HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE February 23, 1999 8:05 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative John Coghill, Jr. Representative Scott Ogan Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Bill Hudson Representative Beth Kerttula Representative Harold Smalley MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 80 "An Act relating to a state employment preference for certain members of the Alaska National Guard." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 45 "An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 80 SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE FOR NAT'L GUARD SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MORGAN, Foster, Kapsner, Masek, Harris, Kott, Mulder, Croft, Dyson, Coghill, Rokeberg, Phillips, Murkowski Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/03/99 133 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/03/99 133 (H) MLV, STATE AFFAIRS 2/05/99 147 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL, ROKEBERG, 2/05/99 147 (H) PHILLIPS 2/08/99 173 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MURKOWSKI 2/16/99 (H) MLV AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120 2/16/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 2/17/99 235 (H) MLV RPT 7DP 2/17/99 235 (H) DP: FOSTER, PHILLIPS, CROFT, COGHILL, 2/17/99 235 (H) KOTT, JAMES, MURKOWSKI 2/17/99 235 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 2/17/99 235 (H) REFERRED TO STA 2/23/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 45 SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) WILLIAMS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/19/99 30 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/19/99 30 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 2/11/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 2/11/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 2/19/99 (H) STA AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 102 2/19/99 (H) MINUTE(STA) 2/23/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HJR 7 SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) WILLIAMS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/19/99 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/19/99 17 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 2/11/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 2/11/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 2/19/99 (H) STA AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 102 2/19/99 (H) MINUTE(STA) 2/23/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, JR Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 416 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3719 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 80. HEATHER KINZIE, Employee Resources Consultant Division of Personnel Department of Administration P.O. Box 110201 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201 Telephone: (907) 465-4076 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified neither in support nor against HB 80. THELMA BUCHHOLDT, Director Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Office of the Governor Frontier Building 3601 C Street, Suite 250 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 269-7495 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 80 in regards to women and minorities. CAROL CARROLL, Director Administrative Services Division Department of Military and Veterans Affairs 400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 500 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-4730 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80. CHRIS NELSON, Staff to the Senate Majority Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 413 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3865 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80. BRUCE GAZAWAY, President Alaska National Guard Enlisted Association (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80. CRAIG LISONBEE, Sergeant Major Alaska Army National Guard (Address not provided) Telephone: (Not provided) POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding attrition rate of the Alaska Army National Guard. BRUCE J. GABRYS, President Alaska National Guard Officer's Association 200 West 34th Avenue, Suite 727 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 694-3874 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80. REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4527 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 80. FATE PUTMAN, Representative Alaska State Employees Association/Local 52 AFSCME AFL-CIO P.O. Box 20473 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 586-2813 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 80 in relation to collective bargaining units. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-7, SIDE A Number 001 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Coghill, Ogan, Whitaker, Kerttula and Smalley. Representative Hudson arrived at 8:10 a.m. HB 80 - EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE FOR NAT'L GUARD Number 008 CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HB 80, "An Act relating to a state employment preference for certain members of the Alaska National Guard." CHAIR JAMES explained Representative Morgan, sponsor of the bill, is not available to discuss the bill and that Representative Coghill has agreed to present the sponsor statement. Number 014 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL JR, Alaska State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into the record: This legislation serves as motivation for joining the Alaska National Guard by establishing an enlistment and retention incentive. This bill will initiate a state hiring preference for Alaska National Guard members recognizing their tremendous contributions to our state. Specifically, the bill will allow three points to be added to the passing grade of a member of the Alaska National Guard when qualified for classified service under the State of Alaska's merit system examination. To qualify for the preference points, Alaska National Guard members may have served in the Alaska National Guard for eight years. A person may use the preference without limitation when being considered for a position for which persons who are not currently state employees are being considered. Currently, under Statute 39.25.159, the bill considers preference for veterans, disabled veterans and prisoners of war. With the introduction of this new bill, members of the Alaska National Guard will also be included in the hiring preference. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR noted, as somebody who has worked with the guard in his district, these folks deserve respect for having to strap on a gun and be called into harm's way. Number 063 HEATHER KINZIE, Employee Resources Consultant, Division of Personnel, Department of Administration, stated the department neither opposes nor supports HB 80. The department simply wants to present the impact of the bill on certain operations for the state. Firstly, the state uses Workplace Alaska, an on-line application process, for all of its classified service positions. Classified service positions are those positions backed by bargaining units. For the general government bargaining unit, a little more than 70 percent of the workforce, there is a numerical scoring device. Applicants who meet minimum qualifications receive a score of 70, and an additional 10 points are added for certain desirable qualifications for a total score of 100. The bill would add an additional five points for veterans. Ms. Kinzie referred to a handout titled, "Workplace Alaska Ranking System", and noted there are currently 9 ranks starting at a score of 70 and increasing in increments of 5 to a total score of 100. The bill would increase the ranks to 13 starting at a score of 70 and increasing in increments of 3 to a total score of 110. She also noted the two possible scenarios [Scenarios A and B] in the handout illustrating the "reachable" candidates. She explained she did not take any veteran preference away from the applicant pool because it weighs more than an Alaska National Guard preference. In Scenario B she added an Alaska National Guard preference to a regular applicant with no preference. She noted the addition decreased the applicant pool drastically from 13 to 9 reachable candidates, and from 9 to 2 for reachable candidates without a special preference. Number 178 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Ms. Kinzie whether the possible scenarios are plausible, probable or absolute. MS. KINZIE replied possible. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Ms. Kinzie, referring to the possibility, whether there could have been more applicants without a special preference in Scenario B. MS. KINZIE replied it is possible, but Scenario B includes the overall possible percentage of veterans at 12 percent - the number of applicants receiving veteran points. She reiterated she included an Alaska National Guard preference in Scenario B which caused a decrease, but the scenario is as close as she could make it. Yes, it is possible that there could be more "normal" applicants who would have scored just as high increasing the number of reachable applicants. Number 215 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated for clarification that nobody other than a veteran could score 110. MS. KINZIE replied correct. She reiterated about 70 percent of the vacancies for classified service positions are ranked numerically from a starting score of 70 up to 110. The other vacancies are unranked, but veteran points apply. In other words, everyone starts with a score of zero and veterans get five or ten preference points. The bill would include three as a fourth rank. Number 232 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER stated it appears Scenario B should be headed "probable" rather than "possible" because a percentage of actual population is being used. He asked Ms. Kinzie whether she agrees. MS. KINZIE replied, yes, it should be a probable scenario. CHAIR JAMES announced the presence of Representative Hudson. Number 247 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Kinzie whether a lot of Alaskan veterans are using their preference and actually receiving a job. MS. KINZIE asked, for clarification, whether Representative Hudson is interested in the percentage of veterans applying for jobs where that veteran's preference points are applicable, or the number of veterans actually getting jobs because of that veteran's points. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied he is interested in whether or not veterans are applying for jobs and getting them. MS. KINZIE replied, according to statute, veterans only receive preference points for open, competitive lists. They do not receive preference points for promotional opportunities. The current percentage of applicants receiving veteran points is 12. She does not know how many veterans are getting jobs because of that veteran's preference points, but she would try and get that information to him. Number 275 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that information would be helpful and interesting in order to see whether or not it is working. Number 282 MS. KINZIE continued. She noted that there would be two other impacts on the operation of the state. Firstly, she explained the state gives veteran preference points after 180 days of active duty during a war period, once disabled, or once a prisoner of war. A veteran will always receive that preference. House Bill 80, however, does not state that for the guard. It only states that a member has to be in the guard for eight years and active. Those circumstances can change placing a burden on the state by requiring every applicant for every application to show eligibility. Secondly, she explained there is a high percentage of employees with guard status within the Department of Corrections and Department of Public Safety and noted that Desert Storm placed a burden on those departments because of the shortage of staff. The departments had to seek other types of coverage, such as double-shift and overtime. The bill might solve the retention problem the guard is having while at the same time put an undue burden on the state. Number 325 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the zero fiscal note and asked Ms. Kinzie whether the department is going to absorb the additional burdens. MS. KINZIE replied she doesn't know. She would have to get back to the committee on that. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered whether a zero fiscal note is accurate. CHAIR JAMES noted Representative Ogan's concern and stated it is something that can't be calculated. Nevertheless, the national guard is so important that the state needs to allow its members to have a job and continue service - the purpose of the bill. She is not sure whether or when there would be a fiscal impact on the departments, however. She noted a fiscal note addresses the current budget, and it is good to talk about a possible fiscal impact, but a positive fiscal note would not be appropriate. Number 372 THELMA BUCHHOLDT, Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, Office of the Governor, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She noted there are presently 13,543 state employees in the executive branch of which 2,294 or 5 percent are minorities: Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Asian-Pacific Islanders, Hispanics and African-Americans. She stated the bill might affect the application and retention of minorities and women. It is another hurdle for them when the state has a hard time hiring minorities anyway. She explained there have been complaints from Alaska Natives and African-Americans regarding the insufficient number of their people in state jobs. She reiterated adding another preference above and beyond the five and ten points to veterans would be detrimental to the hiring of minorities. She asked that the committee members consider her concerns when deliberating the bill. Number 413 CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Buchholdt whether there is a high percentage of Alaska Natives in the guard and wouldn't that increase the opportunity for minority hire. MS. BUCHHOLDT replied, yes, but she is not talking about them. She recognized that the bill could be a boost to Native hire. She is talking about the other minorities and women. Traditionally, most guard members are male thereby depriving white females and minorities the opportunity to compete for those jobs. Number 433 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER noted he would like to see the basis of Ms. Buchholdt's conclusion in the form of a calculation sheet. Number 444 CHAIR JAMES called on Ms. Kinzie and referred to Scenarios A and B. She asked whether the applicants at the rank of 90 and 100 have any preferences. MS. KINZIE replied there are some typical applicants at the rank of 90 and 100 without special preferences. CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Kinzie whether anybody in the reachable group can be chosen, not necessarily the top five. MS. KINZIE replied right. CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Kinzie whether the chances of having a minority applicant is better in Scenario A at 13 reachable candidates or in Scenario B at 7 reachable candidates. MS. KINZIE replied the chances of reaching an underutilized candidate is the exact same in both scenarios because they are always reachable. In other words, they are guaranteed a consideration. CHAIR JAMES stated a minority or woman is pushed up into the reachable status. MS. KINZIE responded yes. CHAIR JAMES stated in light of that Ms. Buchholdt's concern is not necessary. MS. KINZIE replied she could not say exactly. She is aware of the concern of appearances and hiring managers tend to do the bare minimum of what's required. In other words, hiring managers tend to take only the top five candidates. It is probable, therefore, a hiring manager would see a lower score and assume that candidate is not as qualified. The fact that that candidate is reachable sometimes does not play a part. A hiring manager will consider that candidate because it is the law, but more than likely that hiring manager will assume a candidate with a lower score is not as qualified. Number 478 CHAIR JAMES stated it is possible, therefore, that any reachable candidate in the scenarios could either be a minority or woman. MS. KINZIE replied yes. Number 483 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Kinzie for comparable information on the underutilized similar to what he requested earlier regarding veterans. Number 495 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR asked Ms. Kinzie whether the state follows equal employment opportunity hiring. MS. KINZIE replied correct. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR asked Ms. Kinzie whether that is also true for the national guard. MS. KINZIE replied she is not sure. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR stated he thinks that the Alaska National Guard has equal employment opportunities creating a level playing field and encouraging minorities. He sees the bill as an incentive. He does not see it as discriminatory. Number 512 CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, noted acting Commissioner Phillip Oates, Brigadier General, testified enthusiastically in favor of the bill in the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting. The department always likes to support recruitment and retention efforts of the national guard. Currently, the state is having a problem recruiting and retaining members, therefore, the bill would be good to help with those goals. However, it is not the commissioner's intent to have a detrimental effect on any other group of people. Number 528 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Carroll what percentage of the Alaska National Guard is female. MS. CARROLL replied, according to the department's statistics, 27 percent are women and 34 percent are Alaska Natives. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Carroll whether she has any other breakdowns. MS. CARROLL replied no. She further noted the department is gathering information on how many guardsmen would be eligible for these points. Number 543 CHRIS NELSON, Staff to the Senate Majority, Alaska State Legislature, noted he is also currently serving as staff to the Joint Committee on Military Bases. In reference to the issue of verification, each active member of the national guard receives a leave and earning statement indicating that members length of service. Therefore, he doesn't believe the state would incur any administrative burden. It is simply a matter of asking a guardsman to present that guardsman's pay slip. In reference to the makeup of the Alaska Army National Guard, 6 percent are African-Americans, 4 percent are Asian and Pacific Islanders, 5 percent are Hispanics, 31 percent are Native Americans and 54 are others. Thirteen percent of the guard is female. The numbers stand up well against state agencies and the armed forces as a whole. In reference to the Alaska Air National Guard, 8 percent are African-Americans, 1 percent are Asian and Pacific Islanders, 3 percent are Hispanics, 2 percent are Alaska Natives and 86 percent are others. Twenty-three percent of the guard is female. He noted every position in the Alaska Army National Guard is open to females including positions in the field, and he doesn't know of any other organizations that have done a better job than the Alaska National Guard in reaching out, including and opening opportunities for all. A preference, therefore, is only a preference to a personnel pool that is already ethnically and racially diverse. He doesn't think the bill would adversely affect women and minorities. Number 597 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Nelson whether the total makeup of minorities is 46 percent. MR. NELSON replied, yes, for the Alaska Army National Guard. Number 601 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER referred to the 13 percent figure for females in the Alaska Army National Guard and asked Mr. Nelson what percentage was previously counted as minorities. MR. NELSON replied he doesn't have that breakdown. He would get it to him this afternoon. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Nelson whether it is fair to speculate that the number could be roughly one-half. MR. NELSON replied upon speculation the numbers would reflect the overall makeup of the Alaska Army National Guard because a decision to join the guard is primarily driven by geographic location and there are several units in bush Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Nelson whether taking the total for minorities and the total for women would put the figure at over 50 percent. MR. NELSON replied yes if the categories are constructed that way. A percentage of each of the ethnic breakdowns is female. There is a strong case in looking at the overall picture of the Alaska Army National Guard and arguing that over one-half could be counted in one of the categories. Number 624 CHAIR JAMES noted a veteran will always get a preference under current law, but a member of the national guard will only get a preference if that member is active with eight years of service. She wondered whether it would be better to just give a guard member five preference points instead of three. Representative Morgan has indicated to her that the figure three was used because veterans objected to having guard members at the same level. MR. NELSON replied he has served as an enlisted soldier in the regular army, as an officer in the army and as a member of the reserve. In reference to the issue of mobilization and its effect on state agencies, a mobilization disrupts everything. He has great respect for guard members because they serve the governor as commander in chief and respond to federal and state emergencies including natural disasters. It isn't realistic to think that a worldwide emergency or natural disaster isn't going to disrupt anybody. In addition, it is valuable to have a well-trained, organized and equipped personnel pool to deploy in various part of the state. It may cause disruption to an agency, but the very nature of an emergency disrupts everybody. Number 677 CHAIR JAMES stated a guard member and a veteran are two different folks, but there seems to be parity in making the preference points the same. She understands, however, that veterans might feel differently, particularly if they have spent time in harm's way. Number 690 MR. NELSON replied there might be generational feelings on this issue because of the draft during the Vietnam Era. It was criticized for its exemptions from service. It ended up being highly discriminatory and eventually discontinued. However, during that era a person could enlist in a reserve unit that had a low percentage of being mobilized and therefore completing that person's military obligation. Consequently, there has been resentment among veterans who did not serve in the guard, but served in active duty, as required by the draft, and spent time in harm's way. That feeling is going away, however. In addition, there is a high percentage of national guard members that are veterans and have already passed the "189"-day window entitling that member to a five-point preference. There is also a high percentage of national guard members that are not veterans and have... TAPE 99-7, SIDE B Number 001 MR. NELSON continued. The preference system is not cumulative whereby a guard member would get either three or five points. It is a valuable preference and a new way to value a member's service in the Alaska National Guard. The bill does not disrupt the current preferences for veterans. He thinks it will reach the people that it intends to reach; it will be a valuable recruiting and retention tool; and it will deliver a racially and ethnically diversified personnel pool to the state. Number 037 BRUCE GAZAWAY, President, Alaska National Guard Enlisted Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He noted he is also a citizen soldier. He mentioned Sergeant Major Craig Lisonbee and Senior Master Sergeant Lisa Scroggs are also available as resources regarding the issue of recruiting and retention. The association believes that the preference points are not a reward