Latest news with #AndyJosephson
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Alaska House votes to revive pension plan for state and municipal workers
Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, talks with Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage, during a break in debate over House Bill 78, the pension bill, on Monday, May 12, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) Almost 20 years after eliminating Alaska's public pension program, the House of Representatives has voted to open a new pension system for municipal and state workers. With proponents saying the state's existing, 401(k)-like retirement system is ineffective and a deterrent for hiring and retention, the House voted 21-19 late Monday to approve House Bill 78. If enacted, it would create a new pension plan and allow current employees to opt into the program. The bill would cover Alaska's state employees as well as all of the teachers employed by local school districts and thousands of municipal workers employed by cities and boroughs across Alaska. The bill's opponents cited potential costs and said they fear a repeat of the state's prior pension system, which accrued a multibillion-dollar shortfall after a failed estimate by actuaries. Monday's vote is a significant accomplishment for pension supporters: This is the first time since the old program ended in 2006 that the House has voted to restart a public pension for all state and municipal workers. The state Senate voted in 2012 and 2024 to revive a pension program for all employees, and the House voted in 2022 to create a pension just for public safety workers, but none of those bills became law. This time may be different. Prominent members of the state Senate have said they intend to advance a pension bill next year, which would put the issue in front of Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who has previously opposed the idea. House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, said the bill is a major priority, even if the governor vetoes it. 'The constituents who sent us here to Juneau need to see us trying, with all our might, to fix the threadbare fabric of our public services in a way that is fiscally sustainable,' he said by text message after Monday's vote. 'Every time the bill is presented, heard, and argued, the fiscal responsibility and justice of our cause shines like the noonday sun. Alaska will soon have a responsible pension plan; I don't know what day or year, but it will have one again and we will be a competitive employer again.' HB 78 would create a new pension investment fund separate from the existing one. Unlike in the current system, employees would be guaranteed a certain level of retirement pay, regardless of stock market performance. They also wouldn't increase those benefits if they leave their public sector job, unlike the current system, in which benefits grow as the investments grow. Current employees would be allowed to switch from their 401(k)-style retirement system to the new system. Retirement would be possible at age 60, or with 30 years of service. Police officers and firefighters would be allowed to retire at age 55, with at least 20 years of work, or at age 50 if they've worked at least 25 years. Employees would be asked to contribute 8% of their pay to the pension plan, but that would be adjustable, up to 12% of income, if needed to avoid a funding gap. Health insurance benefits, a major contributor to the cost of the old pension system, are not included. Pensions would be based on the highest five years of an employee's salary, rather than the highest three years, as was the case under the old system. Proponents have billed the pension revival as a way to fight employee turnover and alleviate a chronic worker shortage at state agencies. Since 2006, when the pension program ended for new employees, research has found that new state and municipal workers in Alaska are now much less likely to remain in the state and frequently earn less money toward retirement under the defined contribution, or DC, plans than employees who receive pensions. 'In the world of teaching, if you're a Tier 3 teacher, which is the DC plan, it's called the death tier,' said Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka and a former teacher. 'You're going to teach until the day you die. That's because studies have shown that a teacher in Tier 3 has a 30% chance of success in retirement. It's not working for our Tier 3 teachers.' Rep. Donna Mears, D-Anchorage, said her son was born in July 2006, the same month that the state stopped offering pensions. He's now preparing to graduate high school, and in the intervening years, she's had a career as an engineer. 'In that time, I've seen a decline in the longevity and expertise of regulators,' she said. Kopp, speaking on the House floor, said that because the state's retirement system has failed to meet employee demand, the state is now paying more than it should in pay and bonuses. 'This is the cost of doing nothing. It is huge. We are burning bonfires of money,' he said. Proponents also argue that the state is spending much more than it needs to on training, because it won't have to repeatedly retrain new employees. 'The fundamental question to me is are we going to create an environment where people can stay in Alaska or move to Alaska … and stay for a lifetime,' said Rep. Ky Holland, I-Anchorage. Those who voted against the bill on Monday said they are concerned about the accuracy of cost projections and doubt that the bill will deliver on backers' promises. 