ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
January 26, 2017
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Chris Tuck, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Dan Saddler
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
ORGANIZATIONAL DISCUSSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to the employment rights of employees in the
state who are members of the National Guard of another state,
territory, or district of the United States."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: NATL GUARD LEAVE/REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) MLV, STA
01/26/17 (H) MLV AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional State Liaison
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
Lakewood, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 3.
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 3.
STEVEN WILLIAMS, Employment Security Analyst
Division of Employment & Training Services
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:24 PM
CHAIR CHRIS TUCK called the House Special Committee on Military
and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.
Representatives LeDoux, Parish, Spohnholz, Rauscher, Saddler,
and Tuck were present at the call to order.
^ORGANIZATIONAL DISCUSSION
ORGANIZATIONAL DISCUSSION
1:33:20 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that first order of business would be an
organizational discussion about the procedure of the chair
drafting and submitting committee bills on behalf of the whole
committee. He stated it has been the procedure in the past, but
it is proper to have a vote.
1:34:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked that each proposed committee bill
be voted on by the committee rather than having a "blanket
statement" for consent.
1:34:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to ask unanimous consent that
Representative Tuck, the Chair of Military and Veterans' Affairs
Committee, be delegated the duties and responsibilities in AS
24.08.060(a) during regular and special sessions of the
Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature; this delegation remains in
effect until withdrawn by the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected, and stated the statute remains
in effect regardless of what the committee does. He opined that
the statute offers the proper deference for the committee to
decide the status of each bill. He reiterated his request for a
vote by the committee on a bill by bill basis.
1:35:57 PM
CHAIR TUCK stated that he intends to keep all members included
and informed as to what is going on in the committee before a
bill is introduced.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that every committee member
will have the opportunity to object to any bill, even a
committee bill. She stated that in her experience in the
legislature, chairs of committees have always introduced bill
without asking permission from the committee to do so. She
stated her motion clarifies that permission.
1:37:19 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:37 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.
1:38:34 PM
CHAIR TUCK clarified that the motion is a matter of efficiency
to give the chair permission to start drafting legislation on
behalf of the committee. Some requests for changes in
legislation from the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
(DMVA) will be coming before the committee. He stated his
intent to draft the bills as committee bills instead of personal
legislation.
1:39:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if the committee is voting on the
drafts or the final product.
CHAIR TUCK responded that the drafts will not be seen until he's
given permission by the committee. He stated he will confer
with the member's offices regarding drafting so that when a bill
is introduced the committee will already know the intent of the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified his objection is due to the
motion being too general; members would not see the draft before
they would become committee bills. He asked that the committee
consider each bill on its merits.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Representative Saddler if he asked
permission from his committee before introducing a committee
bill when he was the chair of the House Resources Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said "we can certainly go back and look
at the record."
1:40:52 PM
A roll call vote began but was voided by the chair.
1:41:35 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Spohnholz, LeDoux,
Parish, and Tuck voted in favor of the motion. Representatives
Saddler and Rauscher voted against it. Therefore, the motion
passed by a vote of 4-2.
HB 3-NATL GUARD LEAVE/REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
1:42:09 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the final order of business would be
House Bill 3, "An Act relating to the employment rights of
employees in the state who are members of the National Guard of
another state, territory, or district of the United States."
1:42:50 PM
CHAIR TUCK, sponsor of HB 3, paraphrased from the sponsor
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
House Bill 3 seeks to correct a deficiency in
employment protections for Alaskans who are serving in
the National Guard. This is a nationwide effort to
ensure those who serve their nation for all 50 states
when called to duty - regardless of their service
location - will have reemployment rights to their
Alaskan civilian job after completing the various
critical duties when called by a governor for state
active duty.
The National Guard is a hybrid state-federal entity.
While National Guard members are subject to federal
call to duty by the President of the United States,
they can also be called up for state active duty by
the Governor to respond to state emergencies such as
fires, tornadoes and floods.
