PUBLIC STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING JOINT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL SERVICES
Date |
12/13/2022 |
Attendance |
Bacon |
X |
Buckner |
X |
Carver |
X |
Cooke |
X |
Lee |
X |
Pico |
X |
Rodriguez |
X |
Snyder |
X |
Gardner |
X |
Weissman |
X |
|
Time |
09:06:28 AM to 01:05:00 PM |
Place |
Old State Library |
This Meeting was called to order by |
Weissman |
This Report was prepared by |
Courtney Dunaway |
|
Hearing Items |
Action Taken |
hReview of new rules |
Committee Discussion Only |
hApproval and sponsorship of committee bills |
Committee Discussion Only |
hSocial media guidelines |
Committee Discussion Only |
hUpdate on litigation |
Committee Discussion Only |
hComp time policy recommendations |
Committee Discussion Only |
hUpdate on hiring |
Committee Discussion Only |
hOther business |
Committee Discussion Only |
|
|
Review of new rules - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
09:09:01 AM |
Megan McCall, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, introduced the Office and the Office's rule
review process then reviewed her recommendations for rule 39-30-105.1 concerning
Enterprise Zone Business Facility Employee Credits to not be extended
|
|
09:10:00 AM |
Ms. McCall stated
that the statute the rule is promulgated under is section 39-30-105.1 CRS
and that the rule's definition of "business facility" conflicts
with the statutory definition
|
|
09:12:22 AM |
Ms. McCall explained
that in her legal interpretation the definition the Department of Revenue
uses in their rule differs from the statutory definition because their
rule exempts "temporary structures" from the definition,
which results in the rule being more narrow and limited than the statute
requires
|
|
09:14:19 AM |
Representative Snyder
asked for more clarification on what is being contested and by whom
|
|
09:14:30 AM |
Ms. McCall explained
that the Department of Revenue is contesting the Office's recommendation
to not extend the rule by asking the committee to extend the rule
|
|
09:14:52 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, expressed his thoughts on the two definitions and that the statutory
definition does not require permanency of a business facility as the rule
definition does
|
|
09:16:56 AM |
Ms. McCall responded
clarifying that the way the terms are defined in the statute is broad and
that some of the structures listed could be temporary, such as warehouses
|
|
09:18:12 AM |
Senator Lee asked
if tents or canvas structures set up by businesses qualify under the definition
for the tax credit
|
|
09:18:46 AM |
Ms. McCall explained
that if the tent falls within the definition of facility in one of the
enumerated categories then it's possible it could qualify for the tax credit
but that it would need to also comport with all other requirements and
components of the statute
|
|
09:19:26 AM |
Senator Lee asked
for clarity on the purpose of the tax credit and if it was created to incentivize
businesses to set up more permanent types of facilities in a community
that won't be removed
|
|
09:20:02 AM |
Ms. McCall explained
the tax credit is an enterprise zone tax credit and that the legislative
intent for the enterprise zone tax credits is as Senator Lee described
and that the tax credit is particularly for employees
|
|
09:21:57 AM |
Esther van Mourik,
Department of Revenue, provided comments on the Department's rule making
authority, describing it as broad. She explained that the reason it is
broad is because a statute simply cannot cover all possible situations
that will apply to it. Ms. van Mourik explained that in order to promulgate
the rule, the Department needs to be able to apply it to any situation
that comes up and fill in any gaps when a statute is silent for smooth
administration
|
|
09:25:29 AM |
Anne Mangiardi, senior
assistant attorney general representing the Department of Revenue, discussed
the Department's interpretation of the language of the statute and that
the definition needs to be read in the context of the whole statute, which
would not allow for "building" to be read as something temporary
|
|
09:28:23 AM |
Ms. Mangiardi expressed
the opinion of the Department that the statute is a silent statute on permanence
or non-permanence and that it is the role of the Department to fill in
the gaps when a statute is silent
|
|