'You can say it's a more modern version (of a pension). Perhaps it is, but it feels like it is still an unaffordable model,' said Rep. Cathy Tilton, R-Wasilla. Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, noted that actuaries failed to accurately track prior costs. 'We are asking them to trust the actuarials. How did that work out last time?' he said. Kopp responded by saying that this time, the pension system will rely on three independently operating actuarial estimates, not one potential point of failure. Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage, said the bill offers a chance to stop the 'everlasting hamster wheel' of employee training and will be a big morale booster for public employees. 'This is a vote of hope that we can do better,' he said. Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, wasn't convinced. 'There's a lot in this bill that we don't understand, and we don't really have a grasp on how much it's going to cost us, and we are literally — to quote another member — making a vote of hope. Oh, that doesn't give me a lot of confidence. I hope that it does work out well, but if it does not work out well, what is plan B?' House Bill 78 advances to the Senate, which is expected to take up the measure when the Legislature reconvenes in January 2026. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Alaska House votes down symbolic antiabortion budget language, passes amendment against trans care
Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage and co-chair of the House Finance Committee, in charge of the operating budget, listens to debate Monday, April 14, 2025, on the operating budget. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) For the first time in more than 25 years, the Alaska House of Representatives has voted against budget language that seeks to limit Medicaid coverage for abortions. On Monday, the House failed by a single vote to approve a budget amendment that would forbid the state from spending money on abortions unless they are deemed a 'mandatory service' under Medicaid. The amendment received 20 votes, all from Republicans; 21 votes were needed to approve the amendment, which has been a feature of the state budget since at least 2001. Hours later, the House approved a different amendment that seeks to adopt a similar approach with regard to gender dysphoria and care for transgender Alaskans. That amendment passed 21-19 on a strict party-line vote, as both Republican members of the House's coalition majority joined members of the minority Republican caucus to pass it. Both actions are not final — they would have to be mirrored by the state Senate — but nonetheless have significant symbolic value. The Alaska House of Representatives has repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to restrict abortion access since the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the privacy clause of the state constitution protects abortion rights. Each year, under an amendment to the state budget, state lawmakers have attempted to restrict abortion under Medicaid by limiting coverage to only what's deemed medically necessary. Introducing the abortion amendment was Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Kodiak. 'The courts have weighed in on this issue, and it is the value and the principle of Alaskans that we preserve life,' she said. 'The executive branch has provided support for this, the Legislature has provided support for this. So this is simply restoring the language that we have previously had,' Vance said. The budget language has had limited practical effect because doctors need only fill out a form to demonstrate that a procedure is medically necessary, and an attempt to define what's medically necessary was struck down in court. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that using different definitions for abortion and for other cases violated the right to equal protection of the laws under the Alaska Constitution. Nevertheless, the amendment has turned into an annual statement of intent. In 2019, the state Senate initially failed to adopt the amendment, though the final budget included language from the House. Until this year, the House had never failed to adopt the amendment. This year's amendment came down to Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, who initially voted in favor of the amendment but changed her mind before voting closed. 'I'm just trying to do the right thing, and putting it in the budget is the wrong thing,' Stutes said afterward. 'Aside from the fact that I believe the state doesn't belong between a woman and her doctor — and our state constitution protects that — I think the intent language, if it were enforced, it's unconstitutional. So it's kind of meaningless to put it in the budget.' Hours later, Stutes and Rep. Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, the majority leader, joined 19 members of the House's Republican minority to add similar language regarding gender dysphoria to the state budget. If adopted by the Senate and Gov. Mike Dunleavy, it's unclear what effect the amendment would have. Although a 2021 lawsuit resulted in a federal ruling that requires Alaska's Medicaid program to cover gender-affirming care, the Alaska Supreme Court has not considered the issue, and the case law around the topic is not established as well as it is for abortion, experts said. 