HB 113-MILITARY FAMILY EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE  3:20:23 PM CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 113, "An Act relating to employment preferences for spouses and children of veterans, disabled veterans, former prisoners of war, members of the national guard, and deceased service members." 3:23:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHARON JACKSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, stated the purpose of HB 113 is to extend hiring preferences to military spouses, which would allow them to receive an interview for a job that hires by a numerical point system. This will enable the educated, unemployed and underemployed [military] spouses to work in the community. She said this is a bill that will provide them with more opportunities. 3:24:36 PM CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 31- LS0715\S.1, Wayne, 2/19/20], which read as follows: Page 6, line 29: Delete "of this subsection;" Insert "or (1)(A)(iii) of this subsection, or the  spouse or dependent child of a person who is in active  service or on furlough from active service under  (1)(A)(i) of this subsection;" REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON deferred to Pam Day. 3:25:18 PM PAM DAY, Classification Services Manager, Division of Personnel and Labor Relations, Department of Administration, provided a brief background on the state's recruitment system. She said in July 2000, the state stopped scoring applications and switched to a vacancy-based recruitment system, which changed how preferences are applied. If an assessment device with a numerical rating is not used, 10-point veterans are afforded an interview and 5-point veterans are given consideration. Nonetheless, she said it's been a common practice to offer an interview to 5-point veterans. HB 113 would extend the preference of being awarded an interview to 5-point veterans, as well as military spouses and dependent children. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked for the definition of a vacancy-based system. MS. DAY explained that when a vacancy arises, recruitment ensues immediately, which is a more streamlined process than the state's prior hiring system. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ acknowledged that filling vacancies faster is a good idea. 3:27:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether the point system is based on a 100-point scale and whether points and percentages are interchangeable. MS. DAY answered yes. She added, "it's 5 percent of the points available from a scoring device - or 10 percent." REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if it's based on a 100-point scale. MS. DAY said yes. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned the difference between a 5- point veteran and a 10-point veteran. MS. DAY explained that, "if we do not use a scoring system, which we do not, if a veteran who would have been awarded the 10 points in the scoring - which is the disabled veteran or the prisoner of war - they are offered the interview." 3:28:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said, "this bill is for active duty spouses and spouses of those that died in war, or Gold Star families. So, this bill is just extending to the spouses" CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ surmised that the [hiring] preference would elevate an applicant, rather than award them a 5 or 10 percent advantage. MS. DAY affirmed that. 3:29:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned the difference between a 5- point veteran and a 10-point veteran. REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON replied that it correlates to their disability. MS. DAY responding to a follow-up question from Representative Hannan, said AS 39.25.159 [Employment Preference for Veterans and Former Prisoners of War] articulates that disabled veterans or prisoners of war are awarded an interview or 10 percent, whereas veterans or members of the National Guard are awarded 5 percent or considered for an interview. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ questioned whether the 5 percent and 10 percent distinction also applied to the spouse. MS. DAY said this bill expands the interview benefit to veterans and members of the National Guard, as well as to military spouses and dependent children. 3:32:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS clarified that under HB 113, every spouse, dependent child, and veteran would be afforded an interview for a state job for which they applied. MS. DAY replied yes, if they meet the minimum qualifications. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if they would receive up to a 10 percent higher score than other applicants. MS. DAY said it can be either or. She directed attention to AS 39.25.159, which states that if an assessment device is used to score applicants then the 10-points can be applied; however, because Alaska doesn't use an assessment device the interview is guaranteed. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS questioned whether this bill should be rewritten to ensure an interview. He asked if that would be a simpler way to write it. He expressed concern with awarding a 10-point advantage to someone, should the state revert to a point-based scoring system. 3:34:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said HB 113 is offering preference points to the spouses and family members of Gold Star families. She added that it specifically speaks to preference points for a spouse. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said he understands. 3:35:33 PM DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, attempted to provide context to page 6 of the bill. He stated that under current law, AS 39.25.159(a) entitles a veteran or former prisoner of war - who meets the minimum qualifications - to an employment preference of which there are two kinds. When hiring based on a numerical rating, veterans get 5 points added to their score, whereas disabled veterans or formers prisoners of war get an additional 10 points. When hiring is not based on a numerical system, consideration is awarded to veterans and an opportunity to interview is afforded to disabled veterans and former prisoners of war. He explained that under HB 113, those [hiring] preferences would extend to military spouses and dependent children. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked what Amendment 1 accomplishes. 3:38:56 PM MR. VERHAGEN stated that Amendment 1 affords qualified military spouses or dependent children the right to an interview. He explained that if, for example, there are 10 qualified candidates, the department doesn't have to interview all 10 of them; however, they "shall" award a military spouse or dependent child with an interview. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ sought to clarify whether Amendment 1 would require that a military spouse or dependent child is awarded an interview if they meet the minimum qualifications. MR. VERHAGEN answered yes. 3:40:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS suggested rewriting the bill to ensure an interview without giving the same numeric point advantage to a spouse or dependent in the event there is a numeric system being used. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that it would be a very substantial amendment to this bill. 3:40:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN attempted to clarify whether Amendment 1 awards "everybody" with an interview. 3:41:24 PM MR. VERHAGEN stated that those under [subsection] (i) get an interview as well as those under (3)(i), which is the surviving spouse or dependent of a person who was killed in action. He went on to say, "so this amendment is not actually even giving the right to an interview to a spouse or dependent child of a veteran, but only an active duty someone described in section (A)(i), so who is in active service or on furlough. So, Representative Jackson's intent was to not afford the right to an interview to veterans, spouses, and dependents, but a spouse who's married to an active duty member or someone on furlough, if that makes sense." MR. VERHAGEN responding to a follow-up question from Representative Hannan, said both the veteran and current active duty military spouse will be awarded an interview. 3:43:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked Mr. Wayne if it would be possible to rewrite this section to clarify that interviews are afforded to spouses and dependents of active duty service members without adding multiple references to points, which is conflicting. He questioned whether it could be written to be shorter and clearer. 3:43:53 PM MR. WAYNE reiterated that if HB 113 does not pass, current law states that if there is an assessment using numerical ratings - which could happen tomorrow - then the 5 or 10-point preference will apply to veterans, former prisoners of war, and disabled veterans. When there's not a numeric assessment, consideration or an interview applies. He reminded the committee that consideration and receiving an interview are two separate things according to the law, regardless of how the administration is putting them into practice, which is subject to change through regulation. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that while he is comfortable with awarding consideration, he is uncomfortable with the points incentive. He requested an extension on the amendment deadline to refine a solution. 3:47:35 PM CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ withdrew Amendment 1. MR. VERHAGEN in response to Representative Fields, emphasized that under HB 113, the only people that "shall" receive a 10- point preference are disabled veterans. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ assured Mr. Verhagen that the committee understands that point. The question is whether to continue to reference a numerical system that is not currently used in state law, she explained. 3:49:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 31- LS0715\S.2, Wayne, 2/20/20], which read as follows: Page 6, lines 18 - 19: Delete "the surviving spouse or a dependent child  of a person who" Insert "a dependent child or, unless the  surviving spouse has remarried, the surviving spouse  of a person who died within a 10-year period  immediately preceding the date of the assessment and" CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained that Amendment 2 proposes a 10- year limit on the benefit for the surviving spouse or dependent children in the event of a service member's death. 3:50:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON opined that Amendment 2 is reasonable and acceptable. 3:50:43 PM CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ withdrew her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 113 was held over.