ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 6, 2025
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Chair
Representative Andi Story, Vice Chair
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Ky Holland
Representative Elexie Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Kevin McCabe
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: PAYROLL DIVISION
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 10
"An Act relating to the Board of Regents of the University of
Alaska."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 61
"An Act relating to employment; relating to voluntary flexible
work hour plans; relating to the employment of minors; and
relating to hours worked by minors employed in the state."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 10
SHORT TITLE: ADD FACULTY MEMBER UNIV BOARD OF REGENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CARRICK
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) STA, FIN
02/06/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 61
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) STA, L&C
02/06/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
PAULA VRANA, Commissioner
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered the Department of Administration
Payroll Division overview.
ERIC DEMOULIN, Administrative Services Director
Division of Finance
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-offered the Department of Administration
Payroll Division overview.
STUART RELAY, Chief of Staff
Representative Ashley Carrick
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Carrick, prime
sponsor, presented HB 10.
Cathy Muoz, Commissioner
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: introduced HB 61 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, House Rules by request of the governor.
Tanya Keith, Director
Division of Labor Standards and Safety
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 61 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, House Rules by request of the governor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:21:18 PM
CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m. Representatives Story,
Holland, Vance, McCabe, and Moore were present at the call to
order. Representative Himschoot arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^Overview: Payroll Division
Overview: Payroll Division
3:22:55 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business would
be an overview of the Payroll Division.
3:23:40 PM
PAULA VRANA, Commissioner, Department of Administration, began
the Department of Administration Payroll Division overview. She
began by noting that Payroll Services has faced challenges in
the past several years. This includes difficulties with both
recruitment and retention, and it has exasperated the
complexities of an outdated payroll system. She remarked
however, that the division has made significant progress since
the presentation to the committee last year.
COMMISSIONER VRANA described some areas of improvement within
the [Payroll Services]. First, it has fully digitalized
timesheet submission and processing and has begun digitalizing
past timesheet and payroll documents. Several thousand
timesheets per pay period are processed automatically, which she
noted is a new accomplishment that will save time and resources.
Payroll Services has also relocated its office to the State
Office Building. She said what really excites her is what lies
ahead, and much work can still be done to improve the process.
She said that this includes remote processing of payrolls.
3:27:43 PM
ERIC DEMOULIN, Administrative Services Director, Division of
Finance, Department of Administration, as co-presenter, began a
PowerPoint [hard copy included in the committee file]. He
presented Slide 3 and discussed portal statistics. He noted
that the division changed the way that it receives payroll
inquiries and notices of pay problems. He noted that the data
is grouped into two categories; inception to date and pay
period. He remarked that average tickets per day and the
inception to date is a way that the system recognizes how many
tickets come to staff each day. He noted that the current time
to address the backlog, based off statistics is 308.68 days. He
provided an elaboration of numbers pertaining to tickets
completed per day and by time period.
3:31:20 PM
MR. DEMOULIN responded to a couple questions from committee
members. First, he noted that he would be addressing the
backlog later in the presentation. Second, he said that he can
provide committee members a different set of data not pertaining
to holidays following the committee meeting.
3:32:19 PM
MR. DEMOULIN presented the next few slides and discussed current
projects associated with Payroll Services. He elaborated on the
time and attendance system. He discussed how many timesheets
are processed and how they are processed. He remarked that in
the future the division is looking at integrating those
processes and building efficiencies. Additionally, he noted
that the division is looking at improving electronic timesheets
as well. He said that having an efficient way to receive
timesheets will allow Payroll Services to build efficient
processes and the lack of standardization between submissions is
an area of improvement. He mentioned that mass approvals apply
to about half of the current payrolls. He discussed payroll
optimization, pay roll actions, retroactive payments, and
current processes. He added that integration processes that are
in current formulation are to reduce manual labor and redeploy
resources.
3:37:35 PM
MR. DEMOULIN gave an example of a retro pay adjustment. He said
that if an agency is behind on evaluation requirements for pay
increments, then the division needs to receive and process it
with regards to backpay. He mentioned that the division is
looking at implementing systems that can reduce manual
calculations for staff and increase evaluation turnover. He
mentioned the use of Officers' Activity Reporting System (OARS)
interface and its utilization by the Department of Public
Safety. He remarked that across the state a few agencies use a
time and attendance program that helps with their business
needs. He said that internal programming allows them to process
information. He remarked that a question amongst the division
is how they can work with the pre-existing programs and focus
work efforts.
