HOUSE BILL NO. 226 "An Act relating to the compensation of certain public officials, officers, and employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements; increasing the salaries of certain attorneys employed by the state; and providing for an effective date." 2:21:01 PM Co-Chair Merrick noted that there were four amendments for consideration. REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, SPONSOR, provided opening comments on the legislation. He shared that he had been the subcommittee chair for the Department of Law (DOL) for four years. He was not looking for another problem to solve. The department had repeatedly presented on its retention crisis since his time on the subcommittee. 2:22:05 PM Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony. BAILEY WOOLFSTEED, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the legislation. She shared that she was a prosecutor in the Office of Special Prosecutions, Rural Prosecution Unit working on sexual assault and domestic violence. She urged the committee to pass the bill. She explained why the bill did not go far enough. She discussed the rigorous workload prosecutors were experiencing. She elaborated that prosecutors were working 60 to 80 hour workweeks in addition to being on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week to assist officers in emergent situations and cover every court holiday. She had worked on Christmas the past year. She noted that the attorneys did not get paid overtime and the job was distressing. She shared from personal experience viewing child pornography, crime scene and autopsy photographs of a 10 year old girl who was raped and murdered as part of her job duties. She could not forget such images. She indicated that she travelled 78 days to Western Alaska for work in the prior year and 38 days so far in 2022. She relayed that many colleagues left state service to work for municipalities, Washington State, or for the federal government where they had lower caseloads, less stress, were paid significantly better wages. and had pensions. She shared the attorneys frustration observing many state unions receiving raises and Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) while they were left behind. The bill was not sufficient to make the department competitive. She explained that the crisis was far reaching, and state attorneys were key players on the public safety team; without them public safety was not adequately addressed. She emphasized that police could make an arrest and forward charges, but prosecutors argued bail, met with victims, performed case work, negotiated, and tried cases. She underscored that attorneys were leaving in droves because the legislature had not provided sufficient salaries and benefits and did not recognize their value while other governments did. She listed ways the legislation could go farther to address the issue. She recommended a 40 hour work week, on-call pay, COLAs and step increases that were on par with other law enforcement colleagues in the state and nation. She asked the legislature to support attorneys working hard for the state. 2:25:23 PM KEVIN HIGGINS, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the legislation. He shared that he worked for the Civil Division with the Department of Law. He noted that the discussion regarding recruitment and retention issues were consistent throughout state agencies. He reasoned that when employees were not paid well enough and people left, it increased the workload for those remaining until they quit, which made recruitment difficult. Often newly trained employees left once they became more marketable somewhere else. He voiced that the state could not function without attorneys; civil attorneys advised agencies, implemented the administration's policy, and defended the state against claims. He stressed that without attorneys the state had to pay much more for the services in the private market. He voiced that paying staff made good economic sense and without a defined benefit plan, pay was the only lever available. He asked for the committees support for the bill. 2:27:07 PM SAMANTHA WEINSTEIN, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She urged the legislature to implement the bill at the start of the coming fiscal year. She shared that she was a former assistant attorney general in the civil division and had left the department at the beginning of April 2022 due to burnout. She had initially been excited to work for the department. She wanted a steady paycheck, benefits, and the opportunity to learn from experienced staff but the excitement wore off. Over the last 3 years she had seen two attorney generals resign in disgrace. She experienced section supervisors quitting or retiring, and many colleagues quit to work for municipalities, federal government, or private practice in the lower 48. She understood that those jobs offered better pay, benefits, better work-life balance, and more opportunities for growth. She felt that the other employers demonstrated that they valued their workers. She stressed that carrying the workload of 2 to 4 employees was a burnout. She relayed that she was physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausted and chronically stressed while working for the state. She underscored that burnout was running rampant within the department and workers were demoralized. She urged for passage of the bill. Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony. 2:29:40 PM Co-Chair Merrick moved to amendments. Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32- LS0960\G.5 (Klein, 4/27/22) (copy on file) [note: due to the length of the amendment it has not been included in the minutes. See copy on file for detail]. Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Thompson explained that he had a conceptual amendment for Amendment 1 recommended by the Court System. He explained the conceptual amendment. He stated that on page 3, line 22 of the bill it deleted the following words, other than justices and judges. He deferred to the Court System for further explanation. Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, explained conceptual Amendment 1. She relayed that she asked the sponsor of Amendment 1 to remove the phrase. She explained that the amendment would provide a 5 percent pay increase for all non-covered employees. Section 6 of the amendment included the Judicial Branch, which she supported. However, she did not think it had been the sponsor's intent to exclude judges and justices but excluding them in uncodified law created a conflict in 4 statutory provisions within Title 22. She reported that for the four levels of judges there were explicit provisions that specified if the monthly based salary in the chart on page 1 of the amendment, pertaining to Title 39, increased the monthly based salary of a judge or a justice it shall increase by the same percentage. The language created a conflict having uncodified law stating that even though it would raise the wages by 5 percent judges and justices were excluded. She believed that they needed to be included. She furthered that the provision had been added in 2006 with respect to judges because unless judges and justices kept pace with all the increases that all other non-covered employees received the Judicial Branch ended up in an uncomfortable position in asking for a significant raise. Alaskan judges were consistently ranked at number 50 in terms of judicial salaries across the country. The statute was meant to ensure that judges were not excluded. 2:32:51 PM Co-Chair Merrick withdrew her objection to conceptual amendment 1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Thompson explained the amendment with a prepared statement: The amended amendment represented a 5 percent cost of living adjustment (COLA) for exempt employees for the legislative and executive branches. Exempt employees had not received increases or salary adjustments since 2016. In the meantime, non-exempt employees either in the general government units or in the Supervisory Units had received COLA increases totaling over 5 percent. It was a matter of fairness that exempt employees received the same COLA increase as those of the GGU and SU bargaining units. The total cost of enacting this legislation for the executive and legislative branches was projected to be $13. 211.900 million of which $7. 520.100 million was Undesignated General Funds (UGF). TOM WRIGHT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, elaborated on the amendment. He shared that since FY 16 the exempt noncovered employees in the admiration and the legislature had not received a COLA. Since that time, GGU had received approximately 23.5 percent in COLAs and in FY 20, FY 21, and FY 22 they received a 5 percent increase. Recently, a new contract had been approved that granted a 3 percent increase in 2023, the following year a 2.5 percent increase, and possibly in 2025 a 5 percent increase. He noted that the 5 percent increase was based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as of July 1, 2022, which would be automatic according to the Legislative Finance Division. He added that in 2019 the Supervisory Union (SU) received a 40 hour work week, which equated to a 6.25 percent increase and in 2022 received a 3 percent increase, 1 percent in 2023, and 1 percent in 2024. He deduced that SU received approximately 16 percent in increases. He cited Bailey Woolfsteed, the earlier testifier that reported not receiving a COLA since 2016. He stated that a COLA increase could potentially help alleviate some of the recruitment and retention problems. 2:36:45 PM Representative Wool referred to SU hours reduced to 40 hours per week, which equated to a 6 percent increase. He asked what the hours had been previously. He deemed that if hours were decreased to 40 per week without a pay increase, he did not understand how it was a pay increase. Co-Chair Merrick recognized Representative Matt Claman in attendance. Mr. Wright responded that the SU unit increased from 37.5 hours per week to 40 hours per week in 2019 and received a 6.25 percent increase for the additional 2.5 weekly hours. Representative Wool thanked Mr. Wright for the clarification. He deuced that even with the increase to a 40 hour work week they still received an overall increase. Mr. Wright referred to Ms. Woolsteed who testified to working 60 hours per week so decreasing to a 40 hour work week would mean increased pay. 2:38:43 PM Representative Carpenter asked for context. He inquired about the range and step of a newly hired attorney through a collective bargaining unit and ones that were not. SKIFF LOBAUGH, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY (via teleconference), answered that there were no attorneys in the legislative branch covered by a collective bargaining unit. All the attorneys under the Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA) were paid through the salary schedule adopted under AS 39.27.011(a) and generally started at a range 23 to 25 depending on years of experience. Representative Carpenter asked for a comparative figure for state employees under collective bargaining. 