a compensation commission as opposed to a salary commission
is that the legislation recognizes the fact that there are other
elements to compensation beside what is strictly called salary.
He said he has attempted to not be too prescriptive in terms of
what the commission would do, but he has in mind that the
commission would consider all elements of the compensation
package for "the people who are listed here." He said he thinks
that while there may be comparisons to other compensation
packages, he does not think there would be "any direct effect on
those from what the commission might do."
9:52:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 18, following "not":
Insert ", in the four years preceeding [sic] that
member's appointment"
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES explained, "I hate to see us eliminate the
possibility of having anybody that's served in public office
either at a state or municipal level be excluded from this
commission. Had we done that, the commission 30 years ago would
have been absent some of the members that they had."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 1. He explained
that he has not had time to study limitation regarding the bill.
He said he wants to see the amendment in writing.
9:54:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN mentioned a candidate for office who is
a former legislator who has been out of the legislature for four
or five years. He indicated that it might not look good for
someone who has been out of office for four years to get a
position on the commission, support a major change, and then
file to run for office the following year. He concurred with
Representative Coghill that the committee needs some time to
work out the issue.
9:55:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN, in response to Representative Johnson, said he had
hoped the bill would move out of committee today, but he
recognizes that there is an amendment to discuss and perhaps
other concerns to address. He said he would be willing to hold
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he will hold his questions.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that not only would he object to
moving the bill out of committee today, he may even object to it
at the next meeting. He repeated that there are bigger issues
to tackle. One question is whether or not a full-time
legislator would ever be considered. He said he thinks history
needs to be studied. He mentioned considerations related to
staffing levels, as well.
9:56:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN responded that he does not believe the
current proposed language of the bill would preclude even city
or municipal officials from serving on the commission, "because
it's a limited scope in terms of whose salaries are affected."
9:56:49 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 260 was heard and held with
Amendment 1 pending.
9:57:17 AM
CHAIR LYNN discussed the upcoming meeting schedule.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:58:08 AM.