09:29:47 AM |
Ms. Mangiardi discussed
the legislative intent behind the enterprise zone tax credits set out in
the legislative declaration in section 39-30-102 CRS and how a temporary
job doesn't carry out those intents as well as a more permanent job does
|
|
09:33:14 AM |
Representative Pico
explained what he has seen in his own experience with businesses building
temporary facilities before building a permanent one while they're getting
started in a new community
|
|
09:34:16 AM |
Ms. Mangiardi responded
by saying that the legislative intent of the statute seems to exclude those
situations from the credit but that if a business started up in a tent
then moved to a permanent facility they would start receiving the tax credit
then
|
|
09:35:09 AM |
Representative Pico
explained that in his experience the tax credit is an incentive for a business
to get started
|
|
09:35:44 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, asked that, in the absence of the rule, what would happen when a
tax-payer tried to claim the credit
|
|
09:36:53 AM |
Ms. van Mourik explained
that the tax-payer can reach out to a representative to get information
on the tax credit or call their call center
|
|
09:37:57 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, brought up a similar court case in the past regarding Title 39 that
relates and asked if there are other Colorado cases that may be helpful
in interpretation
|
|
09:39:49 AM |
Ms. Mangiardi discussed
"chevron deference" and explained that the rules that have gone
through the formal rule making process get deference
|
|
09:40:38 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, asked if the committee should find more judicial deference for the
rules in the tax space
|
|
09:41:36 AM |
Ms. Mangiardi explained
that for cases that have gone to the supreme court level the court seemed
to see agency rule-making as valuable in the complex tax arena
|
|
09:42:33 AM |
Senator Gardner,
vice chair, expressed that he agrees with the Office's recommendation and
that the Department has engaged in a policy argument rather than a discussion
on if the rule should be extended based on what the general assembly authorized
in statute
|
|
09:44:36 AM |
Ms. McCall noted
that the case law discussed is specific to judicial review and that case
law does not require the committee to give deference
|
|
09:45:38 AM |
Ms. van Mourik explained
that a broad interpretation would decrease revenue and not be in line with
the original fiscal note
|
|
09:46:37 AM |
Representative Carver
brought up the example of a warehouse and her concern that the proposed
rule by the Department would be too narrow because she believes warehouses
can be prefab and could be impermanent
|
|
09:49:01 AM |
Ms. van Mourik explained
that there is a lot of nuance in the language they use when writing a rule
and that the way the rule is written accounts for impermanent structures
to be included in the definition if they are used in association with more
permanent structures
|
|
09:51:16 AM |
Representative Carver
expressed concern of the use of the phrase "more permanent" as
it is not clear and that the rule seems to differ from the statute
|
|
09:53:14 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, brought up modular housing and how sometimes factory built structures
can be permanent and asked how evolving technology like the creation of
modular housing would be handled under the rule
|
|
09:54:27 AM |
Ms. van Mourik explained
that since technology changes and building codes change that's exactly
the reason why the Department needs rule making authority so that they
don't have to ask the general assembly for permission to interpret new
situations on a weekly basis
|
|
09:56:08 AM |
Senator Lee asked
which sorts of temporary facilities would not qualify for the credit under
the rule and asked if a specific facility
under section 39-30-104 CRS would or wouldn't
|
|
09:57:34 AM |
Ms. van Mourik explained
that section 39-30-104 CRS concerns a different credit than the one the
Department promulgated a rule for that is being discussed today
|
|
09:58:09 AM |
Senator Lee asked
again what sort of temporary facility would not qualify under the actual
rule
|
|
09:58:29 AM |
Ms. van Mourik explained
that, given the definition in the rule, something like a tent not used
in association with permanent structures would not qualify for the credit