2:40:40 PM Mr. Wright answered that none of the attorneys in DOL or the Department of Administration (DOA) were unionized employees. Representative Carpenter stated that it made finding the answer much easier if there was no union involved. Representative Josephson requested that someone from Legislative Legal Services called in for questions. Co-Chair Merrick complied. Representative Wool asked if there were attorneys in other departments that were covered under collective bargaining. Mr. Wright did not believe so but deferred the answer to personnel. Mr. Lobaugh had the same understanding as Mr. Wright. He answered that state attorneys were partially exempt or fully exempt and covered under the AS 39.27.011(a) salary schedule. He suggested that the Division of Personnel under the Department of Administration could answer the question definitively. He reiterated that all legislative attorneys were exempt including several attorneys in the Office of Victims Rights. 2:43:07 PM AT EASE 2:47:45 PM RECONVENED Representative Carpenter asked for an explanation of the process for changing from a range 6 to a range 7 and moving up the step scale. Mr. Lobaugh answered that ranges represented the class of work an employee was assigned to perform. He exemplified Personnel and indicated that Personnel Assistants ranges were 14 through 16. The range 14 would work with payroll and the higher ranges performed payroll supervision and investigation and the range increased as the level of complexity and consequence of error increased. He added that it was the same with legislative attorney job classes beginning with drafting bills and increasing to higher range drafters up to range 25. The steps were considered for meritorious service depending on the length of time and per recommendation by a supervisor. Steps were time in the range grade, and range was determined by the work and duties as allotted to the job classification. Representative Carpenter repeated his understanding of the answer. He asked for the time and range requirement before moving up a step assuming there was a meritorious recommendation. Mr. Lobaugh answered that steps A through F increased each year and beyond that steps increased every two years. 2:50:57 PM Representative Josephson asked if Amendment 1 meshed seamlessly and without interference with version G of the bill. NOAH KLEIN, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE (via teleconference), asked for clarification on the question. Representative Josephson acknowledged the amendment changed policy. He asked if the amendment in any way deleted or altered version G of the bill. Mr. Klein replied that Amendment 1 increased the salary table; therefore, the 10 percent increase for attorneys in the underlying bill would be 10 percent of the increase table. Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. 2:52:51 PM AT EASE 2:53:59 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative Edgmon joined the meeting. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 as amended was adopted. Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32- LS0960\G.6 (Klein, 4/27/22) (copy on file): Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "relating to the compensation of certain employees of the legislative branch;" Page 2, line 1, following "AS 39.25.120(c)(3)": Insert ", attorneys in the division of legal and research services within the Legislative Affairs Agency," Page 2, following line 3: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 3. AS 24.10.220 is repealed." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 2, line 11: Delete "Section 3" Insert "Section 4" Page 2, line 12: Delete "sec. 4" Insert "sec. 5" Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. 2:54:36 PM Representative Thompson asked his staff to explain the amendment. Mr. Wright explained the amendment. He relayed that Representative Thompson believed that it would be fair to raise the pay of the legislative attorneys along with the other attorneys working for the state. Co-Chair Merrick voiced that legislative attorneys worked diligently for the legislators. Representative Josephson was grateful for the amendment and believed that an increase was well earned. Representative Wool asked if there was a fiscal note reflecting the amendments. Mr. Wright answered that it would be up to the committee to request an updated fiscal note. Representative Wool wanted to know the cost of the salary increases. Mr. Wright answered that the cost for Amendment 1 was approximately $13.211.9 million for the executive branch and $2.344.6 million for the legislative branch. He added that $494.9 was included in the mental health bill. 2:57:18 PM Representative Wool asked for the amount in Amendment 2 for the legislative branch. Mr. Wright answered that He did not have the amount for Amendment 2. Co-Chair Merrick asked Legislative Legal Services for the number of employees in Legislative Legal. 