SB 352-MANAGERS NOT EMPLOYEES UNDER P.E.R.A.    CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 352 to be up for consideration. He read the title and asked Kevin Jardell to come forward and introduce the bill. KEVIN JARDELL, assistant commissioner for the Department of Administration, explained that the intention is to modernize the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA). The changes would conform to most states that allow public employees to bargain and would also conform to federal law, which applies to private industry unions throughout the U.S. Department of Education. The impetus for the change stems from confusion and frustration associated with trying to implement the new administration's policies, he said. In working through the policies, they were trying to understand the management they have in the state and how to utilize that management to implement the administration's policies. The first thing they noticed is that there was excessive micromanagement on the commissioner level. They determined that lower-level managers should be implementing many of the policies, but found there were no lower-level managers. Under current state law, the organization is such that everyone below the commissioner, including assistant commissioners and deputy commissioners, is labor under PERA. Upon further investigation, they found that although assistant and deputy commissioners have the right to bargain, they haven't exercised that option. That isn't the pressing problem, he said. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JARDELL continued to say that the problem is that there is no line drawn to define managers, management and labor. They were certain that drawing the line at the commissioner level was not appropriate, but weren't sure where it would be appropriate. The focus was to identify the management team and train them as professionals that would become a part of policy implementation at the division level. They looked at state history and learned that this isn't a new concept. The Cooper, Hammond and Hickel administrations all took some action on this issue. In 1977 and 1980, the Blue Ribbon Commission reviewed PERA. In particular they reviewed confidential employees and the managerial class of employees. That task force determined that those employees should be management rather than in organized labor. A number of previous administrations concluded that they could solve the problem by removing these people from classified service and placing them in partially exempt service. This doesn't solve the problem, he asserted. First, placing employees in the partially exempt service, doesn't remove their right to bargain. The other reason it doesn't work is that this administration doesn't believe that it is in the best interest of the state to make career-service employees who have risen to the management level in a division into political appointees. This administration doesn't want more political appointees at this level, he insisted. What this administration wants to do is to develop a career- service path for management level employees that would be under the political appointees. That line is at the deputy director level and it would "provide a lot of continuity between administrations and a professionalism and a management class that we currently don't spend the resources to train and put in because we can't identify them as management." He pointed to the Division of Retirement and Benefits to provide example of another problem. One director oversees over 100 employees and when he or she is gone, for any reason, there is no management representative in the division during the entire absence. In those instances, organized labor is running the division. To address that issue, they are trying to identify the managerial, deputy director level that is acting with independence in implementing the governor's policies. He said appointees create and develop policy then the next level of management implements the policy with discretion. That level of independent judgment is the root of the definition they propose to adopt. The employee must have that to be defined as a management level. Employees that exercise independent judgment to implement policy are defined as managerial level. SB 352 adopts the federal standard for confidential employees. CHAIR GARY STEVENS told Assistant Commissioner Jardell that he wanted to give him every opportunity to fully present the administration's point of view, but it might have to be at a future time. Many people were waiting to testify and it was getting late in the day. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JARDELL concluded that the principle of the bill is "to build a better management scheme for the state of Alaska, not make new political appointees, but generally professionalize and train a management class of employee." CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked him for working within the committee's time constraints. He said he would begin to take testimony in Juneau then move to the various communities to allow the 35 some people to speak. SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked the Chair if he wanted members to hold their questions until the end of the public testimony period. CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied Assistant Commissioner Jardell would return to complete his testimony and answer questions at a future hearing. JEFFERY PRATHER, staff manager with children services in Juneau said he listened to the previous testimony and he was unclear "who all they're envisioning being a part of this." As someone who might potentially be management, he cautioned the members to take care in determining the level that is appropriate to draw the line. In his office, managers make many sensitive decisions and "politics can play a role in decisions that are made by supervisors throughout the state." He maintained there is a level of comfort having a union to act as