|
|
09:59:48 AM |
Representative Bacon
asked more about the legislative intent previously discussed and asked
if the temporary nature of a structure is linked to the temporary nature
of a business and if that is why the distinction is important
|
|
10:01:43 AM |
Ms. van Mourik explained
that enterprise zone credits are unique because they are administered by
the Department but in conjunction with the Office of Economic Development
and that the Office of Economic Development questioned whether a temporary
structure would meet the qualification of the credit, which is why the
rule was written the way it was
|
|
10:04:06 AM |
Ms. Mangiardi explained
that the reason why the Department believes the statute would require a
structure at all, based on their interpretation of the legislative intent,
is because the general assembly wanted to give a credit to businesses that
had a permanent presence in a community rather than temporary
|
|
10:05:47 AM |
Ms. McCall discussed
the legislative history of the statute and that the section broadened the
scope to allow "any" business facility to qualify, not just new
business facilities, and that the tax credit is specific to employees including
seasonal employees, not just permanent employees, and that the credit also
covers businesses that operate for less than a full year
|
|
10:08:39 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, expressed his belief that the rule should be extended based on the
committee discussion and the Department's
reasoning
|
|
10:11:05 AM |
Committee recessed
for discussion
|
|
10:28:10 AM |
The committee returned
from recess
|
10:28:23 AM
|
Motion |
I move to extend Rule 39-30-105.1 (1) of the rules of the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue |
|
Moved |
Snyder |
|
Seconded |
Lee |
|
|
|
|
Bacon |
Yes |
|
|
Buckner |
Yes |
|
|
Carver |
No |
|
|
Cooke |
No |
|
|
Lee |
Yes |
|
|
Pico |
No |
|
|
Rodriguez |
Yes |
|
|
Snyder |
Yes |
|
|
Gardner |
No |
|
|
Weissman |
Yes |
|
|
|
YES: 6 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS |
|
|
|
10:30:24 AM |
Sarah Lozano, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, introduced Regulation Number 19 Part A II.B.13
a (iii) concerning the control of lead hazards and the Office's recommendation
to not extend the rule as it conflicts
with statute
|
|
10:33:44 AM |
Michael Ogletree,
Department of Public Health and Environment, introduced the role of the
Department in limiting the risk of lead exposure for children and recommended
aligning the relevant state statute with federal law
|
|
10:35:48 AM |
Laura Manyak, Department
of Public Health and Environment, introduced herself and indicated she
was present for any technical questions
|
|
10:36:17 AM |
Representative Bacon
echoed the concern of lead exposure for children and clarified that the
committee is not addressing lead dangers but instead whether the rule conflicts
with statute
|
|
10:37:06 AM |
Representative Weissman
discussed the importance of the Department and legislation to address the
conflict between the rule and statute
|
10:38:28 AM
|
Motion |
I move to extend Regulation Number 19 Part A II.B.13.a.(iii) of the rules of the Air Quality Control Commission |
|
Moved |
Snyder |
|
Seconded |
Lee |
|
|
|
|
Bacon |
No |
|
|
Buckner |
No |
|
|
Carver |
No |
|
|
Cooke |
No |
|
|
Lee |
No |
|
|
Pico |
No |
|
|
Rodriguez |
No |
|
|
Snyder |
No |
|
|
Gardner |
No |
|
|
Weissman |
No |
|
|
|
YES: 0 NO: 10 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL |
|
|
|
10:40:29 AM |
Brita Darling, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, introduced rule 5.A. concerning the Colorado
Student Loan Equity Act and the Office's recommendation to not extend the
rule as the rule's requirements for a private education lender differ from
statute
|
|
10:44:18 AM |
Ms. Darling explained
that statute does not allow the administrator authority to grant private
education lenders an exemption from reporting requirements
|
|
10:47:01 AM |
Senator Gardner,
vice chair, requested a 17c prior to the motion
|
10:47:35 AM
|
Motion |
I move to extend Rule 5.A. of the rules of the Administrator for the Uniform Consumer Credit Code and Commission on Consumer Credit |
|
Moved |
Snyder |
|
Seconded |
Lee |
|
|
|
|
Bacon |
No |
|
|
Buckner |
No |
|
|
Carver |
No |
|
|
Cooke |
No |
|
|
Lee |
No |
|
|