2:58:48 PM MEGAN WALLACE, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE (via teleconference), answered there were 14 attorneys employed for Legislative Legal Services. Co-Chair Merrick asked whether that included legal and research services. Ms. Wallace agreed. She detailed that there were no attorneys that worked for Legislative Research, the 14 attorneys worked exclusively in the legal office. Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED. 2:59:40 PM Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 32-LS0960\G.8 (Klein, 5/2/22) (copy on file): Page 2, following line 3: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: SALARY INCREASES FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. The salary increase under AS 39.27.011(l), added by sec. 2 of this Act, applies to permanent and temporary employees and magistrates in the judicial branch of the state government, other than justices and judges, who are not members of a collective bargaining unit established under AS 23.40.070 - 23.40.260 (Public Employment Relations Act) and who are not otherwise covered by AS 39.27.011(a)." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 2, line 11: Delete "Section 3" Insert "Section 4" Page 2, line 12: Delete "sec. 4" Insert "sec. 5" Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. Vice-Chair Ortiz explained the amendment. He stated that Amendment 3 added Judicial Branch employees to the bill, and they would receive the 10 percent salary increase. The Judicial Branch were among the lowest paid state employees and the branch was experiencing severe retention and hiring problems. He noted the importance of sufficient judicial staffing levels to avoid case processing bottlenecks in the criminal justice system. He related that smaller courts in the state were struggling and had to close its doors for limited time periods and had none or little response to recruitment efforts. They were losing staff to the executive and legislative branches. He relayed that half of the judicial staff were paid range 12 or below; a range 12 A made $43 thousand per year. The high cost of inflation and soaring rents were issues for range 12 jobs. He noted that Ms. Mead was available to further explain the need for the amendment. 3:01:47 PM Representative LeBon noted there had been an action taken in a prior amendment to strike justices and judges and wondered whether it applied here and the reason why if not. He asked for further detail. Ms. Mead replied that Amendment 3 excluded justices and judges from the 10 percent pay raise to judicial branch employees. It did not run afoul to the previous mentioned statutes because it did not overall raise the chart in Title 39. However, now that an amendment had passed that would increase the amounts in Title 39, an amendment would need to cover justices and judges as well. Representative LeBon asked if the words needed to be struck in the amendment. Ms. Mead replied that the answer was yes. Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 to strike the words other than justices and judges. There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 was ADOPTED. 3:04:02 PM Ms. Mead appreciated the amendment. She hoped the committee would consider Amendment 3 favorably. She informed the committee that the judicial branch employees were not unionized. The executive branch had union coverage for its lower paid employees. She reiterated that half of judicial employees were at range 12 and below and 58 percent were at range 14 and below. She delineated that 375 employees were at a range 12 equating to $22.00 per hour, totaling $43,000 per year. She noted that fast food establishments increased wages to $15 to $18 per hour. The Judicial branch wanted to retain employees and it was losing range 12s and 14s to the private sector and other branches of government. She furthered that if the bill passed and other branches' employees received a pay raise it would be terrific, but unless the Court System was included the effect on the public would be stunted. She emphasized that the criminal and civil justice system was indeed a system. She restated that the Judicial Branch was struggling with recruitment and retention and so were many of its lower range employees. She indicated that a range 12 wage was eligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the take home salary minus all deductions and withholdings was roughly $2,200 per month. She stated that the branch was simply not paying a livable wage, which was the reason the system had to close some offices for several days in a row. She maintained that the Court System would truly benefit from the 10 percent pay raise and so would the range 12 employees. 