A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | May 8, 2013 | Committee Room | Personnel

Full MP3 Audio File

him him call the committee on state personnel were supposed to take their seats, visitors, please will try to the back of the room recognizes our Sergeant of arms appreciate the quick turnover, the room there. Fred Heinz register wills and call morale of gentlemen for your service today. also our pages for theirWilliam Smith of you can stand when our call your name. thank you all researchers in the back and outline and theater right. where are you back there on the various present use of spin here. first up on the agenda today is House Bill eight thirty four presented by Representative Collinsworth and Collins present bill Change speaker: and chair of health delight, thirty four, which will got out three pounds eleven a.m. PCS portraits in the early makes a motion Change speaker:that the CSV performs on Thursday. I hope those becauseperforce I grimaced this is a siesta represents about two months of work on it represents all countless meetings with all the interested parties of the first waltz for Bob Carney 's sitepersonnel director Neil Alexander, and about a half-dozen meetings with him. the one thing I felt me more than anything else is his passion for good HR much improved and what hesees currently and for making work conditions as goods, and for the employees of North Carolina, who are doing the best they can do a good job for our study for our face taxpayerssince I first met with him. I've met also numerous styles of the other stakeholders continue to make the site personnel office, I've met with the governor 's staff all of his secretaries. I'vemet numerous times with state employees Association, North Carolina, and what you see before you is a bill in which all of the aforementioned groups have had tremendous input. infact, I've met with on-site employees Association twice already this week, including last night after session, and we change the bill this week to make more concessions to the stateboard, such as we made numerous concessions as of our site personnel record of been more than willing to do and the State employees Association is also making confessions ofthe things represents a good copper, Miles Bill that the all parties have had a tremendous input into this very quickly because it along. we will bore you with all page one of nicely withthing that happens is the site personnel office, lab report directly to the governor, rather than through the often menstruation understand pretty much happening anyway in everythingbut name. also, that's not a substance changes for anything that will affect the operation of the department also did not section one. two of the city allows vendors of goal is to improve HR and to improve job performance is able to work on some additional things here that were specifically listed before the form of H2 and want to clarify that the employees log in less than twelve play holidays a year. in previous years attended ongoing Christmas sales. sometimes it began to eleven. sometimes itbegan as a foil think they don't didn't matter where the Christmas. only the employer should they were counseling number holidays per year section not to Islam rewrite of the sitepersonnel commission. changes in the Constitution, but the month. the one primary thing he keeps of static is that we have for state employees on the new commission is aware offoresight and portfolio commission. I haven't had anybody only the subject. anything in this automobile of the next substantive thing is on page four him and him working mode issought under section three. one is there a lot of a lot of all-time theories for employees and vascular probationary for certain periods and enrich careers that are still certain. I'm not combined that all in one thing andperson will be considered non- probationary advice. we what's not considered a career void in the twelve months rather than the past. some of those wellness levels twenty four thanksanother lady and sixty months will bring outlet down the twelve months following this bill section four were adding exempt positions anywhere, including three new offices under. also,they can potentially have exempt employees and for some reason what was before the office of information technology and its suburbs. the next day, site management, budget andsite personnel. all thanks five thousand bottom. this is the one thing that Singer cannot read all that we still have some disagreement on last night when we finish the meeting at

Understanding that when we left that meeting this is basically the only substance that we had a disagreement on. I agreed with him to work on this between now and the floor. I talked to Neil Alexander today about an hour ago. He agrees that there's still some negotiation here. The change here is that a person who would have their rift rights currently only if they were offered an equal or higher paying job. The economy being what it is, we don't know that that's always gonna be available. This bill says that the job could be a lower paying job. Again we don't wanna offer any opportunity for abuse the concern is what if they decide to make a doctor take a custodians job. Senator Allan Grease that's not what we're interested in doing. I've talk to them about putting some limits on that. Has to be in a certain range, prefer to do it by pay grade or something. He agrees to negotiate on that. That was the one issue or disagreement we had last night when I finished the meeting. Then 11 oclock this morning when I was heading here I got this. But anyway, we'll discuss that later I'm sure. On page six, I've written so much on this page I couldn't see the page number. This is redefining to some degree the agreement process basically the way it'll work is a lot like it does today. The person will complain to their supervisor if they cant get together the appeals at a department level. At some stage of the game as you'll see with this bill. They've asked for alternative methods they wanted to use meditations wherever possible. And that will be defined by state personnel officers, not in this bill but by state personnel offices. So I dont know when the meditations will come in. I imagine it will come