3:39:35 PM
MR. DEMOULIN responded to a couple of questions from committee
members. He said that OARS is a proprietary system developed
for specific department use in Alaska. He said that payroll
systems on hold pertain to funding decisions and a request for
proposal (RFP), that would require legislative authority.
3:41:19 PM
MR. DEMOULIN remarked that one of the biggest items heard from
agencies is the need to support 24-hour facilities and accurate
reporting times. He said that when looking at an RFP for a
payroll system it would require looking at what businesses need.
On Slide 5, he discussed reporting projects and current feedback
from other stakeholders. He then discussed inefficiencies and
cited health trusts cutting off insurance as an example. He
noted that lapses and delayed pay are something the division
takes seriously.
3:43:51 PM
MR. DEMOULIN responded to Chair Carrick that insurance lapses
can happen for various reasons and provided some examples and
elaboration.
3:45:11 PM
MR. DEMOULIN discussed Item 2, staff metrics and reporting. He
remarked that reporting can come a couple of different ways, and
the division is trying to get a handle on how many timesheets
are received, processed and what the adequate staffing levels to
meet goals are. He said that timekeepers exist across the state
and sign off for staff. He said that double checking is a
redundant activity by the time it gets to payroll.
3:47:29 PM
MR. DEMOULIN discussed Slide 6 and current projects pertaining
to training and communications. He discussed the cultural
changes since COVID-19 and readjustments to the current job
market. He noted that the division hopes to expand recruitment
pools by allowing more flexibility regarding work from home
options. He then discussed timekeeper training and
certification and how to identify areas of improvement to make
these timekeepers more effective. How noted that with a 50
percent vacancy, timekeeper improvements have not been given the
attention they need. He then discussed communications, and that
one area of opportunity is communication transparency with other
stakeholders across the state. He discussed recent meetings
with union members and the work to allow more communication on
what is currently being worked on. He noted that a newsletter
is currently in formulation to help address this.
3:51:16 PM
MR. DEMOULIN proceeded to Slide 7 and discussed payroll
statistics broken down by pay period. He provided an
explanation for various notes and numbers found on the slide.
He mentioned that auto approvals or low-risk items are processed
with a high degree of confidence and are given processing rules.
He provided elaboration on what constitutes an employee as low-
risk and how it relates to auto-approvals. He provided a
description of payroll runs and supplemental runs and how they
are part of the business process. He also provided an
explanation of timesheets not paid on time and how this can
occur. He noted that even with a 50 percent vacancy, 99.8
percent of timesheets are paid on time. He remarked that the
staff has worked extremely hard to do this.
3:56:48 PM
MR. DEMOULIN, on the next slide presented data representations.
He recognized that if the division is not operating at 100
percent, then there is room for improvement. The next slide
provided information on auto approvals and provided a visual
summary. He said that a division focus has been on building
efficiencies in other areas in addition to auto-approvals. He
mentioned that this includes building a portal to facilitate
actions. He also mentioned that implementing a module for form
creation and auto-interfacing for a system of record will remove
manual processes. On Slide 10, he presented a graph
representation of auto-approvals and described the rules system
that governs it. On Slide 11, he described vacancies by
component, he mentioned that the section of payroll currently
had a 32 percent vacancy, and these numbers are run every week.
He noted that currently hiring incentives are used for payroll
services. He expressed that flexible telework options should
help thin applicant pools, and the division hopes to finalize
these options in the next 30 days.
4:03:06 PM
MR. DEMOULIN answered a series of questions from committee
members. He credited Commissioner Vrana for empowering the
division to make these changes and allowing some free reign with
regards to improving pre-existing processes. He credited good
staff and other affiliated members who helped these changes go
into effect, including his data manager Will Muldoon. He said
that some work regarding an ROI strategic plan had been done for
payroll; however, publishing an ROI number is difficult until
other data points are met. He said that much of the payroll
improvement focus has been on finite tasks but that doesn't mean
there are no other tasks that can be worked on. He said that
changing processes will create more opportunities in other areas
and that it is difficult to pin down an ROI in a shifting
organization. He remarked that he does think there are going to
be more opportunities, but he could not point to where they are.
