HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
May 15, 2003 Hearing Room E
1:30 PM Tapes 60 - 61
CORRECTED
COPY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Dan Doyle, Chair AUG. 19, 2003
Rep. Linda Flores, Vice-Chair
Rep. Laurie Monnes Anderson, Vice Chair
Rep. Vic Backlund
Rep. Phil Barnhart
Rep. Betsy L. Close
Rep. Joanne Verger
STAFF PRESENT: Cara
Filsinger, Administrator
Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HB 3130 – Public Hearing and Work Session
HB 3627 – Public Hearing
These minutes are in compliance
with Senate and House Rules. Only
text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the
tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
Tape 60, A |
||
|
004 |
Chair Doyle |
Calls meeting to order at 1:33 p.m., announces order
agenda items will be considered, and opens a public hearing on HB 3130. |
|
HB 3130
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Advises members that the HB 3130-1 amendments are
before the committee (EXHIBIT A). |
|
|
Joe Gilliam |
Oregon Grocery Industry Association. Explains
that the flavored malt beverages are different than beer, wine, or other kinds
of alcohol. The federal government
has advised the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) that these beverages
may not be in compliance with state statutes. They are looking for a resolution as the federal government
considers a new regulation to be used nationwide. It will only be a guideline on the states; it will be the
market rule. They are looking for a
solution to get through the time until the federal government will act to
propose a new rule. They will then
come back to ask that the standard be adopted. This will keep the products on the shelves until that
happens. States they do not know when
the rule will be adopted and have reached an agreement with others (EXHIBIT B), and states that the
amendments should be arriving from Legislative Counsel shortly. |
|
040 |
Mark Nelson |
7-11 and Anheuser Busch. Notes that his clients are in conflict over this issue. Submits list of definitions (EXHIBIT C) and states after review
by OLCC and the federal government they have determined there is a violation
of the definition of alcoholic beverage. States they are faced with removing the products from the
stores. Their goals was to find a way
to allow malt-based products to be sold in the grocery store and at the same
time establish and continue to establish the very clear line of what is
distilled spirits and what is not.
States that the federal rulemaking controls federal taxation. Comments on enforcement. States they have come to an agreement on
the December 31, 2004 date. States
that 7-11 supports that date and Anheuser Busch wants to make it clear that
they are willing to comply with OLCC statute that requires them to
reformulate their product to bring it below one-half of one percent so it is
a malt beverage. States they will
support this in the Senate unless an amendment is added that would affect the
compromise. |
|
084 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Notes the discrepancy in the date on the HB 3031-1
amendments. |
|
|
Nelson |
Explains that their proposed amendment has not
arrived; the date will be December 31, 2004. |
|
098 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the public hearing on HB 3101 and asks the
committee to stand at ease at 1:42 p.m. |
|
101 |
Chair Doyle |
Reconvenes the meeting at 1:52 p.m. and opens a work
session on HB 3130. |
|
HB 3101
– WORK SESSION |
||
|
118 |
Chair Doyle |
Advises members that the new amendments will not be
completed by Legislative Counsel today and that the committee will go forward
with a conceptual amendment to the HB 3130-1 amendments to change the date. |
|
128 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves to SUSPEND the rules for the purpose
of conceptually amending the HB 3130-1 amendments. |
|
130 |
|
VOTE:
7-0-0 |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
130 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves to AMEND the HB 3130-1 amendments in
lines 11 and 12 by deleting “July 1, 2005” and inserting “December 31, 2004”. |
|
142 |
|
VOTE:
7-0-0 |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
|
|
|
|
143 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT HB 3130-1 amendments dated
5/5/03 AS AMENDED. |
|
146 |
|
VOTE:
7-0-- |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves HB 3130 to the floor with a DO PASS
AS AMENDED recommendation. |
|
155 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks what happens if the federal government comes up
with their rules before December 31, 2004. |
|
158 |
Gilliam |
Responds they don’t know what the date will be. Comments on what the federal government
might do. |
|
|
|
|
|
169 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Asks what the tax is on malt and alcoholic
beverages. |
|
|
Mark Nelson |
Explains there are state and federal taxes. Explains how taxes are applied to
different products. |
|
200 |
|
VOTE:
7-0-0 AYE: In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
|
|
|
|
205 |
Rep. Doyle
|
MOTION: Moves HB 3130 be placed on the CONSENT
CALENDAR. |
|
|
|
VOTE:
7-0-0 |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
211 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the work session on HB 3130 and opens a public
hearing on HB 3627. |
|
HB 3627
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
217 |
Sen. Frank Morse |
District 8.
Testifies in support of HB 3627.
Cites statistics on spending increases from 1992-2000 and the ranking
of state and local spending in Oregon with other states |
|
260 |
Sen. Morse |
States that the increases have come to haunt us
today. Asks what should drive our
fiscal decisions---resources and revenues, or demand. It is a combination of both. We are looking at changing that dynamic of
current service level funding to what funds are available and working within
the context of those funds. |
|
280 |
Sen. Morse |
Comments on shift of funding sources for schools. K-12 was making decisions without knowing
what their resources were going to be.
