SSTA - 3/9/95 SB 90 PUBLIC OFFICERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION Number 475 SENATOR SHARP brings up SB 90 as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee and calls the first witness. Number 477 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, prime sponsor of SB 90, reads the sponsor statement for SB 90. Mr. Christensen explains how the commission would work, as outlined in SB 90 and a letter submitted to the committee by the court system. Number 528 SENATOR LEMAN asks Mr. Christensen if the legislature could make specific changes to a report from the compensation commission, or would it have to reject a report in its' entirety. Number 531 MR. CHRISTENSEN responds the report would have to be rejected in its' entirety. The first time the commission does an order, it will have to do an order for everyone. Following the first time, the commission will be able to do separate orders. However, with each specific order the legislature receives from the commission, the legislature would have to reject an order in its' entirety. SENATOR LEMAN asks Mr. Christensen if he expects the order to consist of all offices at once, or if it would come down individually. Number 540 MR. CHRISTENSEN replies the bill is silent to that question, but he expects the first order would include an adjustment for everyone, since that hasn't been done in quite some time. SENATOR DUNCAN asks if the legislature would have to take an action of rejection or approval on an order. MR. CHRISTENSEN responds the legislature must reject an order within 60 days by enacting legislation. If they do not enact legislation to reject an order, and an appropriation is put in the operating budget, then it automatically takes effect. Number 548 SENATOR DUNCAN asks Mr. Christensen who suggested the change made in Section 7. It includes, "Salaries, per diem if authorized by order of the Public Officers Compensation Commission...." Number 552 MR. CHRISTENSEN believes the drafter added that particular language because the existing statute refers to per diem. Once the commission is created, it is the commission that will be setting per diem, not the council. SENATOR DUNCAN asks where it says that, and if that is the only place it says that. He is not sure he agrees with that. He is not sure how Section 7 works anyway, because right now, "other allowances" aren't vouchered. This language would mean "other allowances" would have to be vouchered. He guesses that would include the office allowance. He asks if AS 24.10.120 is presently in statute, and the only new language is that which is underlined. MR. CHRISTENSEN replies that is correct: the only new language in Section 7 is that which is underlined, "Salaries, per diem if authorized by order of the Public Officers Compensation Commission...." SENATOR DUNCAN asks if legislators are currently required by law to voucher their office allowances. Senator Duncan disagrees that legislators are currently required to voucher their office allowances. MR. CHRISTENSEN responds that the existing law requires legislators to voucher their office allowances, but he realizes there are a lot of laws on the books that are not followed the way they were originally intended. SENATOR DUNCAN doesn't know why the court system keeps getting involved in other branches of government's business. He is not anxious to turn per diem and everything else over to some commission. Number 566 CHAIRMAN SHARP comments he would not want to take the heat for the actions a commission might take over which he would have no control. If he has to take heat for anything, he would just as soon have it be for his own actions. It is his intention to hold SB 90 in order to better educate himself on the legislation. Number 574 SENATOR DUNCAN likes better the approach currently used, which is that the legislature must adopt recommendations, not reject recommendations. MR. CHRISTENSEN adds that the reason nine other jurisdictions have adopted this method, is because they viewed it as a good way of actually reducing the heat, since the commission has the authority to set salaries, and the legislature is not required to approve the salaries. SENATOR DUNCAN comments he doesn't like letting a commission do that. Number 586 MIKE MCMULLEN, Acting Director, Division of Personnel/EEO, Department of Administration, states the administration is sympathetic to the question of judges' salaries, and has no problem with addressing that question. The legislature attempted to address the problem by tying judges' salary changes to... TAPE 95-10, SIDE B MR. MCMULLEN: ...changes in AS 39.27.011, which hasn't changed since it was adopted. So this set that scheme back, in terms of trying to keep judges' salaries competitive, in order to attract judges. Mr. McMullen states, where the administration has problems with this bill is the same way you've just been talking about. If the legislature's elected representatives are able to have their salaries changed, they should be up front and taking a vote and taking the heat. Likewise, the governor should be in a position to see that coming through for his salary, and have his choice in terms of vetoing or letting it become law by signature or without signature. The mechanism set up here allows the order of the commission to become effective, changing legislative salaries, governor's salary, lieutenant governor's salary, his commissioners' salaries without any affirmative action by the legislative body or the governor. The solution to that would be for the recommendation to come to the legislature, but it would take affirmative action to put those into effect. That would resolve that problem. MR. MCMULLEN states, the other problem the administration has with SB 90 is the list of factors in Section 17. This section would have an unexpected impact on collective bargaining. State employees, all public employees in fact, who are class I (not able to strike) have a binding arbitration process for setting the terms and conditions of their collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrators who hear these kinds of cases abhor a vacuum. Right now there are no standards in Alaska law on what an arbitrator should be looking at when he or she is setting these salaries. This is a good list. It is modeled after another state. In the past, we have had arbitrators specifically look at the State of Oregon as an example of the things arbitrators traditionally look at in setting salaries. Adopting this standard in Alaska Law, in any place, will invite arbitrators to look at those standards. The arbitrator will be in the position of having this independent body making its' review and making a recommendation on salaries. This may or may not be consistent with the position of the current administration, with regard to the terms in the bargaining agreement. In effect, the commission would be setting the pattern for arbitrator decisions. We need to recognize that this is going to happen, and fully debate the impact SB 90 will have on collective bargaining. If it is not intended that SB 90 have an impact on collective bargaining, then it should be stated that SB 90 is not intended to set a pattern in collective bargaining, or the arbitrators are not to use it, or some other factor. We need to either recognize that SB 90 will become the standard, or we need to amend the bill to prevent it from becoming the standard. Mr. McMullen mentions that the administration has submitted a zero fiscal note for SB 90. Number 550 CHAIRMAN SHARP states SB 90 will be held for further information.