HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE February 3, 2000 8:04 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Joe Green Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Bill Hudson Representative Beth Kerttula Representative Hal Smalley Representative Scott Ogan MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 230 "An Act granting certain dispatchers in police or fire departments or for the state troopers status as peace officers under the public employees' retirement system; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 230(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 315 "An Act relating to elimination of the Alaska Administrative Journal and instituting public notice requirements on the Alaska Online Public Notice System; amending public notice publication requirements for certain regulations; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 315 OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 230 SHORT TITLE: PERS BENEFITS FOR POLICE/FIRE DISPATCHERS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 5/07/99 1228 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 5/07/99 1228 (H) STA, FIN 2/03/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 315 SHORT TITLE: ONLINE SYSTEM REPLACES AK ADMIN JOURNAL Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/24/00 1988 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 1/24/00 1988 (H) STA 1/24/00 1988 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 1/24/00 1988 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 1/24/00 1988 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 2/03/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER PATRICK HARMAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 230. GUY BELL, Director Division of Retirement & Benefits Department of Administration PO Box 110203 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered questions regarding HB 230. BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor Division of Retirement & Benefits Department of Administration PO Box 110203 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered questions regarding HB 230. JEAN BOWMAN Palmer Police Department 423 S. Valley Way Palmer, Alaska 99645 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. DUANE UDLAND, Chief Anchorage Police Department Municipality of Anchorage PO Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. BETTY CONKLIN, Jail Officer Sitka Police Department 100 Lincoln Street Sitka, Alaska 99835 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. TAMRYN BOND Valdez Police Department PO Box 307 Valdez, Alaska 99966 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. NANCY BUCKMASTER, Animal Control Officer Sitka Police Department PO Box 6081 Sitka, Alaska 99835 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Safety PO Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. KAREN CHILDERS, Communications Supervisor Juneau Police Department 4103 Blackerby St. Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. PAM PROVOST Anchorage Police Department PO Box 772534 Eagle River, Alaska 99577 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. CONNIE HETTINGA Anchorage Police Department 19120 Lakina Eagle River, Alaska 99577 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. JULIE KRAFFT, Director of Member Services Alaska Municipal League 217 Second St. Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 230. KIM MARTIN Juneau Police Department 210 Admiral Way Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. JOSEPH CROSS, Communications Supervisor Dillingham Police Department PO Box 889 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230. JOHN LINDBACK, Chief of Staff Office of the Lieutenant Governor PO Box 110015 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0015 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 315. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-3, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Green, Smalley and Ogan. Representatives Hudson, Kerttula and Whitaker arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 230-PERS BENEFITS FOR POLICE/FIRE DISPATCHERS Number 0013 CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 230, "An Act granting certain dispatchers in police or fire departments or for the state troopers status as peace officers under the public employees' retirement system; and providing for an effective date." She indicated there was a proposed committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 230, version 1-LS0958/D, Cramer, 1/11/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, proposed CSHB 230, Version D, was before the committee. Number 0126 PATRICK HARMAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Kott, read the following sponsor statement: House Bill 230 will require all dispatchers under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), who elect to change from a 30-year retirement to a 20-year retirement, to pay the employees' and the employers' contribution of the costs to that 20-year retirement conversion. Approximately 263 employees of PERS employers would be affected by this legislation. Of that number, approximately 45 are state employees. The cost to each employee for the employee contribution would be approximately $450 per year of service under the PERS system. The cost for each employee for the employer contribution would be approximately an additional $450 per year of service under the PERS system. That would mean a total cost of approximately $900 per year for years of service under the PERS system for each employee that elects to change retirement terms. Under this legislation, there would be no cost to the employer and all costs would be paid by the employee when he or she voluntarily elects to make this change in their own retirement system. MR. HARMAN explained that the citizens who approached Representative Kott regarding HB 230 are willing to pay for the service they are requesting. Due to the nature of their jobs [most of them are police dispatchers], they suffer such high levels of stress and burnout that very few of them can endure until retirement at 30 years of service. Mr. Harman expressed the concern of legislators that other state employees