The intent of HB 3627 is to change that dynamic so the programs are
operating with the resources that are available. |
|
300 |
Sen. Morse |
Comments on commitments and agreements that have
been made during a time of declining revenues; it has been business as
usual. This bill would still allow
and provide for collective bargaining, but it would be in the context of what
is available from the state. States
it is a policy shift. |
|
320 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Comments that smaller school districts cost more and
believes the most expensive are in the rural areas. |
|
354 |
Rep. Flores |
States that Sen. Morse said that Oregon ranks 49th
highest in spending. Ask which state
was higher. |
|
|
Sen. Morse |
Responds that he will provide excerpts from the study. |
|
370 |
Rep. Backlund |
Comments that the bill would mandate that the
contracts not be longer than two years. |
|
|
Sen. Morse |
Responds that it would take some time to get into a
cycle but cannot understand how commitments can be made before they know what
they will get from the state. States
there are issues in collective bargaining agreements that can extend beyond
two years and he does not see this bill as a way to undermine collective
bargaining. |
|
420 |
Rep. Verger |
Comments it is unfair to the schools because they
try to run the schools like a business.
When they don’t know what they are going to have, it makes it
difficult for them to look efficient and then they are criticized. Comments on piecemeal legislation and states
there are declining school enrollments in some schools and growing
enrollments in others and is very much in favor of letting schools know what
they have to spend. |
|
459 |
Sen. Morse |
States he shares Rep. Verger’s frustration. |
|
TAPE 61, A |
||
|
014 |
Rep. Backlund |
States the bill pertains to state government and
school districts. Asks if Sen. Morse
deliberately excluded counties, cities, and special taxing districts. |
|
|
Sen. Morse |
States he did intentionally exclude those units
because they do not have the degree of dependence upon state financing. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Asks Sen. Morse what he envisions a school district
doing under this bill. |
|
033 |
Sen. Morse |
States he does not know how the collective
bargaining process works and understands it would create a hardship by all
the districts being in the same cycle; there would be some adjustments and challenges
to manage this. A host of things can
be done but before the final decisions are made the resources should be
known. |
|
051 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Comments that a number of districts have deferred
compensation programs. Asks how this
bill would affect those programs. |
|
|
Sen. Morse |
States he does not know. Comments the districts that have those commitments will honor
them. |
|
078 |
John Marshall |
Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA). Testifies in opposition to HB 3627. States that they appreciate Sen. Morse’
efforts to try to get a handle on the question that schools face every two
years when the legislature is in session, i.e. having to balance a budget
without knowing what the legislature’s decision will be on school
funding. Believes the driving factor
behind how school districts operate from a budgetary sense is the requirement
that they have a balanced budget and the budget must be in place by July
1. |
|
098 |
Marshall |
States that most collective bargaining agreements
have provisions that allow them to adjust based on the realities of existing
revenue. State that in the bargaining
process the question asked is what if the funding doesn’t come in at the
level they are anticipating. They
generally agree to have a provision in the contract to go back and reconsider
that. |
|
118 |
Ron Wilson |
Director of Human Resource Development, OSBA. States that the funding clause in a
contract is a technical term for a variety of clauses that allows either
party to reopen an agreement and renegotiate. That is common in contracts renegotiated over the last couple
of years. The most common funding
adjustment mechanism has been to have contract duration of two, three, and
sometimes four years, but the economic provisions are not that long. Part of the agreement is that there will
be an annual or every other year negotiation of the economics. Those re-openings are not uncommon. Explains there are a variety of mechanism
that unions, management, and school districts have been able to use to adjust
to this. |
|
143 |
Wilson |
States that HB 3627 would require contracts to be for
two years. The bargaining process
could take 9 to 12 months. The impact
of having to do all contracts every two years at the same time is staggering. There could be 356 or more contracts being
negotiated simultaneously in the state.
The bill would stretch resources for negotiating contracts quite thin. |
|
189 |
Wilson |
Presents paper on recent settlements (EXHIBIT D). |
|
245 |
Chair Doyle |
Asks why the bill would limit contracts to two
years. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds it is in Section 2(3). States they could not negotiate an agreement
before the biennial appropriation by the legislative assembly to the
Department of Education. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Comments that Sen. Morse indicated that some issues
in agreements do not spend funds or do not rely on state funds. Asks if those things could be negotiated
in advance for more than two years. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds that the language does not reflect that. |
|
272 |
Rep. Doyle |
Asks if the term “related to wages or benefits”
would satisfy the concern. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds that the same kind of language is in the
agreements now. Explains how
contracts are written containing contingencies. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Comments on advantages of having resolutions of
bargaining agreements. |
|
|
Wilson |
Comments that the legislature sets the rules and
they follow them. |
|
390 |
Rep. Flores |
Asks if “negotiate” and “execute” are different. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds yes.
Believes “execute” would mean ratify and sign the agreement. |
|
|
Rep. Flores |
Asks if they object to negotiations beginning prior
the final appropriated funds. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds no.
