SENATE BILL NO. 239 "An Act relating to state employees who are called to active duty as reserve or auxiliary members of the armed forces of the United States; and providing for an effective date." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. DAVID STEWART, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel, Department of Administration, explained that the State personnel policy allows for up to sixteen days of paid leave to State employees undergoing Army or Air National Guard or Militia training; however, in times of emergency, State law limits paid leave to five days for State employees called to active duty by the Governor. He continued that the balance of that active duty time is considered leave without pay or as arranged with the employing agency. Mr. Stewart continued "that individuals who are called to active duty by the federal government are protected by federal legislation that provides for return to employment with essentially no loss of benefits accrued by time;" however, there is no allowance for a supplementation of wage or continuation of benefits. Mr. Stewart explained that most State employees who are activated for more than five days for Army or Air National Guard service, receive a military wage that might be "more than or less than their State wage." He commented that this legislation would allow for an administrative order to be issued by the Governor, under specified circumstances, to require the State to pay the difference if the military wage is less than the State wage for a specified period of time. He noted that this legislation additionally provides that the State be responsible for health care or retirement contribution coverage, again for a specified period of time, if the military does not provide military benefits or if the employee would be activated for an extended period of time. Mr. Stewart informed the Committee that other states have passed similar legislation in response to the terrorism attacks of September 11, 2001. He referenced a Department of Administration handout titled "Implementation of Uniformed Services Employee Return and Reemployment Act (USERRA)" [copy on file] that details the benefits other states provide. He exampled that Colorado allows its governor to authorize supplemental military wages for ninety days and that the District of Columbia specifies that employers provide health insurance benefits for the first year. Mr. Stewart disclosed that the Department of Administration has ascertained that since September 11, 2001, 41 of the 189 State employees in the Air or National Guard Reserve have been called to active duty, and, of that number, eight would qualify for the supplemental wage condition. He noted that depending on whether the Governor or the federal government activated the employee's service, the employee might receive military health insurance coverage, however, their dependents might not be eligible. He reminded the Committee that State employee dependents could be covered through COBRA insurance plan provisions; however, he noted that this coverage is expensive. Senator Ward asked whether the Governor or the federal government called to active duty the eight State employees who would qualify for the supplemental wage. Mr. Stewart responded that the Governor, on behalf of the federal government, activated these individuals. Senator Ward asked the nature of the duties assigned to these eight individuals. Mr. Stewart responded that the duty information is not available; however, he noted that one individual was activated for 365 days and others were activated in October or December 2001 for a period of twelve months. Senator Ward asked the Department to investigate these individuals' active duty assignments and provide the information to the Committee. Mr. Stewart responded that the Department would attempt to gather this information. SFC 02 # 56, Side B 10:19 AM DEBRA GERRISH, identifying herself as the wife of a Warrant Officer in the National Guard, informed the Committee that the military does not generally disclose duty assignments. She clarified that the actual number of State employees called to active service is 189, and she confirmed that of that number, eight would have qualified for the supplemental wage, as their military wage was less than their State wage. She stated that most of the people called to active duty are serving as airport and pipeline security. Ms. Gerrish shared with the Committee that her family's health benefits would be negatively affected in the event that her husband were called to active duty. She explained that in the military, a call to active duty for less than 180 days disqualifies dependents from receiving benefits, and that the Army's benefits seldom provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. She stressed that this situation could result in families being required to make decisions whether or not to seek medical care because of the expense. She noted that, because her husband is an officer, her family would have sufficient income to cover house payments, utilities, and basic living needs; however, families of privates or sergeants would not. She stated that the expense of the COBRA insurance plan is cost-prohibitive, and she asserted that "if an officer's wife doesn't have money for COBRA, the private and the sergeant's wife is certainly not going to have the money to cover COBRA." Senator Wilken voiced general support for this legislation, and he asked how a person qualifies for the Alaska Naval Militia. Mr. Stewart responded that the Naval Militia is a component of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. Senator Wilken asked how this program compares to the federal National Guard program. Mr. Stewart responded that it is a State program similar to the National Guard. Senator Wilken asked that further information be provided to the Committee regarding the Naval Militia. Senator Wilken stated that the fiscal note analysis implies that replacements would not be hired to fill the positions of State employees called to active duty, but rather that the Department would absorb the workloads. He asked whether this is the intent of the legislation. Mr. Stewart explained that it is not the intent of the bill to specify that no replacements be hired, but rather it was the intent of the fiscal note to indicate that, given the event of September 11and its affect on the State's National Guard, it is not possible to determine the impact or the duration of the activation. Senator Wilken reiterated his question as whether the intent of the legislation is not to hire people to replace those individuals called to active duty. Mr. Stewart replied that it is not. Senator Wilken suggested that the fiscal note be revisited. He further advised that the "trigger mechanism," or rather, what constitutes an emergency that would result in the Governor calling people to active duty, should be "clearly defined." Senator Austerman asked if specific timeframes have been established for the components of the bill. Mr. Stewart responded that timelines have not been established for the bill. He stated that the aforementioned report regarding other states' legislation would be provided to the Committee, along with current information pertaining to the individuals who have been activated and their wage schedule. Senator Austerman asked Ms. Gerrish if providing health benefits for the initial 180-days of active service would be beneficial to those State employees called to active duty. Ms. Gerrish responded that this would address the health insurance problem. She furthered that this would also benefit the situation where people are asked to volunteer for such things as airport security to fill those positions as people are rotated in and out of service. Ms. Gerrish urged the Committee to act on this legislation. Senator Wilken asked for clarification that the wage supplemental component of this bill applies to eight rather than all of the State employees called to active service. Mr. Stewart replied that is correct. The bill was ordered HELD in Committee.