The federal law Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act [of 1994] (USERRA) protects
members of the Army or Air National Guard when they
are called away from their civilian jobs for federal
service. - HEARD AND HELD
However, USERRA does not apply when a National Guard
member must leave their job for state active duty. If
National Guard members are to have reemployment rights
after state active duty, it must be through state law.
Alaska currently has a law that applies to employment
protections to the public and private employees.
However, it is explicitly limited to members of the
Alaska Army or Air National Guard. There are several
Alaskan residents who serve in the National Guard of
another state. These Alaskans currently do not have
the reemployment protections for their employment.
By passing House Bill 3, we will extend the employment
protections to Alaskans who are serving in any
National Guard. The Department of Defense has
identified this legislation as a key quality of life
issue and is actively seeking to make this policy
change across the nation. So far, 28 other states
have passed similar legislation and 3 other states are
taking it up this session.
CHAIR TUCK added that 33 Alaskans would qualify, and the
statistic comes from self-reporting, so the actual number could
be much higher. The majority are in the Alaska National Guard,
but some reported having served in other states, making 19
states total.
1:45:25 PM
CHAIR TUCK opened public testimony on HB 3.
1:45:45 PM
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional State Liaison, U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD), testified in support of HB 3. He added that 28
states have adopted legislation similar to HB 3, and three more
states are considering it this session. The 33 Alaskans that
qualify have served in 19 states spread all across the nation.
Although it doesn't seem like a lot, the legislation will
improve the policy so members of the National Guards wouldn't be
fired from their civilian jobs for their service.
1:47:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there is reciprocity between
National Guard units in other states - if members can transfer
their National Guard position to their new state of residence.
MR. SAN SOUCI answered that he is not aware of reciprocity. He
said the states are almost sovereign due to their respective
organizations. Transfers between states are based on their job
and rank. For example, a major in Oregon would have to find a
job in Alaska as a major.
1:49:43 PM
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), reviewed that the National Guard is a
reserve component of the Army and Air Force, which provide most
of its funding. The National Guard is typically under the
control of the governor, and each state has its own structure
and positions. He clarified the interstate transfer (IST),
which is a process that can take six to eight months and
transfers qualifications and status from one military to
another. There is a common recognition of training between
states. The IST is available and is pivotal for the Alaska
National Guard. He stated there are three duty types under the
command of the governor: Title 32, United States (U.S.) Code
covers organizing, training, and equipment for federal missions
when needed by the federal government; Title 10, US Code covers
operational uses such as the President calling guard members to
go to Iraq or Afghanistan or respond to other national needs,
which is also funded by the federal government; the third area
is the only area HB 3 pertains to - state active duty for
disaster response. Under state active duty, the state pays the
bill, commands the National Guard, and decides what it will do
and how it will do it. There are federal protections for the
first two listed duties. He listed some historic uses of state
National Guards, including: snow shoveling, hurricane
preparedness and response, flood preparedness, and running
prisons during an officer strike. There are no federal
protections when serving in this role. State active duty is
typically less than 5 days, but can be longer.
1:54:28 PM
MR. DOEHL explained how someone might live in Alaska and move
across the nation to serve elsewhere. When traveling to other
states for drills and training, the guard member pays. He noted
this happens when one's military career is "out of sync" with
one's civilian, professional, or personal life, and is usually
temporary. This involves students, military spouses, airline
pilots, or participants in industries not located in Alaska.
Opportunities to transfer give the guard member a chance to
serve in positions Alaska doesn't have. Alaska doesn't have
senior positions, so attaining those positions in other states
and transferring back to Alaska is a means of career
development. He related his experience as an armor officer at
times living out of state. If he would have been called to
active duty, then he would have needed to travel back to his
home state. He related other experiences he had where travel
between states was necessary for training and advancement. Such
travel costs are a tremendous expense for Alaskans due to the
distance. Mr. Doehl stated that DMVA supports the proposed bill
as it is overall conducive to developing a professional militia
in Alaska. The bill allows for continuity of service for
Alaskans whose life plans require them to spend time outside of
the state.