a buffer when they must make decisions that align with state regulation and law, but are troubling due to other issues. KEVIN BRENNAN from Kodiak testified via teleconference on his own behalf. He works for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). He thought Assistant Commissioner Jardell's explanation very interesting when compared to the vague language contained in the bill. In fact, the description of a manager could conceivably include anyone in the supervisory unit. "Politicizing public employee positions would diminish our effectiveness in the state." He asked that the bill be tabled because it is an attack on PERA and collective bargaining. LESLIE SIMMONS testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to SB 352. She said she is a front line supervisor for the solid waste program in the Department of Environmental Conservation. She implements policy developed by her commissioner, division director, and program manager. She provides information to help them in policy development. Because of her technical expertise, schooling and experience, she is instrumental in helping the department develop environmental regulations. "I do my job with the understanding of the political, social and economic implications. I make decisions based on sound science, laws and regulations and best management practices. Not based on shifting political elections." She urged the committee to table the bill. CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Ms. Simmons and announced that it was 5:00 pm and even though the hearing would continue for a while longer, his intention was to hear the bill again the following Tuesday. Everyone that wanted to speak would have an opportunity. DEAN WILLIAMS testified via teleconference to say that Assistant Commissioner Jardell's comments are well understood by supervisory members. However, he respectfully disagreed with his analysis of the situation and what he believes to be the problem. He reasoned that as "you move down into the state management team, you understand that when a director leaves of course we're carrying out the governor's and the administration's programs and plans. We are the career employees...." This legislation makes jobs that are not and should not be political very political indeed. "We respectfully disagree with the analysis of Assistant Commissioner Jardell and ask the committee to look very carefully at what is in the legislation and the severe ramifications that we believe it's going to have on the supervisory employees and the state as a whole." STEVE HOFFMAN from Ketchikan testified via teleconference. He questioned whether the bill was an attempt to better state government or a first step toward union busting. OLE LARSON testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO and said where he works, the commissioner, deputy commissioner, directors, and special assistants are all political appointees. He didn't hear about the bill until the previous Friday, he didn't read about it until yesterday and he couldn't understand the urgency. "The state employment system isn't broken or out of control." He said he was opposed to the legislation because it wouldn't provide any protection to supervisory employees from the political whims of changing administrations. He stated that there is just one supervisory layer under him. "There isn't a long career ladder to begin with and this would eliminate what career ladder is left." A staff member asked what "undivided loyalty" means and he believes this is a scary issue. TAPE 04-10, SIDE A  5:12 pm    CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced that he wanted the entire committee hear all the testimony on this important issue and he intended to take additional public testimony the following Tuesday.   BRUCE SENKOW testified via teleconference from Fairbanks and advised that he is the president of the Alaska Public Employees Association. When he reviewed the bill, he found it to be "wrong on so many levels." With regard to loyalty, he has never heard of a supervisor disobeying a direct request from a director or commissioner if he or she was given clear direction. Next, he couldn't figure out where the governor's concern about confidentiality was coming from because "we probably hear more from commissioners and political appointees than we ever hear from labor relations staff." The issue of cost is noteworthy even though the fiscal note doesn't reflect that. Under collective bargaining, there is arbitration if you must terminate someone. That is costly. With this bill, he thought a predetermination hearing would be necessary followed by a personnel board hearing. After that lawyers would get involved. "That's going to cost you ten times more than what an arbitration will cost to find out whether or not you did what you should have done." Drawing on years of experience, he asserted that most supervisors are more fiscally responsible than most political appointees. "On so many levels, this is the wrong time and the wrong thing to address. The system isn't broken it doesn't need to be fixed. I think this needs to be tabled." SHANNON FLEMING testified that she is the investigation supervisor for the office of children's services in Juneau. Many of her sentiments were stated already, but she wanted to comment on conflicting loyalties. She professed to no conflicting loyalties now, but suggested that she very well might if she didn't have union representation because she helps six social workers make difficult family related decisions on a daily basis. GEORGE PAPPAS, an area management biologist for the Department of Fish and Game, testified via teleconference from Kodiak in opposition to SB 352. As a manager of a fully allocated fishery, nearly every decision that he makes serves some user group and takes away from another, he said. He questioned whether the next generation of biologists would be able to base their decisions on sound biological principles rather than