would like to be included in the scope of HB 230, but HB 230 has a very narrow title and only deals with dispatchers. If the legislature wants to consider other classes of employees, it will have to be done on a case-by-case basis. Number 0315 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how the legislature is going to stop other state employees from requesting relief from job-related stress in the same manner as the dispatchers. The case can be stated that many people feel that their jobs are stressful, he pointed out. He wants to make sure that HB 230 remains revenue- neutral. If people retire early - such as under the 20-year retirement - somebody has to work in their place. After a while, more people are retired than working. He asked how that situation can be revenue-neutral. Number 0399 MR. HARMAN suggested that is a matter of public policy. If an employee retires, another person is hired to fill the open position. Since state employees who want a 20-year retirement rather than a 30-year retirement are willing to pay for it, he does not see a difficulty in calculating the cost. There are two aspects of being revenue-neutral in this case: one is the operating budget and the other is a long-term fiduciary responsibility [making sure the fund stays solvent] that the state would incur on retiring employees. The intent of the proposed CS is to have both of those aspects be neutral. Number 0481 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that the committee does not have a fiscal note for the proposed CS. He said he wants to know whether the proposed CS is truly revenue-neutral. Number 0563 CHAIR JAMES asked for clarification regarding an employee's retirement contribution on a 20-year or a 30-year retirement program, in relation to the state's contribution for the employee. Number 0707 GUY BELL, Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits, Department of Administration, said the proposed CS shifts dispatchers into the police-fire service category, thus allowing them the option of using prior PERS service and full payment of actuarial cost to meet police service retirement requirements. Therefore, the proposed CS is revenue-neutral because the employees make full actuarial payment for the police service category designation. Once police-fire service category is authorized, the employee begins to contribute 7.5 percent, instead of the normal 6.75 percent rate, to the retirement system. Number 0917 BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor, Division of Retirement & Benefits, Department of Administration, indicated it is difficult to predict the actual cost in the future. Both the Municipality of Anchorage and the State of Alaska have separate rates of retirement contribution for police-fire. The fiscal note for the proposed CS indicates the difference in the contribution rate. CHAIR JAMES indicated that her previous question to Mr. Harman had been answered satisfactorily by officials in the Department of Administration. She inquired as to the benefits of an employee remaining 20 years as opposed to 15 years, since employees feel 30 years [in this type of employment] is too long to wait. Chair James also inquired as to the benefits of having experienced folks on the job. Those are cost items that the committee members realize exist, but there is no way of measuring their cost. Number 1080 MR. CHURCH reviewed the history of the police-fire category. In 1962, the definition of fireman or policeman included employees who were firemen, policemen, guards at public institutions, and fire wardens. In 1975, correctional officers/superintendents and fish and game biologists/technicians were added to the police- fire category. That was the first time the category departed from just including those employees involved in fighting fire and crime. In 1983, the legislature changed the statute definition by removing fish and game employees from the police-fire category. MR. BELL explained that two other groups are seeking authorization by legislative mandate to join the police-fire category: correctional institution employees who are not correctional officers, and youth correctional counselors employed by the Department of Health and Social Services. Allowing these groups and the dispatchers to join the police-fire category will increase that category by 30 percent. He noted that all teachers are part of the "20 and out" retirement plan. Number 1294 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if teachers also pay a higher employee retirement contribution rate, as do police-fire employees. MR. CHURCH answered that teachers pay 8.65 percent into their "20 and out" retirement plan because they belong to a different category than police-fire employees. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if current dispatcher employees would pay the higher police-fire rate retroactively if the proposed CS passed. Number 1335 MR. BELL replied by reading the following from the proposed CS: "an employee who was employed as a dispatcher ... may convert the credited service for that position to credited service as a peace officer by claiming the service as a peace officer before the member is appointed to retirement." He said an employee can make that choice at any point before retirement and pay the cost. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the employee also paid interest when paying for the cost of joining the police-fire category. MR. BELL answered yes. He directed members to page 2, which states: "When the member claims this retroactive credited service, an indebtedness of the member to the system shall be established. The indebtedness is equal to the full actuarial cost of the conversion of the credited service ...." He explained that the actuarial cost means principal and interest, and it applies to both the employer and employee portions. Number 1435 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned that Administration officials had indicated that the police-fire category was originally intended for those people who are risking their lives in the line of duty. He acknowledged that dispatchers suffer high stress in their jobs; however, are they risking their lives? In addition, he asked for an Administration opinion as