'We're grateful that for the first time in recent memory, the House did not insert the harmful and performative amendment aimed at stripping patients with low incomes access to coverage for abortion. Unfortunately, the same body adopted an equally harmful and performative amendment attacking gender affirming health care,' said Rose O'Hara-Jolley, Alaska State Director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates. 'We urge the body not to adopt either amendment in its final version — we're relying on them to stand with all Alaskans, regardless of their income or gender identity.' Debate continued Tuesday on more amendments to the House's version of the state operating budget.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Alaska House advances deficit-fixing budget bill, but there's a catch
The Alaska State Capitol is seen on Monday, Feb. 3, 2025, in front of snow-covered Mount Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) The Alaska House of Representatives on Thursday approved a bill that seeks to solve a nearly $200 million state budget deficit, but legislators failed to approve spending from a state savings account, something needed to fix the deficit. House Bill 56, which passed on a 21-19 vote, is a 'fast-track supplemental' budget bill designed to address the current fiscal year, which ends June 30. Because of lower-than-expected oil prices and higher-than-expected costs, there isn't enough money in the budget to pay for spending through the end of the year. That's caused lawmakers to turn to the Constitutional Budget Reserve, the state's principal savings account. 'The vote we're taking today is just about paying for what we've already authorized,' said Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage and co-chair of the House Finance Committee, before the vote. 'These items we've already authorized are for these immediate-term priorities like disaster relief, fire protection and ongoing lawsuits that were brought to us by the governor.' Spending from the reserve requires three-quarters of the 40-person House and three-quarters of the 20-person Senate, plus the assent of the governor. But on Thursday, only 21 members of the House voted in favor of the clause that unlocks the budget reserve. All of the 'no' votes came from members of the House's Republican minority caucus. All of the 'yes' votes came from the House's multipartisan majority. If the bill fails to pass the Legislature, Gov. Mike Dunleavy would be forced to make unilateral cuts to the state budget, impounding funding for various programs. For the moment, that's a distant prospect. Despite the failed budget reserve vote, HB 56 will advance to the Senate — 21 votes is the minimum needed to advance a bill from the House to the Senate — but the failed vote means that the House will need to revote on the budget reserve clause once the Senate acts. 'We're still early in the process,' said House Minority Leader Mia Costello, R-Anchorage. Historically, members of the House minority have withheld support for the CBR vote until after the Senate approves the bill. By waiting, the minority preserves its negotiating leverage, Costello said. That makes it less likely that minority-opposed provisions will be added to the bill. In addition, it's possible that the fast-track budget bill will later be combined with the budget bill for the next fiscal year, which starts July 1. So-called 'turducken' budget bills have previously included one budget reserve vote for both fiscal years. Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake and a member of the minority caucus, said before Thursday's vote that the fast-track bill lacks minority input and that as a result, he could not support it. As currently written, the bill would use savings to pay for more than $111 million in previously unforeseen spending, including millions for wildfire response, Medicaid and disaster aid. Those additions were requested by the governor to meet state needs. One late-adopted amendment, approved Thursday by the House, restored a funding request for village public safety officers, who serve a police and lifesaving role in rural Alaska communities. On top of the additional spending, revenue is down about $80 million from what had been expected last year. The Senate Finance Committee has already scheduled hearings for HB 56, indicating that it may move quickly toward a vote of the full Senate. Even if the fast-track supplemental budget is adopted in time, lawmakers still must resolve an expected deficit in the 2026 fiscal year, which starts July 1. The House is expected to begin debate on a budget bill for that fiscal year next week. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Anchorage lawmaker proposes ‘red flag' bill to prevent gun deaths with court-ordered interventions