He noted that business development consultation is an idea, and
that group would have opportunities to improve operations. He
said that there is a lot of work to do internally as a starting
point. He clarified that the 308.68 days to address the backlog
is based off statistics and turnarounds. He noted that one of
the biggest retractors is data storage. He said that an
internal program was built to help address this and once it goes
live, it will help address this problem. He said that he would
let committee members know once it launches. He also clarified
those timesheets belonging to the supplemental run group. He
clarified that supplemental timesheets are not more complicated
but different. He said he could communicate with system staff
to determine how long on average the paperwork is processed and
follow-up with committee members.
4:20:38 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:20 p.m. to 4:23. p.m.
[During the at-ease, Chair Carrick handed the gavel to Vice
Chair Story.]
HB 10-ADD FACULTY MEMBER UNIV BOARD OF REGENTS
4:23:53 PM
VICE CHAIR STORY announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 10 "An Act relating to the Board of Regents of
the University of Alaska."
4:24:13 PM
CHAIR CARRICK, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 10 and described
some of the bill's details.
4:24:40 PM
STUART RELAY, Chief of Staff, Representative Ashley Carrick,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Carrick,
prime sponsor, presented HB 10. He began by introducing the
University Board of Regents and its role. He noted that HB 10
would add one faculty member to the Board of Regents for a two-
year term. He stated that six other states include faculty
member(s) on their respective universities board of regents. He
said that adding one faculty member would provide better
representation and allow universities to have the same parity
and respect granted to students who have an elected student
regent.
4:26:39 PM
MR. RELAY read the sectional analysis for HB 10 [included in the
committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1. Short title: "The University of Alaska
Faculty Representation Act."
Section 2. Amends AS 14.40.120 to increase the size of
the UA Board of Regents from 11 members to 12 members.
Section 3. Adds subsection (f) to AS 14.40.130
establishing the requirements for the faculty regent.
• One of the 12 regents must be a current, full-time,
tenured faculty member within the University of Alaska
system.
• If the faculty regent is no longer tenured, no
longer employed full-time, or no longer employed in
the UA system during their term they shall forfeit the
position.
• The Governor is required to appoint a faculty regent
from a list of nominees within 60 days of the
forfeiture or vacancy of the seat.
Section 4. Amends AS 14.40.140 to establish the term
length of a faculty regent as two-years.
Section 5. Adds subsection (c) to AS 14.40.150
establishing the appointment process for the faculty
regent.
• Requires at least one member of the Board of Regents
to be a faculty member.
• The faculty regent will be appointed by the Governor
from a list of six nominees within 60 days after the
list is submitted to the Governor.
• The list of nominees consists of names of two
faculty members selected by each of the three faculty
senates of the UA system after an election is held by
each faculty senate.
• The elections process for faculty regent elections
conducted by the faculty senates shall be conducted
under rules established by the Governor's office.
• The term length of a faculty regent is two years and
begins on June 1 of the year in which appointment is
made.
Section 6. Changes the quorum requirements for Board
of Regents Meetings from six to seven members present.
Section 7. Requires the University of Alaska to hold
elections for faculty regent nominees on or before Feb
1, 2026.
4:29:11 PM
CHAIR CARRICK gave a PowerPoint pertaining to HB 10 [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. She mentioned that this bill
and its intent have been in consideration for years. She
provided a background on the University of Alaska's Board of
Regents and its duties. She mentioned that appointed student
regents have full voting power amongst the board and two
students from a campus can be selected for nomination and are
subject to nomination by the governor. She said that the
faculty members at the board can act as advisors but do not have
any speaking rights. When comparing to other states, there are
24 state university systems that have student regents and 6
university systems that have a faculty regent. She noted that
there is not one way to govern a university system and provided
differences amongst various state university systems. On Slides
4 and 5, she provided an illustration of differences among these
university systems.
4:33:06 PM
CHAIR CARRICK outlined how HB 10 would work in practice. She
remarked that because the bill would increase the number of
regents from an odd to an even number, there is language that
specifies that a quorum would be increased by one member, as
would the number of votes needed for a motion to carry. She
noted that most votes on the Board of Regents are unanimous.