to how many other groups of employees would also claim high stress as reason for joining a "20 and out" retirement program. MR. BELL recognized that there is a risk for dispatchers and they do work high-stress jobs. Other state and local city employees also experience high stress, both emotional and physical. He agreed that other groups could come forward and make the same argument as the dispatchers. There is history in other states of other groups being included in the police-fire category. Number 1580 CHAIR JAMES admitted that she has been negative regarding 20-year retirements because it seems like a loss of expertise at a young age. However, people can have three or four careers in one lifetime. She believes every job is stressful, but it is difficult to measure because it depends on who is being measured. She agreed that stress does shorten lives and is a valid issue. She is pleased that the dispatchers requesting the additional benefit are willing to pay for the added cost, she concluded. Number 1735 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA voiced her understanding that the only cost to the state under the proposed CS would be an increased employer rate to match the higher employee contribution rate. MR. BELL affirmed that. CHAIR JAMES reminded the committee that employees who qualify under the proposed CS are not just state employees. Private employers will also be obliged to pay their employees at the higher rate. She surmised that the legislature would hear from some employers regarding this issue because it is, in effect, an unfunded mandate. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether there is an identifiable impact on retirement funds. He always understood that police, fire, and correctional employees were given a "20 and out" retirement because of the risk to life in their jobs, he said. This is the first time he has heard about stress as being a major factor in deciding on retirement. He wondered if there are other job positions in the state where employees might reasonably come forward and claim stress as a reason for being included in a "20 and out" retirement program instead of remaining with the current 30-year program. He recognized that "20 and out" does not cost the general fund anything but again asked if there are costs to the retirement fund. Number 1931 MR. BELL answered that theoretically, as the proposed CS is written, it will not negatively affect the retirement fund because the person who is given the "20 and out" option must pay the full actuarial cost and thus effectively make the PERS fund whole. If a large number of people were placed in the police- fire category, it would cause higher employer contribution rates in the future to all employers in that category. He stated that the retirement system pays for the higher cost by collecting an extra contribution from the employee. Number 2029 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he believes almost any state employee who works in a stressful situation could make the same case as the dispatchers. He asked why not revert to a 20-year program for everybody if it does not cost the state any money and if the employee is willing to pay the difference. MR. BELL answered that if the 20-year program were applied to everybody in state service, fund rates of the program would increase significantly. CHAIR JAMES mentioned a policy question of expertise on the job. She asked if more folks who are dispatchers will stay longer on the job to reach "20 and out." She recommended retaining employees on the job for a longer period of time because good, experienced employees are valuable, providing they do not become stressed and unproductive. She agreed that there is much stress everywhere, whether people are in a workplace or not. She acknowledged that sometimes stress levels demand a job change. Therefore, she envisions being able to carry one's retirement to the next job; she believes portable retirement systems are extremely important in today's system. On the other hand, the legislature is committed to keeping government costs under control because that is what the public wants. She cautioned that the public is watching the outcome of HB 230 because even though they can sympathize with the dispatchers, the public also suffers stress in their jobs and yet do not have the luxury of a "20 and out" program. CHAIR JAMES continued. Each year the legislature deposits money into the state retirement system to cover change in actuarial costs to make the fund sound, she noted. It is clear to her that actuarial money earns interest for the retirement fund; however, if the national economy worsens, she thinks the legislature will be required to deposit extra money into the retirement fund to cover costs for additional people under the proposed CS. She feels that those kinds of extra costs are immeasurable, she concluded, and so the committee must make a policy call. Number 2317 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed her understanding that more people being added to the retirement fund would result in more money being deposited that could be used for investment. It is her opinion that if the investments are good, it results in a gain for the retirement fund. Number 2335 MR. BELL agreed. He stated that the retirement fund is now earning 8.25 percent on actuarial money; therefore, employer rates have decreased because of the good return. The PERS board tries to keep employer rates as flat as possible. Inevitably, he believes markets will change resulting in losses, which will be felt by the retirement fund. Obviously, the PERS Board desires to protect the retirement fund and beneficiaries as much as possible. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that Alaska has become an older state demographically. He wondered if the aging population has an affect on actuarial tables and what the Division of Retirement & Benefits sees in the future. He surmised that money flowing into the retirement fund now will start to flow out at an increased rate because of the aging population. Number 2422 MR. BELL replied that the number of retirees in Alaska is going to double over the next ten years, and the Division of Retirement & Benefits does take the aging factor into consideration when determining actuarial values. He agreed with Representative Green that there will be cash flow issues because the Division of Retirement & Benefits will be paying out more money. CHAIR JAMES announced that the committee will hear public testimony regarding the proposed CS. Number 2485 JEAN BOWMAN, representing the Palmer Police Department, testified via teleconference from Palmer. She read the following statement: My name is Jean Bowman and I have been a dispatcher at Palmer Police Department since May 1991. We dispatch Palmer City Police, Wasilla City Police and Matanuska- Susitna Borough fire and ambulance services. Dispatchers should be included in the 20-year retirement due to the stress level and job burn out rate. We are the personnel behind the scenes which make us a unique, integral part of the support mechanism to law enforcement. We are the "first," first responders. We are the first to receive the call, prioritize when the call is dispatched, we ascertain all pertinent information to assist the officer responding to the call, we run records check on involved parties for officer safety, relaying this information while he or she is responding. Officers handle one call at a time, while dispatchers are handling the call they sent the officer to, as well as continuing to answer incoming calls such as business lines to include 911 calls. Some are trained as emergency medical dispatchers [EMDs]. When the 911 call comes in, we have a zero-minute response time. By using protocols, an EMD can begin providing medical assistance immediately, only seconds after a call is received. We are also able to do both functions of evaluating emergency medical calls and caring for the patient until responders arrive. By the end of a shift, we have been exposed to anything from directions to a location, to someone committing suicide while talking on the phone with you, domestic violence (DV) in progress, or a mother screaming and crying that her six-month-old child has stopped breathing. Dispatchers deal with situations that are considered emergencies by the callers. We have to keep our personal, human emotions at bay and handle the call and continue to take phone calls and dispatch officers without any indication of stress. We don't have the luxury of walking away to regroup before the next call. Day in and day out, we deal with the most diverse types of people, from nice to obnoxious. What is critical-incident stress? Dr. Jeffrey Mitchell defines it as any situation faced by emergency services personnel that causes them to experience unusually strong emotional reactions which have the potential to interfere with their ability at the scene or later; generates unusually strong feelings in the emergency service workers. Who are emergency services personnel? Emergency service workers consist of those individuals in service to their communities (volunteer or career) as firefighters, police officers, emergency medical service, nurses, dispatchers, emergency management personnel and others. Overall and over time, our jobs are extremely stressful. Burnout is a syndrome of physical, emotional and mental exhaustion brought on by severe or chronic stress directly related to a job. MS. BOWMAN said that personally she could see herself working as a dispatcher for 20 years, but not for 30 years, due to the stresses. Number 2659 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Bowman about her work week schedule. MS. BOWMAN answered that her work schedule is a 40-hour work week of five 8-hour days, but she is on call. If an employee calls in sick or weather conditions are hazardous for travel, a dispatcher may have to work an 18-hour shift. Number 2704 DUANE UDLAND, Chief, Anchorage Police Department, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, noting that he also represents the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police. He believes the dispatcher position has been overlooked. In his experience, the Anchorage Police Department must recruit and screen dispatchers at the same level as they do for police officers because the training required for a dispatcher is about the same as for a police officer. He believes "20 and out" would be helpful for many agencies in retaining qualified dispatchers. MR. UDLAND informed members that he has noticed that his department has lost many successful dispatchers when they realize that they have 30 years of this type of work ahead of them before they can retire. Loss of trained dispatchers results in a real dollar cost to the Anchorage Police Department. Although dispatchers do not risk physical danger like police officers do, the psychological danger is just as great. Furthermore, while a police officer might respond to one or two emergencies while on duty, dispatchers deal with emergencies continually. MR. UDLAND emphasized the importance of making the proposed CS completely revenue-neutral. He had already heard that the [Alaska] Municipal League would oppose HB 230 because they believe that any cost passed on to municipalities is an unfunded mandate. He suspects his own city [Anchorage] might oppose a 2.5 percent increase in employer contribution rate to a "20 and out" retirement program, he added. Number 2825 BETTY CONKLIN, Jail Officer, Sitka Police Department, testified via teleconference from Sitka. She said that because Alaska is made up of small communities, service people in the small communities perform many tasks, though they may have only one job title. She has seen dispatchers in Sitka help out in the jail, for example. She, in turn, has had to dispatch when circumstances warranted. MS. CONKLIN said she wants the proposed CS to include uniformed public safety personnel. She believes the original intent of "20 and out" was not just for stress, but for risk to life and [risk of] injury. She felt that she could get "beaten up" by a telephone caller just as she could get "beaten up" in the jail. She believes all uniformed public safety personnel - including dispatchers, jail officers, and animal control officers - are at risk. She asked that the committee consider passage of HB 230. Number 2896 TAMRYN BOND, Valdez Police Department, testified via teleconference from Valdez. She said she is concerned