CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am "An Act relating to legislative powers and responsibility with respect to collective bargaining agreements between the state and a labor or employee organization representing state employees; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2: Page 1, lines 5- 11: Delete all material. Page 1, line 12: Delete "Sec. 2 Insert "Section 1 Page 2, following line 14: Insert a new bill section to read: Sec. 2. AS 23.40.250(4) is amended to read: (4) "Monetary terms of an agreement" means the changes in the terms and conditions of employment resulting from an agreement that will require an appropriation for their imp1ernentation [OR] will result in a change in state revenues or productive work hours for state employees; (C) Address employee compensation leave benefits, or health insurance benefits, whether or not an appropriation is required for implementation. MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained that the amendment would delete section 1 and add a new section, which would expand the definition of monetary terms. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the definition of monetary terms would be expanded to include items such as leave cash-ins. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted. Representative Grussendorf noted that the legislation contains a 45 day deadline in regards to submissions of agreements to the legislature. He spoke in support of a 60- day limit, which would be halfway through the statutory legislative session limit. KHRISTOPHER KNAUSS, STAFF, SENATOR PEARCE pointed out that the original date was April 1. He clarified that the 45-day deadline was substituted to allow action on rejection. Co-Chair Therriault explained that under the current statute the legislature would have to take action by the 60th day. This assumes that the legislature would have had the information previously. The 45-day period refers to the time in which the information is provided to the legislature. Representative J. Davies spoke in support of the 60 day deadline. He maintained that 60 days would allow action in either direction. Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3: delete "45" and insert "60" on page 2, line 3. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the language requiring a concurrent resolution had been deleted. Mr. Knauss observed the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that if the legislature does not specifically fund the monetary terms of a contract that they do not go into effect. Representative Grussendorf observed that the Court was addressing the university and added that the university is not in the same position as the state because it does not have the option to raise funds. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted. Mr. Knauss explained that the university expressed concern that renegotiated contracts be considered as timely filed if the original contract submission was timely. Representative J. Davies questioned the meaning of "unless otherwise authorized by the legislature." He asked if the legislature would have to pass a resolution to address a renegotiated contract. He suggested that language be added to allow the legislature to consider a renegotiated contract if it was timely filed. Co-Chair Therriault stressed that the power of appropriation is king and if a contract were funded then it would be authorized. Representative J. Davies felt that the language "unless otherwise authorized by the legislature" could open the state to litigation. Representative Phillips interpreted the language to refer to previous action by the legislature. Representative J. Davies argued that the final agreement would not have been submitted timely. He felt that there needed to be explicit acknowledgement. Mr. Tibbles observed that legislative legal counsel did not feel that a resolution was required to meet the requirement of authorized by the legislature. He explained that a temporary act would have to be introduced and passed to accept something that is passed the deadline. Representative J. Davies MOVED to delete "unless otherwise authorized by the legislature" and "final" and change "the" to "The". The legislation would be amended to read: "The agreement shall be submitted to the legislature no later then the 60th day of the legislative session." He concluded that the amendment would eliminate the need to pass separate legislation. CSSB 269(RLS)am was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration during the meeting. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am "An Act relating to legislative powers and responsibility with respect to collective bargaining agreements between the state and a labor or employee organization representing state employees; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Therriault observed that the committee changed 45th day to 60th day. He observed that there is an amendment by Representative J. Davies pending. The language being amended addresses a concern by Senator Elton that if a rejected contract was renegotiated after the deadline that it would not receive consideration during the calendar year. Representative J. Davies argued that if the contract was submitted and then resubmitted that the argument could be made that it was timely. He added that it would be unlikely that action by the legislature to approve an appropriation would be rejected. TERRY CRAMER, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY provided information on the legislation. She observed that the language does not give guidance about what is intended to be authorization. She agreed that the court gives deference to the legislature in matters that are within their purview. She observed that the legislature could manifest their authorization by appropriating money and did not think that the courts would rule that contract monetary terms that were appropriated by the legislature did not take effect. She added that the language does not guide future legislatures in how they are to go about authorizing monetary terms. Co-Chair Therriault referred to the use of "final". Ms. Cramer explained that the current statute requires that the Department of Administration submit monetary terms within 10 days. The new language changes this to the final agreement. She was unsure of the meaning of final. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if "ratified" would provide clarification. Ms. Cramer responded that "ratified" would work if the intent is to have the contract ratified by the employees. Representative J. Davies referred to page 1, line 6. He observed that the collective bargaining provisions modify "agreement". Ms. Cramer observed that statutes require that the monetary terms of agreements be submitted to the legislature. She asked for clarification of "final" agreement and questioned if a final agreement would have to have already been ratified or is an agreement reached by the union and state negotiators that was to be submitted to the legislature for approval of monetary terms and the membership for approval of the contract as a whole. Representative J. Davies suggested the use of "tentative". Ms. Cramer stated that the statutory language does not speak to the "tentative agreement". Co-Chair Therriault observed that Senator Parnell expressed concern over the deletion of "final". Mr. Tibbles clarified that Senator Parnell felt that the final agreement would contain the entire package. Co-Chair Therriault observed that sick leave information was not received because it was not considered as part of the monetary agreement. Vice Chair Bunde asked when is an agreement an agreement. He questioned if it is a new agreement every time there is a change. Ms. Cramer responded that it would be possible to argue that every change constitutes a new agreement, but that it would not be a strong argument. Vice Chair Bunde clarified that it is not his intent that every change is considered as a new agreement. He asked if "tentative" would solve the issue. Ms. Cramer agreed that it would reduce ambiguity. He noted that a sentence could be added to specifically address the circumstances: "When an agreement has been presented to the legislature and the parties perceive that the legislature disapproves it, and goes back to the table to renegotiate, if the first submission was filled in a timely fashion anything later counts as timely filled." Representative J. Davies agreed with Ms. Cramer and added that a sentence could be added that states: "Except that the legislature may consider a resubmitted agreement if it was originally submitted timely and has been perceived to be rejected, renegotiated and resubmitted." Representative G. Davis suggested that agreements are amending an initial contract. Ms. Cramer observed that the Public Employment Act uses "agreement" in place of "contract". Representative J. Davies reviewed his conceptual amendment (see amendment 1-LS1386\KA.7). He observed that "unless otherwise authorized" is undefined. He clarified that his amendment would address all the terms: monetary and non- monetary. SB 269 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration and amendments. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am "An Act relating to legislative powers and responsibility with respect to collective bargaining agreements between the state and a labor or employee organization representing state employees; and providing for an effective date." Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1- LS1386\KA.7: The complete monetary and nonmonetary terms of a tentative agreement shall be submitted to the legislature no later than the 60th day of the legislative session to receive legislative consideration during that calendar year. However, if the department has submitted a tentative agreement in a timely manner and the parties to the agreement decide to renegotiate the terms, the renegotiated agreement shall be considered to have been submitted in a timely manner. In this subsection, "tentative agreement" means an agreement that has been reached by the negotiators for the employer and the bargaining unit but that has not yet been ratified by the members of the bargaining unit. Representative J. Davies argued that the agreement is tentative until the membership and the legislature have approved the agreement. He suggested that "or approved by the legislature" be added at the end of line 10 and line 9 be changed from "has" to "may". Ms. Cramer argued that "or approved by the legislature" was unnecessary. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that "have" should be placed before "been". Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT the amendment as amended to change "has" to "may" and insert "have" before "been". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 269 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS CSSB 269 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Administration, published date 3/6/00.