for past service, but to encourage further service of mid-level managers and trained technicians. In other words, it is a modest and low-cost incentive for master mechanics, shop foremen, electricians, load masters, pilots, squad leaders, platoon leaders and the other worker bees. The association would not object to including retired guard members or a five-point preference which has been discussed. Three points were chosen to prevent conflicts with veteran organizations and to keep the focus on providing an incentive to stay with the guard. He explained the entire U.S. military is facing a retention crisis, not just the national guards, and the most skilled service members are being lured away into a civilian market. The Alaska National Guard suffers about a 10 percent to 20 percent dropout rate, the reason for generating this type of legislation. In addition, the Alaska National Guard is one of the most racially integrated and ethnically represented institutions in the state. Alaska Natives comprise over 34 percent of its membership and over one-half are members of one minority category. It is these individuals that will benefit most from this type of policy because what drives many minorities and low-income youths to join the military is the desire to learn job skills. The guard can provide the training, but it can't provide many with full-time employment resulting in a high dropout rate. This bill, therefore, can abridge that problem and encourage those individuals in their quest for a stable job and a guard career. In addition, he noted this measure will set Alaska apart from the rest of the states. Number 162 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Gazaway what the figures are for dropouts. MR. GAZAWAY replied he doesn't have those figures and deferred the question to Sergeant Major Lisonbee. Number 172 CRAIG LISONBEE, Sergeant Major, Alaska Army National Guard, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated on a yearly basis the guard goes from an 18 percent to 22 percent attrition rate. It depends on the year, however, and what happens within that year. Number 178 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether a great portion of dropouts is due to the fact that they don't have jobs. MR. GAZAWAY replied there is the concept referred to as "job instability" which indicates the period of time when a guard member can't find stable work and often migrates out of the state. That guard member often drops out of the guard. Number 202 BRUCE J. GABRYS, President, Alaska National Guard Officer's Association, testified via teleconference from Homer. He noted he is retired with over 15 years of leadership experience with the Alaska National Guard. The three-point preference recognizes the service that the guard provides to the people of Alaska and the nation. National guard members are called upon on an increasing frequency to assist in times of state emergencies and federal service. This bill would provide an additional incentive for the retention of mid-career servicemen and women who have received a great deal of training and who are critical to the success of the national guard. In reference to dual membership as a member of the guard and employee of the state, there is a synergistic effect because in a time of state emergency there is a cross-pollination of skills that facilitates interdepartmental coordination. He finds the reference to co-membership as negative and discriminatory towards military members. The state should be rewarding those who service that state and country. In reference to the three-point preference, the bill is not intended to create an additional category of employment. He agrees with Representative James' suggestion of making it a five-point preference and believes that veteran organizations would support that change as well. In reference to the Vietnam Era, the membership of the guard is different now and the hard feelings have long passed. In reference to the handout titled, "Workplace Alaska Ranking System", he is concerned because it uses a veteran density of 12 percent, assumes all the applicants are of the same veteran preference, and assumes 50 percent are disabled veterans. The bill is not intended to eliminate people from the top five tiers and restrict the selection of choices. It is intended to give an opportunity to select guard members to be interviewed or at least to be considered. A selection, however, should be based on merit. Number 306 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to page 2, lines 18-21, "If all job qualifications are equal, a member of the national guard shall be given preference over a person who was not a veteran, prisoner of war, or members of the national guard, and the member of the national guard shall be kept on the job.", and noted it is a provision that runs into traditional and current labor negotiated bumping rights. He wondered whether it is also a leg up on seniority status. He would not be comfortable offsetting those tradition privileges. Number 338 CHAIR JAMES wondered whether being in a job longer is a "job qualification". REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he is not sure. Number 345 CHAIR JAMES stated it needs to be made clear. A person on the job for a few months compared to a person on the job for years do not have the same job qualifications. Number 355 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR referred to page 2, lines 21-22, "This subsection may not be interpreted to amend the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.". He noted some guard members have bargained into a collective agreement and the bill will not change that. CHAIR JAMES stated she believes the bill will not change that either. CHAIR JAMES announced the presence of Representative Morgan, prime sponsor of the bill. Number 369 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Representative Morgan to explain his concern regarding the appearance of upsetting somebody on the basis of a national guard qualification in relation to seniority. He supports the intent and purpose of the bill, but doesn't want to see it