The faculty regent, if appointed, would be selected from a list
of six names given by the three faculty senates, and this
includes two nominees per university system. The governor would
select a single appointee, and it would be subject to
confirmation by the legislature. Much like the student regent,
she reiterated, faculty regents would have full board power.
She clarified that of the three main campuses, there are faculty
members affiliated with branch campuses around the state, and
they could be prospective nominees as well. She discussed Slide
8 and presented a chart that shows the way that current
individuals interact with the Board of Regents.
4:36:28 PM
CHAIR CARRICK, in closing, noted that over many years of working
on this bill's concept, what has become clear is that many
faculty members feel they don't have a seat at the table. She
remarked that most regents come from professional backgrounds,
and this was a positive thing. She explained that this would
not create a majority dynamic but provide a voice that is in
parity with the university.
4:38:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked about guarantees with regards to
smaller universities having the opportunity to have candidacy
for seats on the board.
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK responded that when looking at the
student regent process, it may be an appropriate comparison with
prospective faculty regents. She noted that the University of
Alaska Southeast (UAS) has had some years without submissions
for student regents. She noted that past governors have done a
decent job trying to achieve parity between campuses by
selecting student regents across the different universities.
She acknowledged that UAS hasn't had parity in student regent
representation but expressed optimism that this is changing.
4:39:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said he was in support of this effort and
had previous experience working for universities in different
capacities. He asked if being tenured faculty was a requirement
for faculty regents and if this could be left to the Faculty
Senate. Additionally, he asked for clarification for a backstop
if a nominee isn't appointed by the governor and whether the
term length is appropriate.
CHAIR CARRICK noted that previous discussions with university
affiliates had made it clear that there is a preference for
tenured faculty. She said adjunct faculty could be considered
with Faculty Senate approval and this may serve the branch
universities or UAS. She said the current bill is drafted from
previous feedback and explained that the previous iteration of
the bill had the University of Alaska president weighing in as a
tiebreaker. She said that previous discussions with university
affiliates made it clear that the executives and the board of
regents should be separated. She said that if a governor failed
to appoint somebody for the position, then it would remain
vacant. She noted that faculty time on the board was another
talking point amongst affiliates and the term seemed appropriate
and would foster positive turnover.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND clarified that his inquiry into non-
tenured faculty was with specific consideration to termed but
non-tenured faculty.
4:46:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked for clarification on the fiscal note
and if concerns had been addressed.
CHAIR CARRICK responded that the university administration likes
the way things are, and that the fiscal note speaks to a
question regarding conflict of interest. She said HB 10 is
trying to achieve parity with a student regent and support
faculty. She noted that students can be employees of the
university while serving as regent and will recuse themselves
from votes with conflicts of interest. She noted that these
same standards can be applied to faculty regents. She said that
she could get back to Representative Moore regarding fiscal note
details.
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked about faculty members on each campus
and if discussions were made about rotating faculty regent
appointments amongst the different universities.
CHAIR CARRICK responded that it has been discussed in the past
and she was not opposed to specifying rotations in statute. She
raised concerns that it could create an inequity because of the
higher proportions of tenured faculty at University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF) and University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA). She
noted that the intent is not to have a single university system
monopolize this position.
4:51:21 PM
VICE CHAIR STORY, regarding the twelve-member proposed under HB
10, asked if a thirteen-member Board of Regents would be
considered.
CHAIR CARRICK responded that she would be open to adding an
alumni member on the board. She said that bringing this
legislation forward was to see better representation and
informed decision making, and the bill seeks to alleviate a
current issue. She said alumni associations haven't been asking
for this representation, but the faculty have been.
VICE CHAIR STORY asked about being open to thirteen regent
members regardless of designation. She raised concern about
split votes from an even number of board members.
CHAIR CARRICK responded that a previous iteration of the bill
had an odd number of regents, and it was not as popular as the
current version. She noted that when adding regents beyond what
is in the legislation, role clarity is important. She remarked
that adding members could water down pre-existing board members
voices and votes.
VICE CHAIR STORY asked about whether other university systems
had been studied on how they handle conflicts of interest with
board members.