3:07:28 PM Representative Wool stated his understanding of the amendment increasing wages at designated ranges. He asked why the system could not merely start a person at a higher range. Ms. Mead replied that the Judicial Branch could possibly do that with a lot more money in its personal services budget. However, it attempted to retain parity with executive branch classifications; a range 12 had certain levels of responsibility and if the range was increased all the higher ranges had to be increased. She did not know that it would accomplish something without funding allocated by the legislature. Representative Carpenter asked why higher ranges would have to be moved up if the range 12s moved up. Ms. Mead explained that if range 12 moved up to a 14, then a range 13 that possessed more job skills would deservedly move to a range 15, etc. but the court system would still need the funding to pay for the increases. 3:10:04 PM Representative Carpenter asked where the top end employees of the Court System fell on the range system. Ms. Mead answered that the judges and justices had a different pay scale, which she excluded in her answer. She relayed that some magistrates and high level employees in the administrative office totaling 3 staffers were maybe at a range 27, attorneys were paid at range 20 through 24 and they totaled 8. She offered that it depended on experience. Representative Carpenter asked how justices and judges pay was determined. Ms. Mead answered that judges and justices were paid under a separate statute except for the provisions that if everyone else received a pay increase the justices should as well. The current salary for the 45 superior court judges was about $190,000; broken down it ranged from $161,000 for district court and the 5 supreme court judges made roughly $206,000. Representative Carpenter asked which statutes governed judges' salaries. Ms. Mead replied AS 22.07.090, AS 22.15.220, AS 22.05.140, and AS 22.05.140. The last time the statutes changed was in 2006 when justices and judges had been at the bottom of the pay scale nationally. She reported on the difficulty of obtaining significant increases, therefore the statute that kept them in pace with other increases was put in place. 3:13:19 PM Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was ADOPTED as amended. [Note: Action on Amendment 3 as amended was later rescinded at the 5/6/22 9:00 a.m. meeting. The original version of Amendment 3 without any modifications was adopted on 5/6/22 at the 9:00 a.m. meeting. See separate minutes for detail.] 3:13:37 PM AT EASE 3:20:14 PM RECONVENED Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 32- LS0960\G.7 (Klein, 5/2/22) (copy on file): Page 1, line 14: Delete "10" Insert "25" Representative LeBon OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He MOVED to AMEND Amendment 4 conceptually. The conceptual amendment 1 to Amendment 4 would remove amendment 3 therefore, the Judicial employees would not receive the additional increase in wages requested in Amendment 4. Representative Carpenter asked for a restatement of the conceptual amendment. Representative Josephson explained that Amendment 4 applied to the bill as written and was currently modified to everyone who worked in a courthouse. Therefore, conceptual amendment 1 excluded amendment 3. Representative Thompson requested further clarification. Representative Josephson stated that the court system was satisfied with the pay increase in Amendment 3, therefore the conceptual amendment would strike Amendment 3 from Amendment 4. 3:22:17 PM AT EASE 3:23:47 PM RECONVENED ELISE SORUM-BIRK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, explained how the adoptions of the previous amendments changed the bill. She offered that Amendment 1 included a 5 percent pay increase for all exempt and partially exempt employees. 3:25:15 PM AT EASE 3:25:40 PM RECONVENED Ms. Sorum-Birk pointed to page 1, line 14 of version G of the legislation and read the words, are increased by 10 percent. The conceptual amendment would change the 10 percent to 25 percent. She detailed that the original intent of the amendment would apply only to state attorneys. In Amendment 3, the increase was passed on to the Judicial branch employees. Therefore, Representative Josephsons proposal was to have the Judicial branch receive an additional 10 percent increase as adopted in amendment 3 and the state attorneys and legislative legal attorneys (as added by Representative Thompsons Amendment 2) would receive an increase of 25 percent [excluding the Judiciary.] Representative Carpenter interjected that the conceptual amendment excluded the Judiciary branch. Co-Chair Merrick asked for the specific conceptual amendment language. Representative Josephson provided the specific conceptual amendment language. He stated that on a new line 4 of Amendment 4 insert the language, "the increase on line 14, page 1" from 10 to 25 percent was not operative for Court System employees, justices, and judges." 