HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE February 23, 2000 1:50 P.M. TAPE HFC 00 - 39, Side 1 TAPE HFC 00 - 39, Side 2 TAPE HFC 00 - 40, Side 1 CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:50 p.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Mulder Co-Chair Therriault Vice Chair Bunde Representative Grussendorf Representative Austerman Representative Moses Representative J. Davies Representative Phillips Representative G. Davis Representative Williams Representative Foster was absent from the Committee. ALSO PRESENT Representative John Coghill; Denise Henderson, Staff, Representative Kott; Deb Davidson, Staff, Representative Davis; Joe Reeves, Deputy Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Corrections; Don Etheridge, Lobbyist, AFL/CIO, Juneau; Guy Bell, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration; Mike Tibbles, Staff, Representative Therriault; Candace Brower, Legislative Liaison, Department of Corrections; Bruce Ludwig, Business Manager, Alaska Public Employees Association (APEA). TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE Blair McCune, Public Defender's Office; Augie Kochuten, Police Officer, Unalaska, Department of Public Safety; Raymond Magpantey, Correctional Officer, Unalaska; Mr. Harry Niehaus, Guardians of Family Rights, North Pole; Patricia Hurt, Registered Nurse, Matsu Correctional Facility, Matsu; Marci Schmidt, Matsu; Gail Sela, Nurse Supervisor, Spring Creek Correctional Center, Seward; Randy Blum, Food Service Supervisor, Spring Creek Correctional Center, Department of Corrections, Seward; Carrie Quiring, Administrative Clerk, Spring Creek Correctional Center, Seward; Mike Harbaugh, Maintenance, Matsu Correctional Facility; Bruce Main, Correctional Officer, Department of Corrections, Anchorage. SUMMARY HB 159 "An Act granting certain employees in correctional facilities status as peace officers under the public employees' retirement system." CSHB 159 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and a new zero fiscal note by the Department of Corrections. HB 259 "An Act relating to a parent's eligibility to be represented by the public defender before and during the probable cause and temporary placement hearing that is held after the state takes emergency custody of a child." HB 259 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. HB 288 "An Act relating to the creation of an aggravating factor for the commission of domestic violence in the physical presence of a child." CSHB 288 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and a new fiscal note by the Department of Corrections; an indeterminate fiscal note by the Department of Administration; and 2 zero fiscal note by: the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law, both dated 2/04/00. HOUSE BILL NO. 259 "An Act relating to a parent's eligibility to be represented by the public defender before and during the probable cause and temporary placement hearing that is held after the state takes emergency custody of a child." REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL testified in support of HB 259. He explained that HB 259 is the result of a meeting with agency representatives in Fairbanks, last spring. He noted that concerns were expressed that some persons are unable to obtain legal representation for the 48-hour child in need of assistance (CINA) hearing. The Division of Family and Youth Services is required to hold a CINA hearing within 48 hours after a child is taken into custody. The ability to receive services from the Alaska Public Defender Agency is not uniform across the state. The legislation would provide for representation. Provision would be made for indigent determination or pro-rated pay back for services. BLAIR MCCUNE, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE testified via teleconference in support of HB 259. He observed that the legislation would allow the Agency to start their work on CINA cases earlier. He stressed the importance of the language "may be represented, pending a determination of indigency" on page 1, line 7. He explained that the Agency must be careful not to enter a situation were a conflict of interest exists. The Alaska Public Defender Agency would want to take the more serious case if multiple charges were involved. He did not anticipate additional costs with the legislation. Vice Chair Bunde noted that the language is permissive. He questioned if the Alaska Public Defender Agency would be liable if they were unable to immediately respond to a case, due to their caseload. Mr. McCune noted that they would not be liable and added that the Agency is required to represent zealously and competently when they begin working on a case. He expressed confidence that cases would be well represented and stated that his concern is with possible conflicts of interest that could arise when a more serious charge is involved in the same case. The Alaska Public Defender Agency has not had sufficient funding for staff to be on-call. Vice Chair Bunde clarified that his concern would be that the Agency not be in violation if they did not having an attorney available to respond to a case. HARRY NIEHAUS, GUARDIANS OF FAMILY RIGHTS, NORTH POLE testified via teleconference. He observed that page 1, line 6 refers to a "person who is the natural or adoptive parent." He questioned why legal guardian was not included. He stressed the need to include guardians in the legislation. He referred to legislation that would allow a continuance in cases where a public defender is not available. Representative