HB 248-SALARY OF CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER Number 0030 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 248, "An Act relating to the annual salary of the chief procurement officer; and providing for an effective date." Number 0090 DAN SPENCER, Director, Administrative Services, Department of Administration (DOA), referred to the new fiscal note [from DOA, dated 4/16/03, included in the committee packet], which was provided to the committee in response to a request from Chair Weyhrauch [during the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting on April 15, 2003]. He pointed to the [analysis] portion of the fiscal note, where it shows an annual savings of approximately $8,200 "at the current salary ranges of each of the people involved." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated the range [26] of the director "going to zero." He asked if [the legislature] needs to take some action to "zero that out" of the Budget Review Unit (BRU). MR. SPENCER answered no. He explained, "What we have done is we have re-classed that position to this deputy director position." In response to a follow-up question by Representative Seaton, he confirmed that because of the reclassification, there is no [position] to be filled. Number 0202 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to amend the fiscal note such that the decrement is indicated in the relevant portion instead of simply in the analysis. MR. SPENCER stated that the reality is that "this particular division is getting the charge to do a lot more" within its existing budget. He mentioned centralizing procurement. For example, he indicated that the budget reflects that there are $1.5 million-worth of savings that [the division] has to find in leasing, as well as probably "another couple million dollars" that the division will have for all the procurement officers. He stated that although virtually all of the Department of Administration has taken reductions, it has "tried not to do that in this particular division because, in fact, their work load is going to go up here over the next couple of years, and that wouldn't help us very much in that regard." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it seems to him that if there's a decrement based on the actions [the administration] takes, it ought to be recognized. He added, "If, subsequently, the agency, or any agency, seeks additional funds, that ought to go under the budget hopper, along with everything else." MR. SPENCER explained that when "we" did the budget, the governor had already decided that "we were going to go this route," which he said is one of the reasons that the budget is the way it is today, is [because] we anticipated this savings in there already." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there are any other areas where Mr. Spencer is aware of where [Governor Murkowski] incorporated cuts, prior to legislative approval. MR. SPENCER clarified that no legislative approval was needed to make the adjustment that resulted in the salary savings. In response to a follow-up comment by Representative Berkowitz, he stated the following: We need legislative approval on this particular one to change the salary range of the chief procurement officer; but in terms of the administrative assignment of positions and the salary ranges of other positions, [it] is an administrative action, and the savings that result from those - we do these every day. These are not situations where an appropriation's required for us to adjust the salary ranges, realize some savings, and apply that savings to other areas of our operations. This is [a] normal course of business. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the savings has to be within the BRU, and if it's not, and there's a change in what the BRU is, that savings ought to be returned to the general fund, where it's subject to appropriation by the legislature. MR. SPENCER noted: "This is a savings in this particular salary area, but we're going to be doing other things within this. This is part of our normal course of administering these programs, where we can take this savings and apply it to those other areas, without asking for additional money." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he thinks that the general discussion comes up in a lot of fiscal notes and is an issue to be sensitive to when addressing fiscal notes. [The motion to amend the fiscal note was not addressed further.] Number 0532 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 248 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for purposes of making a comment. He continued as follows: This is another example of special interests, or very specific legislation, that I think is somewhat onerous in the legislative process, and I would encourage the administration to seek consolidation of these kind of job-related bills, so we don't get them piece-meal. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection. There being no further objection, HB 248 was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.