upset long-standing and traditional contractual relationships. Number 383 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Morgan whether including the term "seniority" would remain consistent with the intent of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN, Alaska State Legislature, replied it is fine with him. Number 407 MS. CARROLL noted language already exists in statute and that language works. She also stated qualifications include seniority. Number 414 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Carroll whether there is a conflict in Section 1 referring to veterans and Section 2 referring to members of the national guard in relation to all qualifications being equal. MS. CARROLL replied the bill sets a situation for a veteran to stay, and if there isn't a veteran, a member of the guard would stay with all things being equal. She doesn't believe there is a conflict. Number 423 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Carroll whether she is saying, all qualifications being equal, the veteran preference will make it so that veterans will not be quite equal. MS. CARROLL replied, with all things remaining equal, a veteran gets the preference. And, if there isn't a veteran then a member of the guard would get that preference, and if there are neither that preference wouldn't come into play. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that is not how the bill is written. It needs to be clarified. Number 439 CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Carroll whether the language mentioned earlier in existing law regards veterans. MS. CARROLL referred to the language on page 2, lines 3-6; and page 2, lines 18-21, and noted a guard will be given preference over a person who is not a veteran, prisoner of war, or member of the national guard... CHAIR JAMES interjected and noted it is existing language. She also noted the only change is to include members of the national guard. It is, therefore, not necessary to include language referring to seniority. Number 456 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR referred to page 2, lines 21-22, "This subsection may not be interpreted to amend the terms of a collective bargaining agreement." He feels that seniority is adequately protected and there isn't an inequity. CHAIR JAMES agreed with him. Number 465 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY stated he would like to see seniority included rather than implied. It is much cleaner. CHAIR JAMES wondered whether it would also have to be included in existing law. Number 472 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted the first instance is referring to filling a new position and the second instance is referring to the elimination of a position within a classified service. He is concerned about keeping language that is in accordance with the collective bargaining agreements in relation to downsizing. Seniority is a major provision that collective bargaining agreements address. He suggested hearing from a representative of a union. CHAIR JAMES explained the language in existing law is exactly the same as the language in the new subsection. She doesn't know why language referring to seniority would be needed in the new subsection when it is not needed in the existing language. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated maybe it is needed in both places. Number 499 MR. GAZAWAY stated the goal of the association is not to perpetuate rights or privileges after employment has been obtained. The association is simply trying to have its membership get to an interview and prove that member's capability. The association would not object to striking that language. Number 515 CHAIR JAMES stated keeping that member employed is just as important as getting that member employed. They are the same priorities. Number 522 FATE PUTMAN, Representative, Alaska State Employees Association/Local 52 AFSCME AFL-CIO, explained the issue is a policy decision. He suspects the members would be part of a collective bargaining unit. He reiterated it is a policy decision on whether or not to expand a seniority right to a large class of people. Number 531 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Putman whether he is concerned about it interfering with a collective bargaining agreement. MR. PUTMAN replied it would interfere in the area of seniority. Giving absolute preference to a member of the guard would allow that member to bump somebody who is not a member of the guard. CHAIR JAMES noted that is just what veterans do. MR. PUTMAN replied exactly. CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Putman whether seniority is included in the language, "if all job qualifications are equal". MR. PUTMAN replied he is confused about that, but doesn't think it includes seniority. CHAIR JAMES noted that collective bargaining agreements refer to seniority. MR. PUTMAN responded yes. CHAIR JAMES stated, according to her understanding, two people with the same job qualifications includes seniority because it is part of the collective bargaining agreement. MR. PUTMAN replied if that is her understanding he agrees. CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Putman wouldn't it be just as important for a member of the guard to keep a job as it is to give a preference to get a job as long as everything else is equal. MR. PUTMAN replied yes. Number 554 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he believes a job qualification does not include seniority, but now believes that language shouldn't be included in the bill because he doesn't want to modify "job qualifications" in general. Seniority is a position that is negotiated in collective bargaining agreements. Number 564 CHAIR JAMES stated a person's qualifications have risen after being in a job for a number of years. She said, "Don't tell me that a person who has not been on the job longer isn't more qualified than somebody who's just been hired." Number 582 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied it isn't always equal from year to year. There are other provisions as well. Chair James is talking about an