Alaska lawmakers hammered Dunleavy administration staff members over a long-delayed salary study last week, drawing on concerns that it could impact compensation discussions with the state’s 14,000 employees.
The salary study was launched to determine whether Alaska state salaries were on par with other states. The Alaska Legislature appropriated $1.2 million for the study in 2023 and it was due to be released in June 2024.
However, the Dunleavy administration delayed its release, citing missing data. The administration also classified an early draft, yanking it from any viewing by lawmakers and the public alike.
“Recruitment and retention is one of the challenges the state has been faced with for several years,” said Paula Vrana, the commissioner of the Department of Administration, during Thursday’s House State Affairs committee hearing.
The state currently has a 16.6% vacancy rate across the board, but for some departments, the shortage is more acute.
Rep. Ashley Carrick (D-Fairbanks) expressed concern about the study’s delayed release.
“If I sound sharp, it’s because I have very frustrated people at home who are, in their bargaining, wanting this information,” Carrick said.
Vrana and Kate Sheehan, director of the state’s division of personnel and labor relations, defended the delayed release on Thursday during a nearly two-hour House State Affairs committee hearing.
Vrana said “significant factors” had changed since the study was originally commissioned, including the passage of Senate Bill 259, which invested $25 million into workforce salaries for 1,200 employees and another $100 million due to union contract negotiations.
Vrana and Sheehan said a new report could be released by mid-March. But there are no set-in-stone guarantees.
Heidi Drygras, director of the Alaska State Employees Association, the union representing more than 8,000 state employees, told the House committee the study’s delayed release would adversely impact contract negotiations.
“If the point of the salary study is to inform wages for state employees and our collective bargaining agreements are three years old, then getting that information after our wage information is due to the Legislature is not very helpful,” Drygras said. “The whole point of the information is to inform whether or not we need to increase wages.”
Drygas noted that some state departments noted even their federal counterparts pay more. In one instance, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game noted that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pays 37% more for key positions such as a wildlife biologist and biometricians.
When Drygas attempted to provide more information, Republican committee members objected and Drygrass was instructed to confine her testimony to her union.
Drygas also questioned the legal justification for redacting the scope of work related to an $80,000 change order to the contract.
”I would argue the public has a right to know that the [Department of Administration] is expending extra funds for the additional work,” Drygas said. The change order was executed in August 2024.
”How on earth is it taking that long to get that information,” Drygas said. “There are bargaining units at the table right now and that information informs our contracts.”
Vrana said excluding that data would create a flawed study. The state extended the deadline and asked Segal, its contractor, to include the data.
“The study must include adequate, accurate, up-to-date information because recommendations from the study could substantially impact the state budget,” she said.
Sheehan, the personnel and labor relations director, added that since the state is always negotiating with one union or another, any salary study would be considered only a snapshot im time.
“This was significant enough that we did think it was important enough to make sure that the Legislature and the administration had the best data available,” Sheehan said.
She added that the state has hundreds of letters of agreement it handles “and working through them is a process.”
Sheehan also noted that her division did not receive responses from Alaska employers during an initial survey.
“Speaking from the personnel division, we get a lot of survey requests and I understand that they fall to the bottom of your to-do list,” she said.
Rep. Sara Vance (R-Homer) said she could understand employers not wanting to answer surveys.
“People tend to not want to share private information about money,” Vance said.
Rep. Ky Holland (U-Anchorage) questioned why an early draft hasn’t already been released.
“I don’t understand why we didn’t have a preliminary report that could have been updated with a supplemental,” Holland said.
He added that there could have been “significant opportunities for feedback.”
Sheehan said the contractor used certain data and put together a study, which the state reviews.
“It says final report, but it’s not really a final report that is ready to be sent out and implemented,” Sheehan said. “When you looked at it, it was not the accurate data. We would be remiss in providing the residents, the legislature and the administration with data we did not think was accurate.”
Sheehan added that all preliminary reports were deemed privileged information by the Alaska Department of Law, barring them from view from lawmakers and the public.
“It is critical that the study incorporates adequate, accurate, up-to-date information, because recommendations from the study could substantially impact the state budget,” Sheehan said.
The study will now be scheduled for release by the end of March. The state last conducted a salary more than a decade ago. According to Sheehan, a 2009 study demonstrated that the state was overpaying in many job classifications, while a 2013 report revealed Alaska needs to update many of its job descriptions.
The study would not include information on the proposed temporary recruitment and retention bonuses Dunleavy requested. Those bonuses, such as those used to recruit Alaska State Troopers, aren’t part of an employee’s contract-negotiated salary.
“To include that would have skewed the information,” Sheehan said. She added that bonuses aren’t available to all job classes.
Carrick, the committee chair, cautioned that all wage-related information should be utilized, including bonuses.
“If we really want to understand recruitment and retention factors related to wages, bonuses are a part of that conversation,” Carrick said.
Rep. Andi Story (D-Juneau) also questioned the delayed release, noting the state’s high vacancy rate.
“What’s so unique about Alaska right is we have had a big workforce shortage,” Story said. “We know there’s an urgency to getting this report back.”
She added that she would think that the Dunleavy administration would stress the study’s urgency to the contractor.
“I’m wondering why the study couldn’t have been expedited, knowing that we were going to be hitting the ground running,” Story added.
Vrana said the contractor is working as fast and efficiently as it can.
“We all have a sense of urgency to deliver the salary study as quickly as possible,” she said.
When pushed by lawmakers to see a preliminary draft prior before the end of March, both Vrana and Sheehan sidestepped the question.
Rep. Kevin McCabe (R-Big Lake) also defended not releasing a draft study and extending the deadline.
“Releasing bad data would be worse than no data at this point,” McCabe said. “Bad data could seriously harm the budget.”
Vance agreed, noting that once information hits the Alaska Legislator, “we run with it ... it’s gospel.”
“There is a lot of nuances and we want to make sure it accurately reflects the current situation because the whole purpose for this is that we are adequately paying the people in the state of Alaska,” Vance said.