Pico |
No |
|
|
Rodriguez |
No |
|
|
Snyder |
No |
|
|
Gardner |
Excused |
|
|
Weissman |
No |
|
|
|
YES: 0 NO: 9 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL |
|
|
Approval and sponsorship of committee bills - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
10:49:16 AM |
Jennifer Berman,
Office of Legislative Legal Services, introduced the 2023 rule review bill
for rules that would automatically expire unless extended by bill and discussed
that the rule review bill will be a Senate bill and that the committee
will serve as the committee of reference in both the Senate and House for
the bill. Ms. Berman asked for permission to start drafting the rule review
bill
|
|
10:51:09 AM |
Senator Lee commended
the Office for their work in reviewing rules
|
10:52:24 AM
|
Motion |
I move to grant the Office of Legislative Legal Services permission to draft the 2023 rule review bill |
|
Moved |
Weissman |
|
Seconded |
Lee |
|
|
|
|
Bacon |
Yes |
|
|
Buckner |
Yes |
|
|
Carver |
Yes |
|
|
Cooke |
Yes |
|
|
Lee |
Yes |
|
|
Pico |
Yes |
|
|
Rodriguez |
Yes |
|
|
Snyder |
Yes |
|
|
Gardner |
Yes |
|
|
Weissman |
Yes |
|
|
|
YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS |
|
|
|
10:53:21 AM |
The committee agreed
that Representatives Weissman and Soper will sponsor the rule review bill
for the House, and Senators Gardner and Rodriguez will sponsor for the
Senate
|
|
10:54:40 AM |
The committee agreed
that Representative Snyder and Senator Buckner will be cosponsors for the
rule review bill
|
|
10:55:10 AM |
Jennifer Gilroy,
Office of Legislative Legal Services, introduced the 2023 bill to enact
the CRS 2022, including the voter approved changes supplement, and asked
for permission to draft the bill
|
10:56:42 AM
|
Motion |
I move to grant the Office of Legislative Legal Services permission to draft the 2023 bill to enact the CRS 2022 |
|
Moved |
Snyder |
|
Seconded |
Bacon |
|
|
|
|
Bacon |
Yes |
|
|
Buckner |
Yes |
|
|
Carver |
Yes |
|
|
Cooke |
Yes |
|
|
Lee |
Yes |
|
|
Pico |
Yes |
|
|
Rodriguez |
Yes |
|
|
Snyder |
Yes |
|
|
Gardner |
Yes |
|
|
Weissman |
Yes |
|
|
|
YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS |
|
|
|
10:57:43 AM |
The committee agreed
that Representatives Bacon and Soper will sponsor the bill to enact for
the House, and Senators Gardner and Rodriguez will sponsor for the Senate
|
|
10:58:10 AM |
The committee agreed
that Representatives Snyder and Weissman and Senator Buckner will copsonsor
the bill to enact
|
|
10:58:31 AM |
Ms. Gilroy asked
if the bill to enact will be a Senate or House bill
|
|
10:58:54 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, stated the bill to enact will be a House bill
|
|
10:58:58 AM |
Ms. Gilroy introduced
the 2023 revisor's bill with a brief description of the bill's purpose
of fixing nonsubstantive statutory errors and asked for permission to draft
the bill
|
11:00:18 AM
|
Motion |
I move to grant the Office of Legislative Legal Services permission to draft the 2023 revisor's bill |
|
Moved |
Snyder |
|
Seconded |
Lee |
|
|
|
|
Bacon |
Yes |
|
|
Buckner |
Yes |
|
|
Carver |
Yes |
|
|
Cooke |
Yes |
|
|
Lee |
Yes |
|
|
Pico |
Yes |
|
|
Rodriguez |
Yes |
|
|
Snyder |
Yes |
|
|
Gardner |
Yes |
|
|
Weissman |
Yes |
|
|
|
YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS |
|
|
|
11:01:03 AM |
The committee agreed
that Representatives Snyder and Soper will sponsor the revisor's bill for
the House, and Senators Gardner and Rodriguez will sponsor for the Senate
|
|
11:01:21 AM |
The committee agreed
that Representative Weissman and Senator Buckner will cosponsor the revisor's
bill
|
|
11:01:38 AM |
Ms. Gilroy discussed
that LIS is changing the state employee email domain and that the revisor's
office will correct all instances of the email domain in statute by revision
rather than by revisor's bill
|
|
11:02:24 AM |
Ms. Gilroy discussed
the different cover stock used for the 2022 CRS as compared to previous
CRS books and that the new covers are recyclable
|
|
11:03:32 AM |
Senator Gardner,
vice chair, expressed thanks for the explanation of the change in cover
stock
|
|
11:04:00 AM |
Ms. Gilroy asked
which chamber the revisor's bill will start in
|
|
11:04:14 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, stated that the revisor's bill will be a House bill
|
Social media guidelines - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