3:28:05 PM Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 4 was ADOPTED. Representative Josephson spoke to the reason for the amendment. He characterized the increase as ambitious but felt it was justified. He reminded that committee that the state attorneys were desperately needed in the public sector on behalf of the public and heard that the department contracted out for legal services at up to $600 per hour. He stated that contracting would still be necessary for things like oil and gas matters. However, when the state nurtured the legal talent in the oil and gas section, they resigned due to low wages. He relayed an earlier meeting with the Attorney General of the state and his team informed him that municipal attorneys starting salary was $87 thousand and the executive branch started its attorneys at $60 thousand. Therefore, the starting salary increase in HB 226 increased the wage to $69 thousand and although generous it was insufficient for retention. The starting salary in Washington state was $69 thousand including geolocation differential pay. He asked the committee to recognized that attorneys were highly skilled and educated, often had education debt, and passed the toughest bar in the country. He believed that they deserved to be paid accordingly. 3:31:34 PM Representative Rasmussen asked for an explanation why the original bill did not start at 25 percent if it was important to achieve that type of increase. Representative Josephson answered that sometimes decisions were made quickly when drafting a bill. He had not known that municipal attorneys started at $87,000. He had not heard the compelling testimony from attorneys nor from DOL regarding the incredible turnover among its ranks. He faulted himself for not including a higher number in the bill. Representative Rasmussen was very comfortable with the original bill at the 10 percent. She was uncertain that the additional 15 percent would increase job satisfaction enough to retain employees. She spoke to other meaningful benefits that could boost morale including student loan repayment, childcare, etc. She thought there were other factors that needed consideration besides pay. She reasoned that improving benefits would help. She remained unconvinced it was only about pay. 3:33:53 PM Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how the amendment would impact the existing fiscal note. He asked for the cost. Representative Josephson responded that the fiscal note for just attorneys was in the range of $8 million. He noted that Workers Compensation attorneys were classified employees. 3:34:56 PM AT EASE 3:35:46 PM RECONVENED Representative Josephson deduced that the fiscal note would grow from $8 million to $20 million. Representative Thompson wondered if the amendment would have a waterfall effect on the Court System. Ms. Mead replied it was her understanding that the amendment would exclude the court system and was a 25 percent pay increase for attorneys. The Judicial salaries would increase by 10 percent under Amendment 3 but not the additional 15 percent as proposed in Amendment 4. Representative Wool understood the amendment sponsors reasoning. He ascertained that 5 percent was added by Amendment 1 and currently the other amendments increased it by 15 percent and the last amendment would bring it up to 30 percent overall. He took issue with the proposal because other state employees would appreciate a significant increase and there had been many years with no increases. He noted single digit increases for other state employees and highlighted that the university had gone many years without raises for anyone. He clarified that he was not questioning that the attorneys did not deserve more. He was not convinced that attorneys would quit unless the increase was 30 percent. It gave him caution to give one group a significant raise when others deserved it as well. He heard that Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) equipment operators were paid less than the private sector and the state ranks were decreasing. He remarked that teachers were also struggling. He restated his reticence towards the amendment. 3:39:32 PM Representative LeBon MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment 4 as amended. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Josephson, Edgmon, Foster OPPOSED: LeBon, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Thompson, Wool, Carpenter, Johnson, Merrick The MOTION to adopt Amendment 4 as amended FAILED (3/8). Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 4 deleting 15 and inserting 25 on line 4 resulting in an approximately 20 percent pay increase. Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. 3:42:05 PM AT EASE 3:42:32 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Merrick asked for Representative Josephson to restate the amendment. Representative Josephson clarified that Conceptual Amendment 5 pertained to page 1, line 14 of the legislation. The conceptual amendment would increase the 10 percent increase in the bill to 15 percent, which would result in a net 20 percent increase in pay for attorneys and administrative law judges. He clarified that the Court system would not be included in the increase from 10 to 15 percent. Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED her OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Thompson, Wool, Edgmon, Johnson, Josephson, Foster OPPOSED: LeBon, Rasmussen, Carpenter, Johnson, Merrick The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 5 was ADOPTED. Co-Chair Merrick would hold the bill for updated fiscal notes. HB 226 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.