1:59:26 PM
MR. DOEHL stated that the bill incentivizes new Alaskans to
remain engaged with the military through a prior affiliation, to
keep their readiness current by continuing until there is a
position for them in the Alaska National Guard, and to train as
necessary. It supports developing a more capable force for
Alaska by capitalizing on those out-of-state positions that
cannot be replicated in Alaska. He remarked:
Alaska may have a transient population, but we are
confident we will gain or regain Alaskans affiliated
with another state's National Guard given the
challenges of time, distance, and cost of outside
affiliation. This bill increases their recruitability
and retainability by avoiding breaks in service, and
their readiness when they do come to us.
MR. DOEHL stated that the proposed bill would maintain or
increase the National Guard's ability to serve Alaskans in time
of disaster and all Americans in time of war when mobilized. He
said HB 3 would save tax payers the high cost of either
retraining back up to proficiency after a break in service or
training someone brand new after a separation from service. He
recognized this is a complex area of legislation.
2:01:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if someone usually goes one weekend
a month for drill activities.
2:01:21 PM
MR. DOEHL answered that typically outside units have an
expectation of one weekend a month, plus at least a two week
training period. Those periods have become more frequent for
additional required training. The typical obligation is one
weekend a month and one, two-week annual training period.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if riot control would be federal or
state.
MR. DOEHL stated riot control is usually under state active
duty, with one exception in 1963.
2:02:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if a guard member be less likely to
want a spot with the Alaska National Guard since the bill would
allow a lower risk for private employment with an IST.
MR. DOEHL acknowledged the bill removes one basis for
incentivizing coming to the Alaska National Guard, but stated
his belief that it keeps someone wanting to be involved in the
military with less cost and inconvenience, which offsets that
overall.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if an IST is temporary.
2:04:16 PM
MR. DOEHL stated an IST is a permanent change of affiliation.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how long someone from Minnesota
could serve in the Alaska National Guard slot before joining the
Alaska National Guard.
MR. DOEHL stated that a person can only be a member of one
National Guard at a time. To become a member of the Alaska
National Guard he/she would be released from the other state's
National Guard.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how long could someone go without
being discharged from Minnesota.
MR. DOEHL stated he/she could not start as an Alaska Guard
member until they are done being a Minnesotan Guard member.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there would be any obligation
for a person to terminate his/her relationship with the
Minnesota service.
MR. DOEHL answered that if the person's duties to Minnesota can
accommodate the longer response time entailed for the position,
then there is no set limit.
2:06:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked if adoption of HB 3 would help other
states adopt similar legislation.
MR. DOEHL stated he is hopeful it would support the national
effort. He remarked, "As a nation, the longer that we can keep
individuals with a military affiliation ... the more we save as
tax payers in ... training new recruits off the street; the more
we also gain as Americans in having folks with more experience
and training when we do have to put them in harm's way."
2:07:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if a guard member and his/her
dependents living in Alaska but serving in another state's
National Guard Unit would qualify for the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD).
2:08:04 PM
CHAIR TUCK stated the question is outside the scope of this
legislation.
2:08:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked who the "organized militia"
mentioned on page 1, line 6, of the proposed bill refers to.
MR. DOEHL stated the "organized militia" constitutes the Air
National Guard, the Army National Guard, the Alaska Air National
Guard, the Alaska Army National Guard, the Alaska State Defense
Force, and the Alaska Naval Militia, under Title 26 of Alaska
Statute.
2:09:17 PM
CHAIR TUCK closed public testimony on HB 3.
2:09:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked about the requirement in HB 3 to
rehire the on-duty individual if the employer is not able to
offer the same position.
CHAIR TUCK asked how the reduction of force with a company is
handled.
2:11:19 PM
STEVEN WILLIAMS, Employment Security Analyst, Division of
Employment & Training Services, Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD), stated he cannot answer Representative
Rauscher's question as it pertains to the bill or the current
statute, but stated there is a similar law under USERRA. The
Veterans' Employment and Training Services (VETS), a part of the
U.S. Department of Labor, is responsible for investigating
claims under USERRA, and their director might be better able to
answer the question.
2:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to lines 1 and 2, on page 2 of
HB 3, which read: "at the pay, seniority, and benefit level the
employee would have had if the employee had not been absent as a
result of active state service or National Guard service in
another state." He asked if the guard member would be coming
back as a temporary employee at a part-time salary.
2:13:10 PM
CHAIR TUCK clarified that the question is regarding the existing
statute, and asked Mr. Doehl to describe how it currently works.
2:13:37 PM
MR. DOEHL stated that he will confirm with the Employer Support
of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), but he believes that the
statute involves a minimum threshold on company size. He
offered his understanding that when someone returns after a long
deployment, if a company has downsized and the position no
longer exists, it is impossible to fill it with the returned
guard member. This circumstance removes the obligation to re-
employ him/her in the same position. He stated he has
encountered similar situations.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the position would still
exist, as pertains to the statute, if the employer hires a
"temp" to fill the position.
MR. DOEHL responded that if the company downsized, then there is
no obligation to rehire the guard member. If the company brings
in a replacement, he/she would be a temporary hire. The
replacement should understand that the position is temporary.
Typical state active duty is 3-5 days, and most companies would
not advertise, screen, and hire someone in that time. He stated
that the solution is often to go to temporary staffing companies
for an "immediate fill," with the understanding that the
position is temporary. He stated he would contact ESGR to see
about applicability to size of companies.
CHAIR TUCK stated the existing language has been in practice for
many years.
2:16:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated that he expects this bill would
affect a small number of people, and it's been a successful
section of law across the nation. He referred to Representative
Rauscher's concerns, and asked how similar legislation has
played out elsewhere.
MR. DOEHL stated that he is not aware of these provisions having
ever been invoked. He listed three circumstances that must
align for the statute to come into effect: a person must be
affiliated with a National Guard of a different state from which
they are a resident; the person must be called to state active
duty, which is rare; and the service must trigger a potential
adverse action from an employer in Alaska. He recognized it is
a small set of people affected.
2:18:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for historical perspective on the
percentage of guard members who have been affiliated with
National Guards outside of Alaska.
MR. DOEHL stated that DMVA has no access to the data, so any
information he could offer would be speculative.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Doehl whether the IST process
tends to benefit Alaska or if Alaska loses guard members due to
this statute.
MR. DOEHL stated that overall Alaska gains the experience and
training of individuals. He stated his belief that Alaska signs
more ISTs coming in than going out.
2:20:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if a regular drill weekend
considered active state service.
MR. DOEHL answered no. The regular drill weekends are pursuant
to Title 32, U.S. Code, which is protected by USERRA for adverse
employment actions.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how travel to and time for training
is covered by this statute or USERRA. A service person coming
to and from Alaska would necessitate missing Friday and Monday
of work.
2:22:08 PM
MR. DOEHL stated from experience that he would leave Thursday
night and be at work Monday morning. USERRA does provide
protections for the time reasonably necessary to get to and from
drills as well as the drill itself. He stated that most
employees find a way to "make that up" to [the employer] by
adjusting hours or working longer. Usually that is worked out
by two people talking.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there is a provision for
protection in the bill or USERRA if an agreement is not reached
- if the job is protected if the company cannot accommodate the
travel schedule.
MR. DOEHL stated there are exceptions under USERRA for that
scenario, but it has not come up. He explained that litigation
would be involved to determine the regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether travel time is protected by
USERRA if people are going to their drills.
MR. DOEHL answered that is correct. Reasonable travel time and
the drill weekend would be protected by USERRA.
2:24:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that being called to active
state duty might be for floods, tremendous snowfall, etc.
whereas "being federalized" would include circumstances such as
[being deployed] to Afghanistan.
2:25:04 PM
MR. DOEHL stated that is his understanding as well.
[HB 3 was held over.]
2:26:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 2:26 p.m.