employee who has received computer training, for example, as a qualification that is taken into consideration when hiring. The unions take seniority into consideration in the event of a layoff. But a veteran would have an equal opportunity at a minimum to maintain that veteran's job. Number 588 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated an employee cannot be fired unless that employee is grossly incompetent in this state. CHAIR JAMES stated, "I would." CHAIR JAMES explained to Representative Morgan before he arrived there was discussion about three versus five preference points. Mr. Lisonbee indicated there wouldn't be a conflict with the veteran organizations and the guard, but he would check it out. She referred to the scenarios provided by Ms. Kinzie and noted that more people are included in the five-point scenario giving minorities and women a better chance. She doesn't have a problem with changing it to five points. She wondered how Representative Morgan feels about it, and asked him whether he wants to move the bill out of committee today or wait until Mr. Lisonbee gets back to the committee on that issue. Number 616 REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN replied he feels more comfortable waiting. CHAIR JAMES announced the bill will be held over for further consideration. HB 45 - INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS HJR 7 - CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS Number 622 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business in HB 45, "An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date."; and HJR 7, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. CHAIR JAMES explained that these two bill have been in a subcommittee. Number 625 CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at-ease then called the meeting back to order. CHAIR JAMES announced there is a committee substitute for HB 45, CSHB 45(STA), 1-LS0254\D, Kurtz, 2/22/99. There is also a committee substitute for HJR 7, CSHJR 7(STA), 1-LS0252\D, Kurtz, 2/22/99. She noted the change for both committee substitutes is 10 percent. She called for a motion to adopt the committee substitutes for consideration. Number 637 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt CSHB 45(STA), 1-LS0254\D, Kurtz, 2/22/99, and CSHJR 7(STA), 1-LS0252\D, Kurtz, 2/22/99, for discussion purposes. There being no objection, they were so moved. Number 645 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained, as a member of the subcommittee, a number of different percentage points were looked at. The subcommittee concluded that the three-fourths number, as proposed by the prime sponsor, would expand the democratic process into rural Alaska so it was left in the bill. The subcommittee also discussed a number of different percentages of those in the various house districts and came up with 10 percent. The original 15 percent was a bit heavy, especially for the sparsely settled districts, creating an extra burden. He also noted 10 percent was used in the early language by the Founding Fathers of the state constitution. Number 667 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN announced he has an amendment. CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at-ease then called the meeting back to order. Number 667 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. It reads as follows: TO: CSHB 45(STA) Line 12 (2.) [AND] resident in [AT LEAST THREE-FOURTHS] all of the house districts of the state: and REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected for discussion purposes. Number 673 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained Amendment 1 adds the language "all" instead of "three-fourths" to the bill. The committee substitute eliminates the possibility of the average citizen to amend statutes by referendum due to the cost of getting to each of the house districts, but three-fourths is not a high enough bar for the special interest groups from the Lower Forty-Eight, such as the sierra clubs and animal rights activists that have been involved in initiative processes in Alaska. He reiterated, as the bill is written, it is obtainable for a well-funded organization to get those signatures. That organization can go to the house election districts in the major urban centers and pick up a few in the bush. The amendment makes it fair for everybody. He said, "If we're gonna make it tough on the grassroots folks, I think we ought to make it tough on the well-financed special interest groups as well." Number 697 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER stated it seems the amendment makes it impossible for any group to rise from the grassroots and utilize the petition process. It was his impression that the bill intends to raise the bar somewhat while still making it possible to utilize this important constitutional process. He is concerned about the amendment even though he agrees in part to it, but feels it is shutting the process down altogether. Number 707 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated, although he understands where Representative Ogan is coming from in regards to the well-funded outside groups, he believes the committee substitute expands the level reasonably from two-thirds to three-fourths. An organization would have to go to 30 out of 40 districts in order to get 10 percent of all the people who casted a vote in the preceding general election. He cannot support the amendment because it may shut down the initiative process. He said, "I think we're going to have a tough enough job selling making it tougher rather than to essentially make it almost impossible." Number 718 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY stated he agrees with the comments made by Representative Whitaker and Hudson... TAPE 99-8, SIDE A Number 001 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY continued. Even though he was part of the subcommittee, he now questions whether 10 percent of the three-fourths is reasonable. This is just to get the measure to the ballot box. He doesn't support the amendment, and announced he is having second thoughts