about the correctional officer issue. Valdez Police Department dispatchers are called upon sometimes to search jail cells and perform female strip searches and urinalysis tests. She agreed with the witness from Sitka that dispatchers in small communities perform other duties besides dispatching. She felt most dispatchers would not reach 30-year retirement because of the burnout factor. She believes the police department could retain more dispatchers by offering a 20-year retirement program and still could maintain cost-effectiveness. Number 2950 NANCY BUCKMASTER, Animal Control Officer, Sitka Police Department, testified via teleconference from Sitka. Even though assigned to animal control duties and managing the animal shelter, she still takes 25 percent of the calls that come in to the police department. She wants the proposed CS to read "all uniformed public safety personnel." TAPE 00-3, SIDE B Number 2951 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, testified he had been employed by the Anchorage Police Department from 1968 to 1988. He agreed with Mr. Udland's testimony about the difficulty of the dispatcher's task. He does not recall ever attending a 30-year retirement for a police dispatcher, he noted. He shares the dispatchers' concerns because of the kinds of calls they receive every day; he believes it would be hard to work for 30 years in that environment. He reminded the committee that the difficulty of the dispatcher job requires the police department to continually recruit and train new dispatchers. Many dispatchers who have reached journeyman grade move on to other PERS positions because it just takes too long to qualify for retirement, while enduring difficult job conditions. He said the proposed CS is worthy of consideration by the legislature. Nevertheless, he is aware that others feel that they also merit a 20-year retirement based upon their job conditions. He acknowledged that it is a policy call for the committee to decide upon. Number 2848 CHAIR JAMES asked a hypothetical question as to whether Mr. Smith would prefer to speak with a newly hired dispatcher or a seasoned dispatcher when he calls 911. MR. SMITH answered that he would prefer to speak with an experienced person. On the other hand, he would not want to deal with someone who does not care anymore. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to the average tenure of a dispatcher. MR. SMITH said he did not know the tenure, but he guesses it might be between five and ten years. He acknowledged that there are some dispatchers approaching 20 years in the occupation. Number 2769 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if "20 and out" would really benefit the dispatchers for retention purposes if they feel burnout at about five to ten years. MR. SMITH said he did not mean to imply that at five to ten years dispatchers are ready to "bail out." He thinks that if dispatchers can see a large light at the end of the tunnel (20- year retirement) rather than a pinpoint of light (30-year retirement), then they are likely to remain on duty. Number 2699 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if keeping a hardened, less empathetic dispatcher for ten more years just to reach "20 and out" would create more of a problem for public safety departments. MR. SMITH said he hopes it would not create a problem. Individuals are all different, but hopefully the majority of dispatcher employees would perform well in their jobs and care about what they do until they reach retirement. Number 2630 KAREN CHILDERS, Communications Supervisor, Juneau Police Department, testified in favor of HB 230. She read the following statement: Public safety dispatching is a job like no other. The nature of the job requires technical, communication, multitasking and interpersonal skills, to name only a few. What separates this job from others requiring the same skill is that a dispatcher must have the ability to disengage their emotions in order to do what needs to be done. During my 15 years as a dispatcher, I have experienced many stressful and heartbreaking incidents. I recall grieving, in a bathroom stall while on break, for a woman who found her baby drowned in her pool - hysterical and begging over the phone for me to save her child. I recall pulling my car off the freeway on the way home so that I could purge the scream that I had been holding in since that suicidal man died in my ear - I was unable to keep him talking "long enough." On a daily basis, dispatchers deal with the worst of life's realities. They talk with people who are angry, scared, intoxicated, suicidal, mentally ill, victims of domestic violence and child abuse. Occasionally, the incomprehensible occurs - a call that "hits home." I took the phone call when my brother-in-law committed suicide. Two years later, I was working the radio when my own husband shot and killed himself. I remained on the radio, conducting business as usual, until I could be relieved. The possibility of a dispatcher dealing with an emergency involving friends and family is highly probable in Alaska - which, with the exception of Anchorage, is made up of small communities. True dispatchers are capable of doing this job because it satisfies something inside them. They do it for reasons that you can't understand until you help save a life or catch a bad guy. In my 15 years of service as a dispatcher, I can count my "thank yous" on one hand. But I didn't do it for the "thank yous." I did it because I was doing something that I loved. I was a lifeline to many people and what I did mattered - and I didn't need a thank you to know it. I am now the dispatch supervisor for the Juneau Police Department and no longer have the hands-on responsibility of a dispatcher. I have nothing to gain personally from HB 230. Professionally, as the person responsible for hiring qualified people to do this difficult job, I stand to gain in my ability to attract quality dispatchers and retain the experienced ones. Good dispatchers are difficult to replace, as it not only takes someone who is able to do the job, but willing to do the job. Twenty years of cumulative stress involved with this job is long enough. Yet, 20 years is also short enough to make it attractive as a