in even at the departmental level. But anyways, if you cant get it straightened out at the departmental level. You'll appeal to OSP They have a hearing officer who will then in 60 days make a recommendation to state personnel commission. They either accept, reject, or modify the state the recommendation of the state personnel, the OSP hearing officer. Then if you dont like the state personnel's decision you can appeal to the OAH. They have 60 days to review the decision and either uphold it or reject it. And then if you dont like that decision you can go to the superior court. Most of the next few stuff on the next few pages was taken out because we replaced it with the process I just explained to you. On page 9, I highlighted the stuff under 126. Thats 34.2 because this is the language under which they're gonna try to bring into mediation. It just says that at its discretion the committee can adopt all alternatives dispute resolution procedures. Now that doesnt mean they can break the process we just described. It means they can add these additions to it to try to get it resolved before it gets to the process of having to go to a hearing officer or having to go to the OAH. So hopefully a lot of that stuff will be fixed in a shorter period. The whole reason for changing the process is that right now some of the cases are taking up to 450 days to resolve. Which i agree with the directors that's absolutely ridiculous and terrible for job moral for those people in the middle of this process. On page 11, well we actually removed, the 6.4 on your bill summary. But that was actually removed and more negotiations will ascend. And we took that out. So that's not an issue anymore. Section 7.1 they've added in disability and genetic information just to bring the thing up to date. Thing's you cant discriminate against somebody because of. 7.2 just offer some flexibility and training it can done at the departmental level or at the OSP level. Where as before that was more straight jacketed. Section 7.3 eliminates some reporting requirements to the general assembly until we can find out what we're exactly using for them to send over here. Section 7.4 this one says that an employee who objects the material in their file can grieve it but only up to the department level. Not beyond the department level. The fault was that sometimes thats done beyond the department level as a way to try to pre emp a process later on. Section 7.5, excuse me just one second. 7.5, I wrote some of the stuff on my bill summary and some on the actual bill. This just recognized and consolidates reporting requirements in the state personnel act and allows the OSP director to ask agencies for some specific reports. Then on page 14...

And if this is a place at some point ??..Then move from another statute is not a thing you justify, one 2nd in the section eight visit you cite Soleil to fully organization for reduction program lost 4.1 there a place that else was the one of five so that some ability to restructure reorganize the executive branch in a manner to find a number of positions boy skills of local office of a marvelous atomic bombs say (SPEAKER CHANGES)comical what jobs we have to perform many people do we need to perform these jobs and then restructure my soul and its Allies this particular program as a voluntary program, 8.2 -2425 yards your shall be one option available for reorganization restructuring ability or father of two service employee volunteer separation program so this can be fourth on the body initially further in this section are as process is still mired in 40 yards in the copper shorter time to get to accomplish so does the three of them away with ms pharmacies and other alternatives to use maybe some people can work of alternate they like better than being raised by with an employee's if one is also a platform support them in expires December 31, '24 taken by the Alameda County is too suspicious one of my thoughts are OK if we can offer people somehow built so that all year to early with everything from the supposition that were put on the more the sales bright enough to start building and lake is one forgotten limit is 33 finalists near the end of his own money in the new studies on his buddies so you know I sure would like to get to this or PR firm I was unhappy goals were given until December 31, '20 fourth in reorganizing little to do this or Keogh program after December 31, '24 fingers like that so that it will be abused that's the purpose of that, (SPEAKER CHANGES )and basically section that is just the remaining employees say state personnel your mouse lease human resources August and is a more modern kinder gentler your own which were falling into a word law want to change their mind that is a summary of likely have long been known for state personnel director want to stay with those of a field that was not only was about Samsonite they'll stay was for a few minutes about his vision of bodies all of this bill introduced in the fatal that will probably make one other person the flavors and status in Somalia finance the 92 people who were close to escape from the Internet as a base and then we'll all favor of questions as to the newly submitted to the public trust, to dispel a good bet that Schumacher that this man to recognize state personnel director, (SPEAKER CHANGES) bill Alexander that the data that you have managed to an about-that-two at-bat and competition have to have to stand up to back-up demand that hung from the outlook-hand combat Russian and of that, and that's too much, and then leave-it-that-and-a-a legend and the end, and that whole should have been hiding behind-the climactic-not-not-that-the-hood, Antigua and then let-them-22, and I got a good time left-wing liable and-a-, and college, and that, if television with five dollar a gallon, up to date and generally that would anybody to two you can they really that hard, and that we have a good time , the home-and then have any good at that time, and even have a lot of action from the trash and lettering and that, and too many men and a high-demand from five , and-white-and-short left-hand in the image that has led to a convention at them and ensure that your attention, here's the issue, and two-and-play ??......