A gun at Caso's Gun-A-Rama, open since 1967, on Feb 11, 2023, in Jersey City, NJ. (Photo by Aristide Economopoulos/NJ Monitor) Alaska has the fifth-highest rate of gun deaths in the nation, with an average of 175 people dying each year by gun, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An estimated 70% of gun deaths every year in Alaska, or 120 people, die by suicide. House Bill 89, sponsored by Anchorage Democratic Rep. Andy Josephson, would allow law enforcement officers or household members to petition the court for a temporary protective order, to prevent someone who poses a danger to themself or others from possessing or accessing firearms. 'The goal of the bill would be to reduce the amount of fatalities,' Josephson said in an interview on Friday. 'So these come either in the form of a homicide, or a suicide, or they could be grievous assaults that are permanently disabling …. It seems like a good place to start.' Nationwide, 21 states have enacted similar gun violence protective orders, often referred to as 'red flag' or 'extreme risk protective order' laws, for quick intervention for someone at risk. A petition for the court order can be filed by a police officer, or a 'household member,' which includes a family member, current or former spouse, co-parent, person in a 'substantive dating relationship' or roommate of the individual. A judge would evaluate the petition based on several criteria: the petition provides 'clear and convincing evidence' that someone is a danger to self or others; that 'less restrictive alternatives have been tried and were ineffective'; and if the respondent has been contacted by police. Witnesses can be called to testify under oath, or provide information to the court via an affidavit. The bill allows an 'ex parte' hearing — where the individual is not notified — to protect others who may be endangered, Josephson said. 'You're not going to call your estranged lover or husband, and say, 'Hey, you're furious at me and threatening me. But I want you to feel even worse, because I'm about to tell you I'm going down to court.' I mean, think how dangerous that would be, right? So you have to sort of have an ex parte system,' he said. A judge could issue the emergency order for 20 days or up to six months, with the possibility of renewal. Often gun rights enthusiasts say, 'Please focus on the dangerous people, the people that are real threats, and leave me out of it.' And this bill absolutely does that. – Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage Police would then notify the individual of the court order, and they would have the right to respond and request the order modified at a hearing within 20 days. Under the court order, they would have 24 hours to surrender all firearms to local law enforcement, who would store them until the order expires. Opponents of the bill have voiced concerns with court orders infringing on the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms. Josephson said he understands, but there has to be limitations on people who are at extreme risk. 'I respect the critics of the bill,' he said. 'We shouldn't broad-brush people and say, 'a pox on everyone's houses.' In fact, often gun rights enthusiasts say, 'Please focus on the dangerous people, the people that are real threats, and leave me out of it.' And this bill absolutely does that.' The bill sparked debate in the House State Affairs Committee during its first hearing on Thursday, and passionate public testimony both in support and opposition. 'I have received more emails on this issue than I have on education,' said Homer Republican Rep. Sarah Vance. 'You have created a firestorm in the state over this bill …. What crime have they committed? Simple as that: What crime have they committed?' Josephson pointed to current state law for domestic violence restraining orders, which already allows a judge to prohibit possession of firearms for those served, and to order them surrendered to police. This would go a step further, to intervene before violence takes place, he said. 'Fundamentally, they're not allowed to threaten people with firearms or to assume that if they're suicidal, God forbid, as tragic as that is, that the public is just going to watch them live amongst guns and not care about their their health. So that's the answer,' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Josephson also pointed to new federal case law: Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Rahimi that to prohibit domestic abusers from possessing guns is constitutional under the Second Amendment. 'Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. Supporters of the bill testified and urged lawmakers to prevent further personal tragedy, while opponents expressed concern with the process and limiting the right to have guns. 'Guns are so lethal in the suicide world,' said Gordon Williams of Douglas, a self-described gun owner and hunter, speaking in support of the bill. 'Ninety percent of suicide attempts with a gun are successful, and that doesn't give (people) a chance …. So I think HB 89 provides an important tool to focus on mental health. Having the weapon out of the equation while mental health services are provided, and mental health can address it, is a really good thing.' Spencer King of Wasilla opposed the law. 'If this is done ex parte, is this going to be like served through a no knock warrant at 5 a.m., waking people up in the middle of the night and kicking in their door with no notice?' King said. 'I don't support this bill at all. And this is just a ploy by the gun grabbers to add more burden to legal gun owners that are going to be burdened by judicial and bureaucratic hardship.' The House State Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks, said public testimony will continue, though the next hearing of the bill has not been scheduled yet. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