career choice and rewarding for those who have already dedicated many years of service. With HB 230, the State of Alaska has an opportunity to do the just and equal thing; not to discount dispatchers as clerical help, but instead to recognize dispatchers as an integral member of the public safety and law enforcement team. Alaska now has the opportunity to show their support for these front-line workers. Remember, while you are spending the holidays with family or sleeping safe in your home, they are three digits away, and they are always there. Number 2429 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if it would be better for a dispatcher to have a shorter day shift or work week rather than to work the long haul of 40 hours per week for 20 years. It seems to him that it would be better if a dispatcher had a chance to recoup, he added. MS. CHILDERS said a 20-year retirement would have been attainable for her had the opportunity been available. At 15 years' service as a dispatcher, she left her job. She enjoyed doing her work but had too much "emotional baggage" to continue. It was difficult under the circumstances to maintain an enthusiast outlook. Number 2316 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he is in favor of the proposed CS because the dispatchers work hard seven days a week and on holidays. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed with Chair James about portability of retirement. Although portability is not the subject of HB 230, it is certainly related to the policy issue behind HB 230. He believes that if a dispatcher worked well for five years, then started suffering burn out, the idea of retirement portability would allow that employee to take a break by finding another job, he said. Eventually, a dispatcher would reach retirement in whatever job was chosen. He also believes that other people with stressful jobs need relief. Therefore, the legislature should be prepared to entertain the requests of other employee groups. Number 2117 PAM PROVOST, an employee with the Anchorage Police Department (APD), representing public safety dispatchers, testified in favor of HB 230. She said she started employment with the APD in April 1979. As time went by, she noticed that the dispatcher turnover rate was extremely high, so she gathered statistics about this problem. She read her testimony as follows: House Bill 230 was introduced by Judiciary Committee on May 7, 1999 to include the classification of "dispatcher" in Alaska Statute AS 39.35.680(28). The case for including dispatchers into the 20-year retirement provision is three-part: Job-related stress is not on par with clerical positions; our retirement considerations should not be either. Twenty-year retirement will motivate dispatchers to work toward a pension, allowing agencies to retain experienced dispatchers. There will likely be zero cost to the State of Alaska since employees will make up the PERS contributions for both the employee and the employer. Two statewide telephone surveys were conducted this past year in a joint effort by Anchorage area dispatchers from the Anchorage Police Department, Anchorage Fire, Alaska State Troopers and Anchorage Airport Police. Some of the significant findings were: 253 full-time dispatchers are in 30-year PERS 14 full-time dispatchers are in 20-year PERS 92% of the surveyed dispatchers said they would remain employed in their respective dispatch centers for 20 years but not for 30 years. The Anchorage Police Department has experienced ongoing workplace turbulence, as demonstrated by the high turnover rate within the communications center. As of December, 1999, eight employees had retired from the communications center: three on medical and the other five on aged-based retirement. Of the five age-based retirees, only two maintained employment beyond 20 years in the communications center. Thirty-six percent of all personnel assigned to the communications center either quit or transfer to less stressful positions within PERS. Forty percent of all new hires in the communications center at APD do not successfully complete the training phase of employment. Only four percent of those who leave the communications center do so with a PERS pension. The Alaska State legislature appears responsive to the needs of the PERS membership, as evidenced by the retirement change granted to adult correctional officers in 1990. PERS was designed to provide a sound retirement plan to all its members, yet the current 30- year system fails to encourage employment longevity in the communications center. The criteria for retirement eligibility would appear to have undermined the PERS original intent. A revision to AS 39.35.680(28) to include all communications center personnel in 20-year PERS would further the likelihood of reversing the high turnover in the stress-laden and highly complex work environment. There are similar efforts being made in other states. Texas has a 20-year retirement for dispatchers. However, the individual public safety agency can opt out of that requirement. Utah has a 25-year dispatcher retirement. However, agency participation is optional. California is attempting to gain access to a 20-year retirement. However, there are three distinct retirement systems operating on a statewide basis, which unduly complicates the retirement issue. Arizona is currently drafting state certification for public safety dispatchers and plans to go forward with a 20- year retirement effort in the near future. MS. PROVOST explained that APD wants a mechanism to retain trained, experienced employees. She asked the committee to equate the $20,000 cost of training a dispatcher to the actuarial contribution by the state when voting on a 20-year retirement plan for dispatchers. Number 1834 CHAIR JAMES emphasized that the highest cost of payroll for any business is the training and retention of employees. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to the average tenure at present of a dispatcher. MS. PROVOST answered that APD does have 1995 statistics, but none current. In 1995, dispatcher tenure was 5.3 years. Currently at APD, 68 percent of the dispatcher workforce has less than five years' experience. Out of a squad of 54 dispatchers, APD has four who reached their 20-year anniversary. Number 1707 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he understands that APD would have an easier time recruiting if a 20-year retirement was in place. MS. PROVOST answered yes, adding that APD would like to minimize the need for training episodes so as to reduce stress for fellow dispatchers. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he understood that dispatchers can carry their PERS credit to another PERS-type job. He asked if public safety personnel can carry their retirement credit to a PERS job. Number 1520 MS. PROVOST answered that public safety personnel are members of a different retirement system than PERS; the two systems cannot convert. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that he does not see an advantage for dispatchers if they give up portability of PERS. If dispatchers are authorized a 20-year retirement along with public safety personnel, they lose PERS portability. He asked if that is what dispatchers really want. MS. PROVOST explained that the conversion from PERS to a 20-year plan would be handled the same way as when probation and parole officers converted year-by-year service in 1990 from a 30- to a 20-year plan. Number 1384 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if a "20 and out" program can be switched over to a "30 and out" program. MS. PROVOST answered no because the two programs stand alone. She said the APD is looking for career dispatchers who want to complete their retirement program, not people who are in the job to obtain three high[-retirement] retirement years and move on to something else. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that if dispatchers are authorized a "20 and out" program, there is no place for them to go after they complete the 20 years. They can move from one position to another within the "20 and out" program, but they cannot move from a "20 and out" to a "30 and out" program. Currently, a dispatcher can move into any other PERS position. He hoped that dispatchers understood the advantage they would be relinquishing by joining a "20 and out" program. He suggested that perhaps the committee needed to make an amendment so that dispatchers can keep portability of retirement. Number 1181 CHAIR JAMES suggested Representative Hudson's argument would defeat the purpose of the proposed CS. She said she understands that APD has spent money training the dispatchers and wants them to stay. CONNIE HETTINGA, public safety dispatcher for the Anchorage Police Department, testified in favor of HB 230. She said she has been employed with APD since June, 1981, and has worked with the dispatcher training program since 1983. She believes that by passing HB 230 dispatcher work would become professionalized and sought after as a career goal. She stated that it is important to the community that professional people be on duty because dispatchers work with highly technical equipment and issues. Also, dispatchers are required to deal with constant change in technology, to know how to use multiple computer programs, and to know how to operate various communications equipment. Consequently, she feels that dispatchers are essential workers. Number 0918 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY inquired as to the frequency of required overtime and how soon a dispatcher would be advised that overtime was required. MS. HETTINGA answered that in her experience, she may get only one hour's notice to work overtime because the next shift employee has called in sick or another emergency has arisen. Dispatchers have to be prepared to fill the dispatcher position at any time and are on recall. JULIE KRAFFT, Director of Member Services, Alaska Municipal League (AML), testified against HB 230. She said the purpose of her testimony is to reiterate the AML policy statement in opposition to any legislation that increases the cost of PERS or the Teachers' Retirement System due to increased benefits. Their issue is financing. She understands from Mr. Bell's explanation that HB 230 would increase employer costs. If the proposed CS made HB 230 revenue-neutral, then AML would have no objection to HB 230 since AML's goal is to keep tax levels down. Number 0699 CHAIR JAMES explained that there is a proposed CS for HB 230 before the committee. She believes it is the responsibility of the legislature to provide services for the public that the public wants and needs at the least possible expense. She reminded the committee that one testifier today had explained how much it costs to train dispatchers; therefore, Chair James said she is convinced that a savings in training dollars and retention of employees will result from HB 230, even though there will be increased employer costs due to the retirement fund contribution rate. She suggested AML's opposition due to a cost increase should be reconsidered in the light of real savings outweighing employer cost. MS. KRAFFT responded that the proposed CS has been sent to AML's revenue and finance subcommittee for discussion. She suspected that AML's policy committee may come to the same conclusion as Chair James, she said, especially after listening to testimony about the difficulties that dispatchers endure in their jobs. However, at the present time AML must follow its policy. Number 0368 KIM MARTIN, police officer, Juneau Police Department (JPD), testified in favor of HB 230. A police dispatcher at JPD for eight years, she agreed with previous testifiers that the dispatcher position should be a career. She wants people to make a commitment to the job and to keep the experience for the sake of public safety. Ms. Martin explained that police dispatchers deal with secondary traumatic stress. She recounted how dispatchers work in an enclosed room, stuck to a telephone headset and a computer. She feels that not being able to move during an emergency situation definitely affects the dispatchers' health because they go through all the emotions of traumatic stress and yet have no way of defusing stress as police officers, who can take action, do. Number 0129 JOSEPH CROSS, Communications Supervisor, Dillingham Police Department, testified via teleconference from Dillingham, saying he has observed firsthand the stress levels that dispatchers endure. He believes that extremely high stress levels and a 30- year retirement plan causes high turnover. Even though working conditions are good in Dillingham, the 30-year retirement plan causes about one opening per year; indeed, he has a dispatcher position open right now because the previous dispatcher found a better position. His dispatcher training program takes 12 weeks; he agreed with previous testifiers that dispatcher training is costly. He envisions that the 20-year retirement plan would be positive for dispatchers. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 230, version 1- LS0958/D, Cramer, 1/11/00, from committee with recommendations and the attached fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 230(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. TAPE 00-4, SIDE A Number 0020 HB 315-ONLINE SYSTEM REPLACES AK ADMIN JOURNAL Number 0454 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to elimination of the Alaska Administrative Journal and instituting public notice requirements on the Alaska Online Public Notice System; amending public notice publication requirements for certain regulations; and providing for an effective date." JOHN LINDBACK, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, read the following sponsor statement for HB 315: The Alaska Administrative Journal has served as a compilation of public notices from state agencies, the great majority of which are also required to be published in the print or broadcast media. Alaska Administrative Journal subscribership has dramatically declined with the advent of state government making information available to the public on the Internet. When Lt. Governor Ulmer first took office, there were about 125 paying subscribers ($90 a year). Subscribership has dropped to nine out-of-state businesses. On June 4, 1999, Governor Knowles signed Administrative Order 183, which requires all state agencies to post statutorily required public notices on the new Online Public Notice system. The system provides the public with a convenient way to find all public notices in one place on the state web page. The Online Public Notice website is organized in a similar format to the Alaska Administrative Journal. This legislation would eliminate the requirement that the Lt. Governor's Office produce the Alaska Administrative Journal and replace it with a requirement that the Lt. Governor provide oversight of the Online Public Notice system. It requires agencies by statute to post their public notices in the Online Public Notice system. The legislation has a zero fiscal note. It replaces one responsibility with another. MR. LINDBACK noted that one reason for Administrative Order 183, which establishes the Online Public Notice system, was that state agencies were publishing notices on their separate web pages, making it difficult for an ordinary citizen to navigate through every public notice posted. Using the Alaska Administrative Journal as a model, the Online Public Notice system would put all state public notices in one place. Mr. Lindback emphasized that everything contained in the Alaska Administrative Journal is now published on computer by the Online Public Notice system. Since September 15, 1999, the web site has been visited 15,000 times - an average of 100 visits per day. He noted that HB 315 eliminates all references in state statute to the Alaska Administrative Journal and inserts references to the Online Public Notice system. Number 0723 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he thinks it is a great idea but asked why the fiscal note is zero. Number 0774 MR. LINDBACK said he believes it takes the same amount of time to prepare the Online Public Notice system as it does to publish the Alaska Administrative Journal. Therefore, the fiscal note for HB 315 is zero. Number 0780 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if anyone's interests will be hurt by HB 315 because not everyone has a computer connected to the Internet. He wanted to know how those people or businesses will get access to the Online Public Notice system. MR. LINDBACK answered no. Currently, only nine companies subscribe to the Alaska Administrative Journal; all the other subscribers have switched over to the Online Public Notice system to retrieve public notices in which they are interested. Mr. Lindback reminded the committee that all libraries in Alaska have computers for public use, so anyone who wants to monitor the Online Public Notice system can get access at the libraries. He said all state agencies now use the Online Public Notice system. Number 0899 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor had advised subscribers or solicited their opinions regarding the proposed change. Number 0948 MR. LINDBACK answered that the Office of the Lieutenant Governor had advised people that the Alaska Administrative Journal would be published online at no charge to the reader. At present, a subscription to the journal costs $90. People have also been advised about the new Online Public Notice system, which contains the same information as the Alaska Administrative Journal. By passing HB 315, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor hopes to eliminate double posting of public notices. Number 0990 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that the Alaska Administrative Journal subscribers were depositing $90 per year into the general fund. Since there were 125 subscribers, that means about $9,000 will no longer be contributed to state accounts receivable. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the governor has executive authority to mandate this kind of request without going through the legislative process. MR. LINDBACK indicated the governor cannot delete a statute. Number 1109 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that the Alaska Administrative Journal is mandated by statute. CHAIR JAMES agreed that deleting the Alaska Administrative Journal does require a statutory change. Number 1234 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move HB 315 with individual recommendations and the attached [zero] fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 315 moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.