Coghill noted that the question of a continuance would be addressed in other legislation and felt that it was out of the scope of HB 259. Parents can ask for a continuance under current law. He indicated that he would be willing to consider the addition of guardians. MARCI SCHMIDT, MATSU testified via teleconference in support of HB 259. She emphasized that it is crucial for parents in CINA hearings to have representation. She maintained that many parents do not receive representation because they do not know that it is available. She noted that there are not sufficient private attorneys available to take on CINA cases. Vice Chair Bunde questioned if the House Judiciary Committee discussed guardians or the need to broaden the legislation to cover those with temporary custody of children. Representative Coghill responded that the addition of guardians or those with temporary custody was not discussed in the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. McCune observed the state statute does not contain specific language, but refers to court rules: "an indigent person who is under formal charge of having committed a serious crime, or if entitled to representation under the Supreme Court delinquency or child in need of aid rules". He observed that there can be problems relating to the addition of guardians because there can be temporary guardianship where a parent is out of town in addition to legal guardians. Temporary guardians may not be included under the rules. He did not have a suggestion for language to add long term guardianship. Representative Austerman noted that the Administration does not have a policy relating to guardians and theorized that, if there were a problem, there would be a policy. Mr. McCune explained that the court system decides that a child should be represented and appoints the Alaska Public Defender Agency to represent them. He did not think that the Agency should be in the situation of representing short-term guardians. Vice Chair Bunde questioned if there is a legal definition of "legal guardian" as opposed to a short-term guardian such as a baby sitter. Representative Austerman spoke in support of the legislation. He suggested that the issue be researched. Mr. Niehaus clarified that his concern is in regards to long term guardians and noted that the issue is addressed in Court Rule 22. HB 259 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL NO. 288 "An Act relating to the creation of an aggravating factor for the commission of domestic violence in the physical presence of a child." DENISE HENDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KOTT testified on behalf of the sponsor in support of HB 288. House Bill 288 would add a new section to AS 12.55.155(c)(18). At the present time, committing domestic violence in the presence of a child is not included as a determining factor in the sentencing of the perpetrator. Currently there is nothing in the Alaska Statutes that would allow judges to factor the egregiousness of the crime into the sentencing. This should be an aggravating factor in determining sentence for the crime of domestic violence. This bill would expand the list to protect the special vulnerability of children. It would become a major factor in determining the severity of the crime and the resulting sentence thereof. House Bill 288 would allow the courts to consider these factors to mitigate or aggravate the severity of domestic violence when committed in the presence of a child. This is a valid criterion for the court in rendering sentence. Ms. Henderson emphasized that she has witnessed the long term emotional and psychological damage that domestic violence in the home can cause on children. She maintained that it is imperative that the court system be given a new tool to further the fight against domestic violence and child abuse. While working for the Juvenile Division of the District Attorney's Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, she observed that there was one underlying factor that always seemed to play a role in the lives of the children coming through the system; "domestic violence". She also worked with Abused Women's Aid in Crisis in Anchorage, where she witnessed the devastation that domestic violence has on children. She is currently a Court Appointed Special Advocate, for the Office of Public Advocacy in Anchorage. She maintained that the legislation would not only bring awareness to the trauma that children bear in witnessing domestic violence in the home, but would be instrumental in breaking this on-going cycle. Ms. Henderson noted that there are zero fiscal notes from the Department of Law, Alaska Court System and the Public Safety. The Department of Administration, Public Defender Office's submitted an indeterminate fiscal note. She observed that the Department of Corrections brought their fiscal note down from $99 thousand dollars to $24 thousand dollars. She felt that the Department of Corrections' fiscal note should also be indeterminate, since the legislation is permissive and allows judges discretion in its implementation. She pointed out that the bill only adds an aggravating factor for the judges to consider. It is at the judge's discretion as to whether it will be applied. Co-Chair Therriault asked for more information regarding the fiscal note by the Department of Corrections. Ms. Henderson noted that the original fiscal note by the Department of Corrections was for $99.7 thousand dollars. The Department of Corrections worked with the Department of Law to lower the fiscal note. The new fiscal