HB 458-STATE EMPLOYEE PROBATIONARY PERIOD  MELANIE LESH, Aide to Representative Bill Hudson, sponsor of HB 458, said HB 458 was a change to the state personnel statutes in AS 39.25.150. It would allow for the extension of probationary periods that are currently limited to 12 months when an agreement has been collectively bargained. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if she heard anything in previous testimony on HB 458 that would indicate why the probationary period was set at 12 months and the flexibility was not built into the law. MS. LESH said Dave Stewart, Personnel Manager at the Department of Administration, talked about the Police Standards Council, which has a 14-month probationary period. She said there was also a court case that suggested that the Legislature look at the statutory limitation because it doesn't allow for exceptions. For instance, she said if someone in the police-training program were injured, they would have to be let go after the 12-month probationary period because they would automatically become a permanent employee. SENATOR PHILLIPS asked what case that was. MS. LESH said the court case did not involve police standards. The case was Baseden vs. State of Alaska. SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if the case was in Juneau or Anchorage. MS. LESH believed the case had initiated in Juneau. She said a person was told by the State they would like to extend his probationary period and he was given advice by the Alaska State Employees Association that he was a probationary employee. However, he was automatically a permanent employee because of the statutory limitation. He took a course of action and the court ruled he was a permanent employee and other avenues of recourse were available. She said it was confusion over the statutory limit that put him and the State in that position. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any questions from committee members. SENATOR PHILLIPS wondered if the confusion over state statutes was only when a lawyer made it that way. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said eventually the courts had to interpret the law. SENATOR PHILLIPS wondered how much the case cost the State of Alaska. MS. LESH didn't believe the case had been resolved. SENATOR PHILLIPS said in that case it would still be using State moneys. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said, "The process of governing ourselves as a society is expensive and cumbersome." He asked if there was any opposition to the bill. MS. LESH said there had not been any. She said there was a question in the House State Affairs Committee about who was excluded. She said the people who were excluded were those who were not represented, those being legislative employees and appointees, who don't have probationary periods. CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted the zero fiscal note. He said he had not prepared a CS. He asked if there were any amendments. There were none. He asked for the will of the committee. SENATOR STEVENS moved HB 458 from committee with attached zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. There being no objection, HB 458 was moved from committee with attached fiscal note and individual recommendations.