11:05:13 AM |
Ed DeCecco, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, introduced the social media guidelines and
asked if the committee would like to release a letter regarding the social
media guidelines
|
|
11:06:19 AM |
Mr. DeCecco discussed
the first amendment and how when a public official blocks a member of the
public on social media it can result in a lawsuit
|
|
11:11:09 AM |
Mr. DeCecco walked
through certain recommendations in the social media guidelines with the
committee
|
|
11:13:38 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the social media guidelines were given to new members during new member
orientation but have not been given to current members yet
|
|
11:14:55 AM |
Mr. DeCecco detailed
cases in which a first amendment social media issue has come up and how
those cases have guided the Office in recommending social media guidelines
|
|
11:24:16 AM |
Senator Lee asked
if the Colorado case took into account the fact that the congress woman
was using a private account rather than a public one
|
|
11:24:34 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that, yes, it was a factor in the case and that since it was a private
account it was not considered state action
|
|
11:26:02 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, discussed one of the cases and asked Mr. DeCecco to expound on it
|
|
11:26:55 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that in that case the plaintiff failed to meet their burden of proof and
the damages claim was dismissed
|
|
11:27:56 AM |
Mr. DeCecco outlined
the takeaways from the cases and explained how courts might interpret certain
cases regarding the use of campaign social media accounts versus other
types of accounts
|
|
11:29:32 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that because the circuits are split at this point, the social media guidelines
take that into account in their recommendations
|
|
11:30:50 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the Office recommends sending out a letter advising members of the
social media guidelines similar to the letter sent in a previous year
|
|
11:32:36 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, expressed that any sort of litigation would be unwelcome and that
caution is warranted when it comes to social media and expressed his being
in favor of releasing the letter and suggested adding stronger language
to the end of the letter explaining the consequences of not following the
guidelines
|
|
11:35:34 AM |
Senator Buckner concurred
with sending the letter to existing members so that they can have the reminder
|
|
11:36:02 AM |
Representative Snyder
agreed with the chair in suggesting including some of the social media
guidelines in the letter so that members can have a step-by-step guide
on how to handle social media
|
|
11:37:16 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the guidelines are more general because of all the different types
of social media that exist
|
|
11:38:34 AM |
Mr. DeCecco asked
if the committee would like the social media guidelines to be attached
to the letter
|
|
11:39:07 AM |
Representative Snyder
asked what determines whether a campaign account is actually a campaign
account since legislators still campaign after becoming legislators for
reelection
|
|
11:39:52 AM |
Mr. DeCecco stated
that the recommended guideline is to not block anyone on a campaign account
because it is difficult to prove what a campaign account is
|
|
11:41:08 AM |
Senator Buckner asked
if the responsibility of following the guidelines would fall on a member
and not their aide
|
|
11:41:32 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the responsibility is on the member but that the social media guidelines
are for aides as well so that they have the information and training on
it too
|
|
11:42:11 AM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, asked for Mr. DeCecco and the Office to update the letter, put the
major points from the guidelines into the body of the letter, show the
chair and vice chair the letter in draft form to finalize it, and then
send it out to all legislators
|
|
11:44:24 AM |
The committee agreed
with the chair
|
Update on litigation - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
11:45:08 AM |
Sharon Eubanks, Director
of the Office of Legislative Legal Services, gave an update on the litigation