CHAIR CARRICK replied that it has been some time since she made
calls regarding this topic. She recalled that some university
systems found the idea of a faculty regent as outlandish but
those with faculty members as regents simply recused themselves
from voting. She noted that regents are held to a high
professional standard. She responded in short that no,
considerable research hadn't been conducted.
VICE CHAIR STORY asked about instances in which faculty recuse
themselves from voting.
CHAIR CARRICK said she could not speak to that since there
wasn't a faculty regent currently in place, but Faculty Senate
members may have these experiences as would student appointed
regents.
4:57:22 PM
VICE CHAIR STORY announced that HB 10 was held over.
4:57:23 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:57 p.m. to 4:58 p.m.
[During the at-ease. Vice Chair Story handed the gavel back to
Chair Carrick.]
HB 61-EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS
4:58:36 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 61 "An Act relating to employment; relating to
voluntary flexible work hour plans; relating to the employment
of minors; and relating to hours worked by minors employed in
the state."
4:59:25 PM
Cathy Muoz, Commissioner, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DLWD), introduced HB 61 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, House Rules by request of the governor. She said that
HB 61 has two primary components. One component is to
streamline the permitting process for youth employment. She
explained that youth aged fourteen to sixteen are required to
get a work permit for employment and the legislation would
remove this requirement for sixteen-year-olds. The second
component of the legislation is to provide flexible scheduling
options for Alaska Workers. She remarked that the bill provides
an exemption to the daily overtime requirement for flex work
scheduling. If the bill is approved, this schedule could not be
mandated and would still require prior employee approval. She
said that in current law, hospital nurses are provided a flex
schedule option but not other workplaces. She said that
flexible scheduling is a way that can help address labor gaps.
She stated that younger workers are very interested in flexible
scheduling and a work life balance. She said that HB 61 also
provides provisions around youth employment and that the
department currently processes approximately 2,500 work permits
for sixteen-year-olds each year and it is an unnecessary paper
push.
MS. Muoz paraphrased the sectional analysis [included in the
committee file] and remarked that Section 3 extends the
exemption for youth workers in family-owned businesses and
boats. The current law provides an exemption only for parental
businesses. She noted that Section 4 would change total
allowable work hours for sixteen-year-olds. Lastly, Section 5
would remove the requirement for individual work permits and
gives employers the option to receive blanket approval for
hiring multiple youth in the same capacity.
5:04:04 PM
TANYA KEITH, Director, Division of Labor and Standards Safety,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, presented HB 61
on behalf of the bill sponsor, House Rules by request of the
governor. She stated that the proposed changes would make it
better for DLWD to meet the needs of the public and focus
resources on efforts that protect Alaska's workers. She
remarked that the purpose of HB 61 is to allow for work up to 12
hours a day under a voluntary work hour plan for all employees
that are currently capped at 10 hours a day. The bill would
also make changes to the youth employment law to allow
businesses to employ fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds with
written approval from DLWD and remove the need for individual
work permits. The bill would also exempt sixteen- and
seventeen-year-olds in family-owned businesses from written
approval requirements. She noted that sixteen-year-olds have
the same restrictions under child labor laws as seventeen-year-
olds, prohibition from hazardous occupation jobs. She stated
that the restrictions for younger employees are much stricter
and only certain jobs under the law are permitted. She noted
that it makes sense to remove these requirements and focus on
younger age groups with stronger limitations. She noted that HB
61 would also increase daily allowable work hours for fourteen-
and fifteen-year-olds from 9 to 10 hours; she clarified that
school hours are counted as work hours. She remarked that this
would allow work full-time while school is not in session and
currently labor laws do not allow this.
5:06:47 PM
MS. KEITH stated that the first change would be flexible work
hours and allowing employees to work twelve hours a day under a
voluntary flexible work hour plan. The plan would require that
overtime be paid for any work over eight hours a day that is not
in the approved plan. It would remain voluntary on behalf of
the employer, who could not require the employee to work this
plan and not pay overtime. She noted that HB 61 would make this
plan available for all industries across Alaska.