the politically and economically based process seen in the early 1900s. Without protection of a union, he was concerned that he could lose his job for making a publicly unpopular, but biologically sound decision. GERRY GUAY testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to the bill. He works for the Department of Environmental Conservation and is also the chair of the Southcentral supervisory unit. SB 352 implies the 500 plus members of the state supervisory workforce need to be controlled because they aren't supportive of the current political direction. "The implication that we could be better controlled is not only a dangerous conclusion, but severely undermines the fabric of state government and being a public servant." Our role as supervisors is not to be controlled but to serve the residents of the state of Alaska irrespective of the controlling party. We are here to provide informed advice, technical expertise and to serve as check and balance when decisions don't make sense. This is not to suggest that we work against the political pundit, but instead we make sure that the desired results are based on informed decisions. I believe the mere suggestion of political control at my mid-managerial level should send fear to the hearts of most Alaskans. He observed that he interpreted the bill differently than Assistant Commissioner Jardell and asked how the bill would: · Improve the loss in productivity in the state system caused by political turnover every 4 years · Handle the loss in informed experienced leadership in the 3 to 6 months following each election · Address the brain-drain as older staff leave or are forced out · Counter the loss of staff leaving for bigger money in the private sector because state employment no longer offers security · Counter the loss of dedicated state workers and managers · Address fewer experienced state workers wanting to become managers · Protect supervisory members that are already afraid to testify at legislative hearings because they are afraid of political retribution DORIS TANNER testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO to represent supervisory members of the Election Board. She opposed any effort to open the Public Employment Relations Act. She advised that she had a written statement to read and she would send the committee a copy for the file. She read: PERA isn't broken; if anything it isn't strong enough. This is evident in the continual upheaval and damage done to vital state programs and service of each and every administrative change in subjective replacement Raiding PERA will increase the number of long-term employees - and these are employees with experience and history necessary to operate efficient programs and services - arbitrarily replaced by political influence. I am here today to tell you about personal experiences with political appointments in state government. As you know, each and every administration brings with it political appointees into key state positions. We have pretty much learned to live with that. Those positions, however, bring their own key people in. These political pawns are generally inexperienced in the department they are charged to represent. They bring varying levels of education and experience and a complete misunderstanding for how the department, the division, or the program functions. They lack the history or memory to quickly get up to speed in the mission of the department they represent. In short, they bring chaos into a perfectly oiled machine. If PERA is raided, this political process will become the norm occurring daily rather than every four years that we currently experience. MS. TANNER noted that one of her employees wrote, "This is the first time in my life that I have felt afraid to say what I think in a workplace. This is not like me." That paranoia is widespread and is holding the state hostage, Ms. Tanner charged. Finally she asked, "Why is this issue only receiving the notice of one hearing held one day after its introduction?" She urged the committee to kill SB 352. CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked her for her comments then explained, for the record, "that we did send this out on Thursday - that it was posted on Friday. It was not given a bill number until Monday when it went across the Senate floor." He continued to say that there would be another hearing to give everyone a chance to speak to the issue. He announced he would like to hear from one more person from Fairbanks so that each community had two people speak to the issue. JUNE PENNELL-STEPHENS, APEA member and manager at the Fairbanks North Star Borough, stated that she was the next on the list. She made the point, "You make good managers by hiring qualified people and training them properly, not merely by prohibiting them from carrying a union card." It is short sighted and offensive to say that someone can't be a good manager and a good union member. Her contract gives her the explicit right to express political opinions, which is not included in the general personnel policy that covers non-union employees. Without that guarantee, many public employees would be directly or indirectly deprived of their right of free speech. She charged that prohibiting all managers from belonging to any union whatsoever might well be an infringement on their first amendment right to the freedom of association. She urged the committee to defeat the bill. CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced that the committee schedule was full for the coming Thursday meeting, but they would continue hearing the bill again on Tuesday of the next week. He noted he hadn't given Assistant Commissioner Jardell an opportunity to complete his testimony and asked him if he had anything to add. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER JARDELL replied he would return and answer questions at a later time. CHAIR GARY STEVENS held SB 352 in committee and adjourned the meeting at 5:30 pm. #