Comments on timing of negotiations and the need for flexibility. |
|
461 |
Marshall |
Comments that the idea of separating the economic
and non-economic issues would be resisted. Comments on the bargaining process. |
|
TAPE 60, B |
||
|
005 |
Tricia Bosak |
Oregon Education Association (OEA). Testifies in opposition to HB 3627. Supports testimony by OSBA and states that
collective bargaining agreements can run for varying durations, two to four
years. They also feel that HB 3627 would
put them in a perpetual bargaining situation. The tradeoff between economic and non-economic issues is a very
important dynamic at the bargaining table.
They also believe the bill would force a two-year agreement, and
everybody could be in a crisis if all the agreements are due at one
time. States that the bill also
further complicates the requirement for districts to adopt the budget by June
30. The districts would not know what
they were going to fund in the bargaining agreements. Comments on changes affecting the pay and
benefits of teachers. |
|
068 |
Tricia Smith |
Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA). Testifies in opposition to HB 3627. States she agrees with everything that has
been said. Adds that school employees
all over the state have been stepping up to the plate every since the economy
went south, particularly classified employees. These people work two and three jobs to pay the rent; they do
not have excessive salaries. Thinks
this would be complicated for everyone.
|
|
093 |
Mary Botkin |
American Federation of State County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME). Explains that Ken
Allen will speak for AFSCME. |
|
108 |
Ken Allen |
AFSCME Executive Director. Submits flow chart of collective bargaining process (EXHIBIT E). Comments that he has been bargaining contracts in the
public and private sectors for 29 years and has been the AFSCME spokesperson
for all state government contracts since 1992. Comments on history of contracts with the state. States that laws should be drafted for the
good times and bad times. Reaching
settlements is more of an art than a science. |
|
|
Allen |
States that he is the leader in negotiations and he
has been preparing members for a settlement that does not include wage
increases. Thinks a settlement prior
to June 30 can help the state agencies and this body come to what needs to be
done about funding. This would create
a barrier where, unless there is a guarantee that all agency budgets are
decided before June 30, they could not make an early settlement. AFSCME has only had one agreement beyond
two years since 1977. Believes
long-term agreements are good.
Contracts with the state all expire on June 30. |
|
180 |
Allen |
States that after the previous five-year wage
freeze, many classifications were significantly behind. Comments on recruitments of employees by
other states. If there is another
couple years of a wage freeze there will be some classifications that will
have significant recruitment and retention problems because the market will
not have gone through the same wage freeze that state workers will have gone
through. |
|
197 |
Rep. Close |
Asks what pay increases the private sector was
offering during the 1990s when the state was offering three percent. |
|
206 |
Allen |
States they represent about 1,000 private sector
workers and is therefore only aware of those. States they have had no increase larger than three percent;
they have averaged two to two and one-half percent, but there was five years
of zero increase. |
|
215 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if Allen can comment on the interaction of
economic and non-economic issues. |
|
|
Allen |
Responds that non-economic issues do not cost
anything and those are bargained first.
Things such as rest breaks are economic items and paid time off is an
economic item. States since they are
going to end up with a wage freeze they are going to try to improve their
contract language, which has a non-economic cost to the employer but provides
more security to the employees. |
|
|
Rep. Barnhart |
Comments that no money changes hands, but there is a
cost in productivity. |
|
|
Allen |
States the issues could cross over and save
money. States they are also very
active on health issues and that reduces the workers’ compensation
costs. |
|
230 |
Rep. Flores |
Asks if AFSCME also represents the prison employees. |
|
|
Allen |
Responds that they represent all the prison
employees except the physicians. Adds
that they only organize the Mental Health physicians. |
|
|
Rep. Flores |
Asks what the salary is of the physicians that are
being recruited by Idaho. |
|
|
Allen |
Responds they were at about $80,000 a year several
years ago, and are at about $120,000 a year.
It is a low figure for psychiatrists compared to what they could get
outside state service, but they don’t have to pay medical liability
insurance. |
|
|
Rep. Flores |
Asks if a benefit package is attached to the
compensation. |
|
|
Allen |
Responds that the only thing tied to their wages is
their PERS benefit. |
|
270 |
Rep. Verger |
Comments that AFSCME was the most cooperative when
their municipality reached hard economic times. Asks what the difference is between having the money in hand and
knowing the ball park figure. |
|
281 |
Allen |
States that local governments usually do not have
their budgets done until May or early June so they don’t know their exact
figure. Adds that parties that are
used to working together can work out collective bargaining settlements even
though the exact figure is not known if all parties are reasonable. |
|
291 |
Botkin |
Comments that most of their budgets have not had a
current service level figure to work with for about three or four
biennia. Comments on efforts last
session to recapture savings in the budgets to keep service available to the
inmates and staff as much as possible.
|
|
312 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the public hearing on HB 3627 and adjourns
meeting at 3:02 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– HB 3130, HB 3130-1 amendments, Rep. Doyle, 1 p
B
– HB 3130, enforcement options, Joe Gilliam, 1 p
C
– HB 3130, definitions, Mark Nelson, 1 p
D
– HB 3627, settlement data, Ron Wilson, 4 pp
E
– HB 3617, flow chart on bargaining process, Ken Allen, 1 p