[Speaker Changes] In how we do work. And really we’re investing in employees and strengthening the employee/employer relationship so employers can be successful. And again, I want to thank everybody that worked on this and we actually had the opportunity to a couple of meetings with Representatives who worked on a lot of issues with them on those, and again we’re glad to be at this point, we thank you for your support. And again, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on the bill. Thank you very much. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Alexander. At this moment, we will hear one more person who is in favor of the bill, and then we will hear two in opposition. The committee will suspend. I’d like for recognized Dana Cope. Dana, if you could, state your name and title and organization for the record please. [Speaker Changes] Sure, thank you Mr. Chairmen, my name is Dana Cope and I’m the executive director of the state employees association and I’m ?? to speak against this bill if that is appropriate. [Speaker Changes] You have the floor. [Speaker Changes] So you all are busier than a centipede in a toe counting contest. I’ve been over here yesterday and today and wow, I remember the days when i use to walk the halls constantly in crossover deadlines, so I don’t envy your positions. We were finally given a copy of this bill around 7:30, and Representative Collins was very kind to share that with us. And my staff turned around roughly a 20 page document in 14 hours for us to digest and give feedback to chairmen collins. I do want to thank the chairmen for allowing me to speak and to say how important the state personnel act is to not only your employees but also to taxpayers in North Caorlina. Maintinaing the state personel act is crucial to stopping political patronage and nepotism in ranking file state jobs. We appreciate the OSP director, Neil Alexander for his willingness to go over this bill with us in advance. And our members who work in the states mental hospitals, prisons, and on the highways, share the governors goal quite frankly of creating the most efficient system to serve the state of North Carolina And there are some aspects with this bill that we can agree to, but in our opinion, the bad far outweigh the good. We just have an honest disagreement with the new administration on this. Thats all it is. First, employees lose their right to object to to false and misleading information in their personnel files under this bill. This will cause serious legal and liability issues and will result in costly lawsuits against the state. In this bill, the new grievance process laid out bypasses OAH and includes a process that takes up 210 days to complete under the bill before you. We want appeals to be heard properly so our members can better serve the public. Instead we propose that OHS conduct the hearings, not simply just review them and take away their judicial authority. The reduction and force priority for those who have been laid off from state service is meaningless in the bill proposed before you since it can be lost by excepting or refusing a job offered at a lower pay grade. We most strongly object to the section of this bill that repeals the SPA provision for violation of political hiring and promotions. It also removes the right of the employees to file grievances in instances of this have occurred. Without these provisions, get ready for a return to the wild west and for state government to turn into a system ripe for political patronage, cronyism, and nepotism. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Cope. [Speaker Changes] Yes? [Speaker Changes] You have 30 seconds to wrap it up. [Speaker Changes] Okay, we strongly question the language in this bill that pertains to whether an employee may be fired without just cause. And pubic employees deserve a system that rewards or punishes based on what they know, not who they know. And for the reasons I have laid out, I urge you to vote no on this bill, or at the very least, study this matter further. The State personnel has been in placed for 48 years to protect public servants from partisan politics and have served this state well. Monumental changes like this presented in this bill shouldn’t be rushed. This effects over 120 thousand families in North Carolina and it is imperative that you do your due diligence before changing such an important law. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Cope. Next up will be Carl Dean, speaking in favor of the bill. Mr. Dean, if you could, state your name and title for the committee. [Speaker Changes] Yes sir. Good morning, I’m...