note is for $24 thousand dollars. Mr. Niehaus expressed concern with subsection (c) on page 1, line 13. He questioned if an argument among parents in another room could be used as an aggravating factor. Ms. Henderson explained that the provision would only apply to felony offenses. It is not a new statute; it would be a mitigating factor. Mr. Niehaus felt that the language could be misinterpreted. Vice Chair Bunde clarified that there has to be a charge of domestic violence involving physical violence for the provision to be an aggravating factor. Ms. Henderson explained that the language is permissive and up to the judge's discretion. Co-Chair Therriault felt that the new fiscal note was still high. He pointed out that action on fiscal notes are subject to conference committee action on the operating budget and indicated that he would work with the department to lower the note. Representative G. Davis noted that the fiscal note by the Department of Corrections indicates that an addition of three months could be added to sentencing based on the aggravating factor in subsection (c). Vice Chair Bunde MOVED to report CSHB 288 (JUD) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 288 (JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and a new fiscal note by the Department of Corrections; an indeterminate fiscal note by the Department of Administration; and 2 zero fiscal note by: the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law, both dated 2/04/00. HOUSE BILL NO. 159 "An Act granting certain employees in correctional facilities status as peace officers under the public employees' retirement system." DEB DAVIDSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS testified on behalf of the sponsor in support of HB 159. House Bill 159 pertains to the retirement system for correctional facility employees. She noted that the Committee was provided with a proposed committee substitute, work draft 1-LS0699\D, 2/21/00. The legislation allows non-correctional officer employees the opportunity to retire after 20 years of credited service with a facility, providing they pay the full actuarial cost of converting the service to service as a police officer. The legislation was introduced after speaking to several employees at correctional facilities. Any type of employment within a correctional facility is stressful and carries certain elements of risk regardless of the type of job. Employees who work in the kitchens, administration, maintenance, medical profession and other areas are in daily contact and often work side by side with inmates in their jobs. Additionally, there are certain skills that employees must have to work in a correctional facility. Employees must be able to react to potentially dangerous situations. She maintained that the stress level leads to a high rate of turnover within these fields. The legislation would provide incentive to remain in these jobs. The intent is to reduce turnover and the cost of recruitment and training. There is no cost to the state of Alaska, since employees would pay the full actuarial cost. In response to a question by Vice Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Therriault noted that the fiscal note would be zero because the employee would pick up the cost. Vice Chair Bunde questioned if stress is compensated through salary. Ms. Davidson stated that the employees at correctional facilities are paid the same rate as other state employees in the same job class. In response to a question by Representative Austerman, Ms. Davidson clarified that the legislation would apply to any correctional facility where employees are members of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), including municipalities. JOE REEVES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS provided information regarding the legislation. Institutional staff are considered class I employees and receive a slight differential. He noted that there are 288 staff in the combined institutions that include administrative clerks, managers, nurses, health practitioners, and electricians. Co-Chair Therriault questioned the amount of turnover. Mr. Reeves indicated that there is a high turnover. In the last year, 44 of 288 non-correctional officer employees were replaced. Civilian staff accounts for about 15 percent of the employees. The legislation would benefit the department if it succeeded in reducing turnover. Representative Austerman noted that the legislation would cover all other employees in correctional facilities. He observed that employees of the Kodiak Police Department would fall under the program. That would result in the clerk of the chief of police in being eligible for 20-year retirement. Representative Austerman indicated that he would be supportive of allowing correctional employees but expressed concern with the level of expansion. Representative Davis stated that he did not intend to cover police department administrative staff under the definition. Representative Phillips noted that community jails would be covered under the definition. Mr. Reeves acknowledged that community jails have a variety of staff. GUY BELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION did not know which community jail non-correctional employees would be affected by the legislation. He agreed that the line needs to be drawn. He noted that an issue might develop, in community jails, regarding how much of an employee's time is associated with correctional duties vs. their administrative police duties. Representative G. Davis read the definition of a correctional