going on involving a lawsuit brought against members of state patrol, the
secretary of the Senate, the office of the Senate president, and chamber
sergeants in which individuals were denied access to the chambers due to
the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged it imposed on their constitutional rights
|
|
11:48:00 AM |
Ms. Eubanks explained
that the Committee previously agreed to retain counsel for Cindi Markwell,
Senate secretary, and that the Office is awaiting rulings on the pending
litigation and asked if the committee has any questions
|
|
11:49:18 AM |
Senator Lee asked
if there have been any opinions on any of the motions
|
|
11:49:29 AM |
Ms. Eubanks stated
there have not been, they are still pending
|
Comp time policy recommendations - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
11:50:24 AM |
Ed DeCecco, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, discussed what the Office's comp time policy
currently is and when the last time the committee approved that policy
was
|
|
11:55:04 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
the reason behind the comp time policy as attracting and retaining quality
employees
|
|
11:55:21 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the Office formed a committee to review the Office's comp time policy
and what the Office's committee's findings were
|
|
11:55:52 AM |
Mr. DeCecco mentioned
that comp time is standard for other Offices in the state capitol
|
|
11:56:40 AM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that comp time helps the Office compete with private attorney firms who
offer bonuses to attorneys
|
|
11:58:51 AM |
Mr. DeCecco addressed
possible concerns of comp time and what the potential costs are for the
Office for having a comp time policy
|
|
12:01:09 PM |
Jennifer Berman,
Office of Legislative Legal Services, explained why the Office is recommending
for the committee to continue the comp time policy as it allows employees
a proper work-life balance equilibrium
|
|
12:03:28 PM |
Ms. Berman explained
how comp time can supplement other types of leave, such as parental leave,
and provide an important safety net for employees
|
|
12:04:15 PM |
Ms. Berman shared
a personal story of how comp time supplemented her own personal leave during
a family medical emergency in the past
|
|
12:05:10 PM |
Ms. Berman discussed
that when the Office's committee asked employees, employees expressed that
comp time was very important to them and an important factor for them in
deciding to stay with the Office
|
|
12:06:34 PM |
Ms. Berman explained
that, per NCSL, comp time is a standard among other comparable legislative
bill drafting offices across the United States
|
|
12:08:12 PM |
Senator Cooke expressed
his belief that professionals of any sort, particularly attorneys, should
not receive comp time, but that his belief does not reflect on his gratitude
for the work of the Office
|
|
12:10:08 PM |
Senator Cooke asked
if employees punch a clock when they come in
|
|
12:10:16 PM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that employees don't physically punch a clock but that they account for
every minute of time worked or not worked
|
|
12:10:54 PM |
Senator Cooke asked
how the 15-minute increments of comp time round up
|
|
12:11:48 PM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that the 15-minute increments are typically rounded down
|
|
12:12:50 PM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
what the comparable states that provide comp time's policies specifically
include
|
|
12:15:56 PM |
Ms. Berman followed
up explaining the federal law, the Federal Labor Standards Act, concerning
which employees should receive overtime pay and which employees are considered
"professionals"
|
|
12:16:51 PM |
Senator Cooke went
over the federal law and which employees are included in the term "professionals"
who should be exempt from overtime pay
|
|
12:18:20 PM |
Ms. Berman responded
by explaining that the Office's comp time is not paid overtime as outlined
in the Federal Labor Standards Act and that the act does not prohibit overtime
for professionals in any way
|
|
12:20:00 PM |
Senator Cooke asked
if there is a cap on comp time
|
|
12:20:55 PM |
Mr. DeCecco responded
by explaining there is no cap but that all comp time is subject to a supervisor's