Early months of the famous person from the office of personnel to stem from them committed I'd like to say I was in the process in doing the same process that's a question with five missing person alive, and around and see the process, it surely that correct balance in this fashion for modernizing the state prison and some can't stand any one place and SMS and leases that look like this at 22 employees, and at some estimating the obvious and even as we look at this process we are studying look at how well in the PAC fund police and we believe that we haven't some deal that will balance the state employees associate, and I don't see too much into a module a share with you that we have looked at this process in this fashion a few sure that all parties have a move that could have influenced the decision to discipline that this point, like to recognize members of the committee vote for the questions that someday this year for the public, (SPEAKKER CHANGES) Mr. What the commotion it's like losing those that some of them thank you think you missed two are unknown, 99 dollar system needs to be inducted into the stand , big concern about the swiftness of which were doing this for from the new directory on the stand to look and see him and former junior college to bring this to our attention by certain feel like beer and nine Milosevic are stories within state government confirmed some landowners to move to fry is in this process five revealing look severe lung, certainly, unless a misdemeanor few minutes only had not heard from this time are 5 to 9 take away from them the ability of the members lost you like our staff can probably give us some, two of the city of MCS some things with SA is not Mr. Becoming a woman comes from um, members perspective and when the sponsoring via telephone that the guns are mistaken if you do all addresses bills will not be happy to work for her two of two home is as easing of misrepresenting the momentum of the happiest man was taken to the Kings chairman for list of the Japanese and Mr. Collins D long lake slingshot and Helen hunt Wesson situation has to look into soliciting a civil claim form changes and YLE sylvia's accurate in the Middle East E2 questions and to listen to the finish of that, said the couple questions, fresh from the road with five home page 12, and 37 section 748 : E of many of the actually subject of a two and five , no mistake (SPEAKER CHANGES) is this can cause this movement that this is this an exclusive remedy plan employee -compensation commission, because the company limited, that is not disclose some MVP person has any other me some are included if you lost, but in this new system offers no mention of the question was stopped in to smuggle they would not be the two appeal that hire a good follow question is 259, the very clear black issue you cannot produce a person cannot appeal the state personnel connection half of the department rejection the strongest two: the correct to say about the case that cause of action for aloud with defamation military might be told us there are , I guess the good news to keep, and it affected gift, jack? From home and ID to get turn L9 V. Hardwick home video body in between the department and the court system in August 2, 2 to make and make a gentleman that the 2 1/2 high, I am concerned that the team's two, spoken Mr. Schiller are you afraid that person would have to stay the ??.....

…the court system. The bill does however, allow the person to put a statement in the file that refutes the information so for internal purposes they would have an opportunity to do that but they would still have to pursue their remedies, elsewhere, yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma’am, but… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you have a follow-up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, just that both of them could be self-serving. I do have one other question on another section of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Why are you repealing GS-126.5 (e) and (f)? That’s dealing with SPA employees who take exempt positions, respectively. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. The effect of those repeals means that individuals who are being RIFed would not be able to have automatic prioritization for a reassignment into other areas. Or for example the persons who might be changing classification over to exempt status they won’t have the same rights they might have had to get another position in state government. Currently if you’ve had 10 years as an SPA employee that provides you certain alternatives that other people might not have. That’s taken away going forward prospectively. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could I follow up, Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] One last follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess my problem there is that if you’ve got a career state employee, a person defined as you define a career state employee here and that person is moved to an exempt position and the administration changes of course and then the exempt position goes out that career employee has no protection at all as what was under 126.5 (e) and (f). Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, that has been modified. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McNeill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a comment or statement and a question. It looks to me like an excellent bill and an excellent start at trying to do a very, very complicated job. And I know from what you said that you worked for several months with both sides. It sounds to me like there are just some issues that have just come up recently that haven’t been resolved. This is going from here to Appropriations and I assume that you’re still willing to work with these entities to work this out. So I think it’s a good bill and I think both sides can finish working this out, we have time to do it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, you have a comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to follow up with something that was said previously. The version which was complained that they only got it last night, the Senate got this an hour after I got it last night and it only differed by two changes from the other version which I gave them the previous night as soon as I got it. And both of those changes were concessions to Senate, so to say they’ve only had last night and this morning to look at it is a little bit disingenuous. Also another statement that was made, this does not bypass OAH. The statement was made that this bypasses OAH but if you read the bill clearly it does not bypass OAH. The one measure of disagreement that I knew we had when I left the meeting last night I have promised to continue to work on and have talked to State Personnel Director today about working on that between this and Appropriations, you’re exactly right. So the differences that I knew we had I’ve agreed to work on and I’ve kept my end of the bargain every time I’ve promised any group something on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hurley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I’m not sure which employees are under the State Personnel Act. I do know that not every state employee is under the State Personnel Act. I know those that work for the court system are not covered under this. However I do have a question. I know that because of the budget restraints, constraints we are having to maybe close some facilities and the employees who work for those I think have been given first choice at times. And I just wondered of any other jobs that might be available because there are some employees that will be RIFed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, that’s one of the major concerns on the part that I’ve agreed to get some clarity on between now and Appropriations, that part about not offering a job too far below what you’re currently being paid. That’s exactly what we’re talking about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my district I have quite a few state employees for the First District, a whole lot of them. And I’ve been hearing from a lot of them in the last day or two. And I’m sure that the intentions were good here and I’m just wondering if they’re aware of everything in this…

[Speaker changes.] and this bill is comin' up. Ya' know, I listen to Mr. Cope????? talk and everything and he's head of Scenic???? which most of his employees belong to Scenic/????? in that area, a member of that organization. And I'm just wonderin' if we've had long enough to get all of them on board,or whatever. I know that you don't care whether they get on board or not but I think they ought to be informed ???? because we need to have satisfied employees. If you don't have that, you're not gonna have good government anywhere because they're the ones who carry it out not the people here. When you talk about the stakeholders, the employees at the lower level are the stakeholders that I believe should be...should be concerned about. So I would like to make a motion that we turn this into a study bill instead of passing this regular law. [Speaker changes.] Representative Collins? [Speaker changes.] Well, I would certainly oppose that motion. I've worked on this thing too hard for too long. I have no idea...to answer your question, Representative ???????... I have no idea how well the employees on the trickle down side understand it. All I know is Scenic????? has been aware of this thing since it's inception. I have kept them aware at every stage of the game. When I got the original legislation, I passed it on the them. I've met with them repeatedly over more than a month now so the state employees have had the opportunity, as far as I'm concerned, to be made aware of it but I don't control what happens to the information once I share it with the leaders of the other groups. I've negotiated in good faith...frankly, almost as long as I'm willing to negotiate. And made concession after concession after concession on both sides. [Speaker changes.] Representative Wilkins? [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chair. This bill has changed drastically from the form it was in when I became part of it...and I've not been a part of the negotiations for practical reasons. Representative Collins has taken on that heavy lifting. Representative Collins and I have spoken this morning. I've got a coupla' reservations about pieces of this bill. He is aware of that. He is absolutely gonna' work with me if we move this bill forward. I've also...Representative...if I may, sort of address this to Representative Bell, yes, I've been approached by Scenic???? lobbyists ?????? but I've also talked with Scenic folks at home. I know their concerns. Representative Collins knows that I share at least one of them. If this moves forward, there will be work done to it. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Representative Wilkins. Representative Floyd. [Speaker changes.] Thank you Mister Chair. I think that certain parts of the bill is good and certain part of it is not so good and I think Representative Hurley mentioned a question and this related to...on Page 5, Line 50...and that is "state employment equal to or lower". When you're havin' a reduction, given ????? the ???? of personnel, one does not know truly whether or not he is being pushed out, asked out or kicked out. So if I've looked at, if I refused to take a position lower than what I am, then I'm rejected or released and I think that it should be a numerical number. I know you mentioned that something...but it should be a numerical number in there so when that supervisor won't deliberately choose me out of the rank and file. And I think that the...there's always a second ????? [Speaker changes.] Follow up. [Speaker changes.] The thing that the regular employee have and sometime you don't have and you do know whether or not certain things are placed in your file and given the opportunity, I got to sit there and then write a response to something that I got through the grapevine...that I asked about...then I submit something or I take my bottom line pay and hire an attorney, as Representative Charlotte????? mentioned, to seek to get that removed. I'm like Representative Bell, I know that you work hard....