facility as defined in AS. 33.30.901: (4) "correctional facility" or "facility" means a prison, jail, camp, farm, half-way house, group home, or other placement designated by the commissioner for the custody, care, and discipline of prisoners; a "state correctional facility" means a correctional facility owned or run by the state; Representative G. Davis observed that the intention is to adopt the definition of a "state" correctional facility and recommended that the legislation be amended. Mr. Bell provided members with a spreadsheet demonstrating the indebtedness that would result under different scenarios (copy on file). The committee substitute would require the employee to pay the full actuarial cost. Employees can elect to pay off the indebtedness in full or take a monthly benefit adjustment. Tier I employees are employees that entered PERS before July 1, 1986. Tier II covers employees that entered the system after July 1, 1986. A Tier I employee with 20 years of service at age 55 would have a retirement liability of $228,940 dollars if they were a Police/fire employee and $216,221 if they were a non- police/fire employee. The employee could make a lump sum of $12,719 and have a monthly base of $1,875 thousand dollars or reduce their benefits by $104 dollars a month. (Tape Change, HFC 00 - 39, Side 2) Mr. Bell continued to review the spreadsheet. At younger ages a Tier II employees would have a higher indebtedness. Their indebtedness is higher because the normal retirement age for Tier II employees in 60, while the retirement age for a Tier I employee is 55. Mr. Bell observed that if a person began work at 25 years of age and were a Tier I employee that they could retire at 45- years-old if they paid their $174 thousand dollars indebtedness. Vice Chair Bunde noted that it would be expensive and questioned whom would take advantage of the option. Mr. Bell explained that the choice currently is to take their benefit and not receive anything in the future or to wait and not receive any benefit until they are at retirement age. Representative G. Davis pointed out that there would be a benefit to remain in the job for a longer period. PATRICIA HURT, REGISTERED NURSE, MATSU CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, MATSU testified via teleconference in support of the legislation. She emphasized the high risk of infectious disease and abuse that she encounters on the job. She stressed that she cannot remain in the job for 30 years, but felt she would remain on the job if she could retire after 20 years. There is a high turnover of correctional nurses. She makes less money than nurses at local hospitals do. MIKE HARBAUGH, MAINTENANCE, MATSU PRETRAIL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY testified via teleconference in support of HB 159. He echoed concerns regarding job hazards and occupational risk. He noted that it takes a minimum 10 years of experience in maintenance, plumbing and electrical activities and is subject to additional rules for correctional institutions. He pointed out that he daily encounters bodily fluids that could contain infectious disease. BRUCE MAIN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference. He stated that he supports the legislation for those that work inside of correctional facilities. He questioned if employees in youth correctional facilities and the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) would be covered under the legislation. He began work as a nursing aide in API. He noted that he switched to a correctional officer in the same facility to enter the 20- year retirement system. His job was reclassified back to a 30-year retirement system. He stressed that he did the same work in both jobs. He observed that he does not have retirement credit even though he has 27 years of services since he only has 19.5 years as a correctional officer. He stressed that his health has suffered in his job. He pointed out that he is a Tier I employee that could be replaced with a more inexpensive employee. Representative G. Davis stated that the legislation does not cover youth correctional facilities, but thought that there was other legislation that would covered youth facilities. Co-Chair Therriault was unaware of other legislation and indicated that he would prefer that HB 159 not be broadened. RAYMOND MAGPANTEY, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, UNALASKA testified via teleconference. He questioned if the legislation would cover municipal facilities. Co-Chair Therriault explained that the intent was to cover municipal facilities but that concerns have been raised regarding their inclusion. GAIL SELA, NURSE SUPERVISOR, SPRING CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, SEWARD testified via teleconference in support of HB 159. She noted that force is sometimes used to restrain inmates. Nurses must accompany tactical teams during application of pepper spray. Tactical teams are clothed for protection, while nurses remain in their uniforms without protection. Nurses must treat the prisoner afterwards. She emphasized that nurses in correctional facilities do not receive as high a salary as nurses in private hospital facilities. They do not receive hazardous pay. She pointed out that, of the employees she supervises, there are only 4 out of 13 remaining after 3 and a half years. She maintained that the legislation allows equal benefits for equal risk. Nurses are exposed to inmates without protection. She stressed the threat of becoming a hostage in a riot or hostile situation. Vice Chair Bunde commented