MS. KEITH discussed current overtime laws. She remarked that
Alaska is a dual overtime state, which means that employees are
owed overtime for anything over eight hours a day or forty hours
a week. The voluntary flexible work hour plan allows employees
a partial exemption from daily overtime when it is made in
agreement with the employee. She remarked that this must be a
voluntary agreement between the employee and the employer and
require approval by DWLD. She reiterated that time worked over
the agreement must be paid.
MS. KEITH discussed flex plans and remarked that DLWD has
received flex plans from 1,348 employers in the last four years.
She said that once received, the department approves the
schedule, the employer gets back the schedule and can employee
as many on that this plan as needed. The department estimates
that there are between 5,300 and 13,500 employees that are
working alternate work schedules on this plan, and this could
even be a low estimate. She noted that the department has
received 563 wage claims, and of these claims, only one of them
involved a flexible work hour plan. She stated that it is one
of the most successful initiatives with DLWD and remarked that
complaints and compliance issues have been minimal, and the
department is confident in a change to a twelve-hour plan.
5:10:19 PM
MS. KEITH discussed the benefits of a twelve-hour work plan.
For employers, flexible staffing options and consistent
scheduling for 24-hour facilities have been important. In the
healthcare industry, being able to offer the same salary that
hospitals offer has helped with recruitment. Benefits for
employees include a schedule that has a better work-life
balance, reduced commuting costs, eliminating childcare needs,
and students could also see benefits while in school. She noted
the approximate childcare costs for an average family of three.
5:11:29 PM
MS. KEITH talked about changes in youth employment. She
remarked that HB 61 would exempt sixteen-year-olds working in
family-owned businesses from the approval requirements. She
reiterated that sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds are subject to
the same labor limitations and that the employment of fourteen-
year-olds is much more restrictive. She stated that focusing
approval processes on these younger groups is warranted. She
noted that the proposed legislation would move the requirement
for employers to send individual approval inquiries to a
registration system for approval. It would increase the total
number of workable hours and add an exemption to the weekly work
limitations to allow full-time work.
5:13:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked about Slide 6. She asked about
limitations regarding twelve hour shifts and if an employer
builds a schedule on 12-hour shifts, whether applicants that
want 8-hour shifts should refrain from applying.
MS. KEITH responded that 12-hour shifts cannot be an employer
requirement. Any employer that issues twelve-hour shifts must
also offer eight-hour shift arrangements.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked about Slide 7 and youth
employment. She asked if a student works two different part-
time jobs, who tracks the total hours and how accountability is
held.
MS. KEITH responded that youth are allowed by law to work only
nine hours between both school and work. She noted that she
hasn't heard of a fourteen-year-old having more than one part-
time job. She remarked that nobody would track the work hours
in this instance.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked that if a child is working too
many hours, whether it is up to the family to work with the
employer.
MS. KEITH responded that this is a reason for the proposed
legislation. She offered that currently the parents sign the
work permit, and it gets turned in for processing and it is
taken back to the employer. She remarked that there is never
any assertion of the requirements outside of the work permit.
Allowing this new registration process would ensure parents are
informed of work limitations and other employment regulations.
She stated that it will allow the department to ensure that
employers can understand the regulations and allow for more
oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if this was not possible to do in
regulation.
MS. KEITH responded that the statute requires that individual
work permits be submitted for every child. She stated that the
amount of work permits received is overwhelming. In May, June,
and July, it takes four investigators just to process work
permits. She remarked that some of the oversight is not
happening because of paperwork processing. She explained that
the department wants to eliminate this backlog and ensure safe
working environments for children.
5:17:46 PM
CHAIR CARRICK thanked presenters.
5:18:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for clarification for written
permits. She asked whether this is an online process and if
efforts underway to do so.
MS. KEITH recapped the process where the employer must fill out
the permit, receive signatures from parents. She explained the
change of hands regarding work permits.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked how the department keeps track of
permits.
MS. KEITH remarked that it is a process, and a database is used
to store the permits. She stated that some applications get
sent back to fix errors. She mentioned that the department
processes over 600 child labor applications for McDonalds that
are all the same type of employment. She stated that some
applications received from them are filled out incorrectly.
5:20:20 PM
CHAIR CARRICK said that additional questions can be sent to her
office.
[HB 61 was held over]
5:21:03 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:21.