about the committee substitute. Number 014 CHAIR JAMES referred to the numbers provided by the sponsor of the various possibilities. She asked the committee members to look at the numbers at 15 percent for each of the house districts and visualize the numbers at 10 percent. She calculated a few of the house districts then stated 10 percent might be too high. Number 072 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated, after agonizing about this with Representative Smalley for the past week, she came to the conclusion that the numbers turnaround at the end and actually start to hurt the bush and rural communities. CHAIR JAMES referred to the numbers provided by the prime sponsor and calculated a few house district at 5 percent. She stated presumably those who support initiatives do so because they haven't been able to get the legislature to pass such a bill meaning it either isn't a good idea or it is from the minority. Furthermore, it is easy to get signatures because people don't like to say no. Those getting signatures even sit in a supermarket and ask for them. She wondered whether the intent of the law is recognized in those cases because a lot of the people don't understand the initiative. Many people sign purely because they believe it should go to a vote. And, when something is on the ballot Anchorage alone can pass it disenfranchising the rest of the state at which point the representative part of government has failed. A balance is needed. She noted a figure of 5 percent of those who voted in the preceding general election doesn't sound unreasonable, but one person in two-thirds of the house districts is not enough. Three-fourths calls for 4 of the 15 bush districts, otherwise the urban districts are only needed. Most of the rural districts have a larger community such as Nome, Barrow or Kotzebue, and wondered how many signatures are possible as a percentage in those cities. Number 151 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR stated, referring to the intent of the Founding Fathers of the state constitution, the 10 percent and 8 percent numbers were intended to get a minority view on the ballot. Today, the ability to travel and communicate is very high and keeping the numbers high enough to require work is just as important as making it too easy. He is not saying that the minority shouldn't have a view; he is saying that requiring three-fourths of the house districts is going to take work regardless of whether the number calls for 5 percent or 10 percent. The most important thing is to get more districts involved and 10 percent is not unreasonable. It will generate a discussion nonetheless. Number 202 CHAIR JAMES explained it is 10 percent of those who voted in the preceding general election and noted that the turnout has been low. It is not 10 percent of the registered voters. Number 207 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR stated this process would encourage more people to vote by placing responsibility back onto the voter. It puts on-notice that this is an involved society. He reiterated 10 percent is not off-base. Number 217 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the discussion has strayed quite a bit from the amendment. The purpose of Amendment 1 is to stand up for the grassroots people. Changing the ability of the average citizen to amend a statute is a serious policy call. The way the committee substitute is written has seriously affected the ability of someone without money or resources to get signatures, but it hasn't effected those with money. He said, "I think if we're gonna limit people's ability to amend statute by referendum, we should limit it for all and not just the little guy." He explained he didn't expect the amendment to pass, but wanted the discussion on the record. Number 250 CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representative Ogan voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Coghill, Hudson, Smalley, Whitaker, Kerttula and James voted against the motion. The motion failed to pass. Number 254 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY made a motion to adopt Amendment 2. It reads as follows: TO: CSHB 45(STA) Page 2, line 1 change "10 percent" to "5 percent" TO: CSHJR 7(STA) Page 1, line 10 change "ten per cent" to "five per cent" Number 264 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY explained a bar of 10 percent will have the exact opposite effect and eliminate some of the rural vote. He thinks 5 percent is more reasonable. According to the statistical data, even 5 percent will be tough in some districts. He is not sure the bill should create a bar that will make the process more difficult. He would love to see 100 percent of the voters voting, but the turnouts have been pitiful. He reiterated 5 percent is more reasonable. Number 289 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated it is the eye of the beholder. The bill calls for 5 percent of those who voted in the preceding general election with a 30 percent to 40 percent voting turnout. He stated 40 percent is a high figure these days so it is not really 1 out of 10, but 1 out of 30 in a given region. In this case it is 1 out of 60 in a 30 percent turnout. He likes 10 percent and recognizes it will be the voters who make the final decision on whether or not to change the constitution. He agrees that one is too few and more than one is really in the eye of the beholder. Number 314 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he would vote for Amendment 2 if it included "all" districts in the state. If it passes, he announced he would move an amendment to amend it. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON called for the question. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representative Hudson, Ogan, Coghill, Whitaker and James voted against the motion. Representatives Smalley and Kerttula voted in favor of the motion. The motion failed to pass. CHAIR JAMES announced the bill will be held over in committee for further consideration. ADJOURNMENT Number 332 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting at 9:59 a.m.