approval and that historically a supervisor has never allowed a departing
employee to use a bunch of comp time before leaving
|
|
12:23:49 PM |
Ms. Berman discussed
measures the Office has implemented in order to prevent employees from
accruing a lot of overtime, which include a skeleton crew policy and hiring
more employees for increasing workloads
|
|
12:26:01 PM |
Senator Gardner asked
Sharon Eubanks to come to the table, stated his respect for the Office's
work, and asked Ms. Eubanks what the most comp time an employee has ever
earned has been
|
|
12:27:54 PM |
Sharon Eubanks, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, explained that comp time data is not compiled
for individual employees but office-wide and that data for an individual
employee would need to be taken from each one of their time records
|
|
12:28:20 PM |
Senator Gardner asked
if the Office can get him data on individual employees
|
|
12:28:44 PM |
Ms. Eubanks stated
they can see if that data can be collected
|
|
12:29:30 PM |
Senator Gardner asked
what the differences in comp time policies between the agencies in the
capitol are
|
|
12:30:00 PM |
Mr. DeCecco explained
that legislative council caps comp time for employees combined with a cap
for their vacation time and also pays out comp time for departing employees
and that their comp time is earned after the first four qualifying hours
of each month with a weekly accrual cap. Joint Budget Committee staff receive
comp time as a whole office at the discretion of their director, it can
carry forward up to a capped amount, and it's payable upon departure. Audit
staff get comp time for each hour after 45 hours and after working a certain
number of consecutive weeks with an accrual cap at 10 hours a week
|
|
12:34:08 PM |
Senator Gardner expressed
the need to ask all agencies to come up with a common comp time policy
among the agencies
|
|
12:37:01 PM |
Representative Carver
stated that, given the nature of the legislative staff and the requirements
for them to work long hours during session, she believes that a comp time
policy is warranted but that it concerns her there is no restriction other
than discretion of the supervisor
|
|
12:40:10 PM |
Senator Cooke expressed
concerns on the Office having, potentially, the most lax comp time policy
among the agencies
|
|
12:41:04 PM |
Ms. Berman explained
that the other agencies offer payouts while the Office doesn't, so the
Office policy may not be the most lax of the policies and also that while
there are similarities among the agencies, each agency does perform different
functions and operates differently so the differing comp time policies
fit the nature of each agency
|
|
12:43:20 PM |
Mr. DeCecco mentioned
that all the agencies also have differing leave time policies, not just
comp time, as the agencies are all different
|
|
12:44:25 PM |
Representative Weissman,
chair, explained that staff should not be pushed to work long overtime
hours without pay in the way that members might push themselves to work
long hours by choice of being in their role and that he believes the Office
deserves a robust comp time policy to be able to perform their work without
burning out. He also stated that looking at other agencies' policies is
not a conversation for today but a valid conversation for the future
|
Update on hiring - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
12:49:24 PM |
Sharon Eubanks, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, gave an update on the hiring that took place
in the Office in the last year as permitted by the committee
|
|
12:52:57 PM |
Ms. Eubanks described
how hiring so many new employees has caused a spacing issue in the Office,
so the Office has created a swing space to solve the issue
|
|
12:54:37 PM |
Senator Lee echoed
Senator Gardner's comments on being appreciative of the level of competence
among the staff in the Office and also added that if comp time motivates
the employees then he is in favor of it
|
Other business - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
12:58:00 PM |
Senator Gardner stated
that he received a memo from the Office regarding limitations of liquor
licenses and wants to bring it to the committee's attention for discussion
at a future date
|
|
01:01:37 PM |
Senator Buckner gave
her thanks and goodbyes for her last day on the committee
|
01:05:00 PM |
The committee adjourned. |