that the more stressful and unpleasant the job the more it should command in wages. He expressed surprise that nurses at Providence Hospital are paid a higher hourly wage and questioned if they receive comparable benefits. Ms. Sela thought that health benefits were similar and comparable. She acknowledged that the state of Alaska has a good benefit system. RANDY BLUM, FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR, SPRING CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, SEWARD testified via teleconference in support of HB 159. He observed that he supervises eight staff positions and has had 12 different employees in those jobs over the past five years (150 % turnover). He observed that correctional officers work seven days on and seven days off and questioned if this accounted for a difference in the rate of turnover. He stressed the need to reduce turnover. He spoke to the fiscal note. He maintained there would be savings to the state and that correctional staff is under paid by $175 thousand dollars. He asked that HB 159 be supported by committee members. Representative Phillips asked for clarification. Co-Chair Therriault noted explained that the figure that Mr. Blum quoted is the amount that a 45-year-old employee with 20 years of experience would have to pay to opt into the 20 retirement. CARRIE QUIRING, ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK, SPRING CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, SEWARD testified via teleconference in support of the HB 159. She stressed the high level of turnover and the expense of training and the difficulty of finding employees. She observed that the indebtedness requirement could be paid previous to retirement by additional withholding payments. Once the 20-year retirement is established employees will pay the same as others. DON ETHERIDGE, LOBBYIST, AFL/CIO, JUNEAU testified in support of HB 159. He noted that class I and II Local 71 wage earners make the same wages. Union nurses in private institutions have comparable retirement packages to state employees. He stressed that employees work directly with inmates and have encountered dangerous conditions. BRUCE LUDWIG, BUSINESS MANAGER, ALASKA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (APEA) spoke in support of the legislation. He maintained that employees are placed in dangerous situations and receive no extra compensation. He noted that non- correctional employees are often involved in riots and hostage situations. He observed that the state's contribution would be reduced by a half of a percent. Representative G. Davis MOVED to ADOPT, work draft 1- LS0699\D, 2/21/00. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative G. Davis stressed that conditions in state correctional facilities are, in most part, more difficult than in community jails. He noted that the intent would be to narrow the legislation to state correctional facilities. MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained that legislative legal counsel indicated that the state correctional facility definition is reference in AS 33.30.901. Representative G. Davis MOVED to ADOPT a conceptional amendment to add "state" before "correctional" on page 1, line 1 and on page 1, line 7; and to add "as defined in AS 33.30.901" on page 1, line 7. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Mulder noted that the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections expressed concern regarding the affect of employees that are transitioning from correctional officers to supervisors. CANDACE BROWER, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS observed that there are 4 positions in administration that corrections that are under a 30-year retirement including: the director of institutions and the director of community. She stressed that as correctional officers they receive a 20-year retirement. When they are promoted they lose the 20-year retirement. There is a disincentive to promote. Co-Chair Mulder clarified that the provision would only apply if the employee did not yet have 20 years of employment under the 20-year retirement provision. Ms. Brower noted that three of the four positions could take advantage of the provision if it were passed. Tape Change, HFC 00 - 40, Side 1 Vice Chair Bunde observed that employees that are eligible for 20-year retirement would have an incentive to remain in their positions until they reach their 20-year retirement before they are promoted. Ms. Brower explained that employees would have to give up their 20-year retirement to promote. They would not have the option to buy their retirement credit if they were not included in the legislation. She stressed that the department did not want to see people penalized for being promoted. Representative G. Davis indicated that he would support an amendment to address the issue on the floor or further in the process. Representative J. Davies expressed concern with the amendment to limit the legislation to state correctional facilities. He stressed that there would be an equity issue. Representative Phillips MOVED to report CSHB 159 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. Vice Chair Bunde suggested that the state could provide the retirement benefit in lieu of higher wages. There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 159 (FIN) was reported from Committee. CSHB 159 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and a new zero fiscal note by the Department of Corrections. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. House Finance Committee 12 2/23/00