?? on this, but I do think that when we’re looking at this, we’re going to see many challenges in the future as it relates to this. I just think that we just ought to take just a little bit more time to vent out something, to vent out this. I know it’s time-sensitive but I think we need to look at some other things, and I want to know… My last question is on page 11. This is just for EEOC reasons. Why was “creed” crossed out on line 33? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can answer that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] President Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That was an archaic word that… We just don’t use the word “creed” anymore. Religion is already mentioned in there, which is basically what creed is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just… [SPEAKER CHANGES] There’s no devious intent in that, and as I mentioned to you as far as your first part of the question, that’s the very part of the bill we’ve gotten Director… I keep wanting to call him Secretary… Director Alexander to work on and put a definitive limit on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One last question. Representative Mobley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two concerns. My first question is to the Chair. I missed the very beginning of your presentation. How long have you been working on this piece of legislation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve been working on this piece of legislation since either late March, I believe, or early April. Something like that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It seems like two years. It’s probably been two months or less. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My next question is, could we possibly hear from a representative for the state employees? Not the person who has already spoken but someone else. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have already heard one pro and one opposed. I’d like to go ahead and move this to a vote. Representative Davis, you’re recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to make a motion that we give a favorable as to the PCS and an unfavorable report as to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With a referral to appropriations? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Call for ayes and no’s, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ayes and no’s having been called, the Clerk will read the roll. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Alexander? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Conrad? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] representative Davis? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Elmore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Graham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Gill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hollo? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hurley? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lambeth? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Langdon? Representative McNeill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mobley? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross? Representative Stevens? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Turner? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 18 having voted for and 8 against, the bill passes and will be sent to Appropriations. Next on our agenda is House Bill 359. Representative Collins, you’re recognized to present the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee, and on the last bill, I look forward to continuing to do what seems my life recently and go back to the negotiating table. House Bill 359’s a lot shorter, should be a lot simpler than the last one I just presented. Hopefully it’ll go a lot quicker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Collins? Representative Collins, we have the PCS before us. Representative Wilkins makes a motion that it be before us. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] PCS is before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill basically does four things with our retirement plan. Number one, it allows for

For a transfer option that's already available to people in the 401K plan, to people in the 457 plan, it makes that same transfer available to the 403B program and the reason that's necessary is because that's a new program. So it's just offering the same transfer option there that you have with all of the other state voluntary retirement plans. Section two clarifies the timing of the social security offset. If you're getting a disability payment from the state it's offset by the amount you get from social security disability. In the past the state for some reason has been able to offset that one month before you actually got your social security checks. So you're one month kind of short on money. This trues it up so that we can't cut your check until social security is actually paying your disability benefits. So that should be a benefit for employees. Number three, this is for those people who are so fortunate that they are drawing a bigger retirement benefit that the IRS code actually allows under section 415. So this should affect very few people. What it does is saying that basically we're setting aside a separate pool of money so that these payments won't harm those of us who are not in that circumstance under the state retirement plan. And also that this arrangement to pay people above the $205,000 a year, which is what it is if you're in your 60s when you retire. That paying above that amount will no longer be an option for people who retire after January 1, 2015. So this will be a savings to the state at some point in time after that occurs. Section four just requires a form that's approved by the retirement system t be used for filing of quadros [SP] domestic relations orders. That's for operational efficiency. We're told that will save the state time and money in executing these arrangements. So that's basically the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions from members of the committee? A motion from the committee? Representative Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for a favorable report to house bill 359 up to the PCS on 359, I'm favorable to the original. referral to finance has been stricken. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor for the motion say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion carries the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you committee. Next up is house bill 551. Representative Davis you're recognized to present your bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, this is a local bill request by the city of Wilmington. What it does is it makes changes to the local fireman's reeif fund for the city of Wilmington regarding the transfer of funds to the Wilmington's fireman benefit fund. And by doing this over time it will give the board of trustees the flexibility to use more funds for active duty firefighters, build a fund solvency and still provide funding to retirees. All [??] of Tyler Newman from the city of Wilmington is here and Stanley Moore from physical [??] resource is here if there are any questions by anyone on the committee. It does come with a unanimously favorable report from government and to my knowledge there is no opposition. We have spent a lot of time venting this out with all parties involved and to my knowledge everything has been worked out to everyone's satisfaction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [??] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill now is the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman I move for favorable for the bill number 551. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion being properly before us all those in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed. Motion carries. Thank you Representative Davis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you members of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the estimation of the chair we only have two minutes left, we've got two additional bills. We will not have time to hear those bill. So no other business being before us we are adjourned.