Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
03/02/2020 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB232 | |
| HB93 | |
| HB232 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 232 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 235 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 93-MILITARY SPOUSE COURTESY LICENSE
3:49:33 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to temporary courtesy
licenses for certain nonresident professionals; and relating to
the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development."
3:50:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 93 and paraphrased the sponsor statement
included in the committee packet, which read in its entirety as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 93 calls for the Alaska Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development to
prepare an annual report to allow the Alaska
Legislature to evaluate the progress of a program to
make temporary courtesy occupational licenses
available to the spouses of active duty service
members stationed in Alaska. In 2011, the Alaska
Legislature passed House Bill 28 to provide expedited
temporary courtesy licenses if a military spouse
possesses a license from a previous jurisdiction with
similar requirements to the State of Alaska. However,
the bill didn't include reporting requirements.
Making temporary courtesy licenses available to the
spouses of active duty service members allows them to
practice their chosen trade without having to go
through the time-consuming process of meeting state
licensure requirements before beginning work.
Expediting courtesy licenses for military spouses
allows them to go to work quickly after relocating to
Alaska, while they work to fulfill the state
requirements for their license.
The requirement in House Bill 93 for an annual report
will allow the Alaska Legislature, the Joint Armed
Services Committee, military installations, and local
communities to track the progress of the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development in making
temporary courtesy licenses available to military
spouses. HB 93 also calls for the department to
produce and distribute informational materials about
temporary courtesy licenses to each board authorized
to issue such licenses. The intent of this stipulation
is to improve the board's knowledge of the licenses,
the application process, and the best practices in
providing applicant support. Additionally, the bill
calls for the department to encourage boards to
designate a single employee to serve as the point of
contact for public information and inquiries related
to temporary courtesy licenses for military spouses.
The annual report called for in HB 93 would also
highlight many of the opportunities available to help
military spouses enter the workforce in Alaska. To
date, a low number of eligible professionals have
taken advantage of the temporary courtesy license
program in Alaska, and many participants have reported
delays. House Bill 93 would help identify
inefficiencies in the program.
Legislation similar to House Bill 93 passed the Alaska
House of Representatives unanimously in 2018 but was
not taken up by the Alaska State Senate.
Making temporary courtesy occupational and other
licenses available to military spouses is a priority
for the U.S. Department of Defense.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK continued to provide several statistics on
military families and spouses.
3:54:57 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ inquired as to the length of a temporary
license.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered 180 days.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked how many days temporary licenses can be
extended for.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said another 180 days.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that HB 93 seeks to create a progress
report for the legislature. He added that the original bill
allowing temporary licensure for spouses passed in 2011. He
explained that the bill calls for the Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED) to produce and
distribute the information annually and biennially to the
legislature, and it calls for the department to encourage
professional licensing boards to designate a single employee to
serve as the point of contact for public information.
3:56:14 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:56:20 PM
MICHAEL MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, on behalf of
Representative Tuck, prime sponsor, presented the sectional
analysis for HB 93 included in the committee packet.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that this is a difficult process. He
said the report will help the legislature understand the
direction and how to help the department get there. He added
that because of the high turnover from one administration to
another, consistent progress and oversight is desired.
3:59:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked what prompted this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied that military spouses who were
unable to get their temporary licenses over the years is what
prompted HB 93.
4:00:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered her understanding that this
legislation is amending the original bill to include a reporting
requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK acknowledged that the original bill passed
in 2011; however, despite all the different occupational
licenses available, they still lack the ability to issue
temporary licenses for military spouses. He said it's important
to look at the past experiences of other states, as well as
their requirements and if there are any existing problems with
their reciprocity or with issuing licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed confusion and asked for the
difference between the current bill and the original legislation
that passed in 2011.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the difference is that the
current bill implements the reporting requirements that go to
the legislature while fulfilling the conditions of the 2011
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if there's already a reciprocity
agreement in place.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said a bill that allows temporary licenses
has passed; however, not all the criteria is being met, as
temporary licenses for all occupations are not being issued yet.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES sought to clarify the purpose of HB 93.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that there are various alignments
that needs to happen for a temporary license to be issued per
profession. He reiterated that the report would show the
progress being made for each occupation by every state.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ summarized that this was already allowed in a
bill that passed in 2011, but it's not being implemented and
executed in every state. She added that HB 93 requests a report
on what needs to be done and why.
4:04:41 PM
MR. MASON noted that military spouses are not using the program
as much as was anticipated. The hope is that the report will
increase attention and the dedicated person on each board will
help facilitate more usage of the temporary licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked how the need for HB 93 came to
light.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that HB 93 was prompted by
military spouses not being able to get temporary licenses.
4:05:46 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Director, Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, said that the 2011 legislation states that
the department and boards may issue temporary licenses; however,
it does not mandate that temporary licenses be issued or created
for military spouses. She reported that there is a level of
frustration among Alaska's military families and military
community that boards can choose to issue a temporary license or
not. She said that this is one in a continuum of best practices
that the U.S. Department of Defense is illuminating for state
legislatures and state licensing professionals. Furthermore,
temporary licensing is one of the lighter ways to accommodate
military families. She added that there is a wide range of
things that could be done, with licensing compacts being the
most desired aspect. This report, she said, would compel the
department to provide the data that legislators could use to see
what is being done, how it's being used, whether there is a
demand that is being met or not, and if Alaska is at risk for
losing military basing or expansion opportunities because of a
lack of response to workplace economic needs.
4:08:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked in general, which temporary licenses
are currently being issued.
MS. CHAMBERS stated that there are over 200 types of licenses
that are offered among the 21 boards and 22 professions.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if temporary licenses can be issued
for doctors
MS. CHAMBERS answered yes.
4:09:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS noted that several groups like Americans
for Prosperity have worked to deregulate occupational licensing
with the goal of breaking unions and driving down wages. He
stated that he supports HB 93 and Alaska's military families;
however, he said he wants to make sure that military families
are not being used as (indisc.) to undermine Alaska's (indisc.)
and high wages.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ concurred with the concern that Alaska's
licensure standards are not being undermined by forces outside
of the state. She said she wants to make sure that military
spouses are supported and that the state is taking advantage of
the human capital.
4:09:48 PM
MS. CHAMBERS, responding to a question from Representative
Hannan, explained that through attrition, waning interests, or
competing priorities, some of the boards have failed to adopt
temporary licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if the omnibus bill concerning
temporary licenses passes, "would it be duplicative of the law
that already gives that authority on military spouses."
MS. CHAMBERS said the omnibus bill was crafted to subsume this.
She explained that it would continue to require expediting
military spouse licensure, while opening an opportunity for more
than just military spouses to take advantage of temporary
licensing.
4:13:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that there is no fiscal note for HB
93. She questioned whether Ms. Chambers anticipates a fiscal
note to make this goal of more temporary licenses achievable.
MS. CHAMBERS offered her belief that they have adequate
authority to get that done. She said they would make a budget
request if a problem arose.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ reminded members that HB 93 is just providing a
report on the work that's already been done.
4:14:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked if the boards have access to staff
from the DCCED to help them understand the goals of the
department.
4:14:59 PM
MS. CHAMBERS explained that all the boards have assigned staff
who work every day to support and process licenses. She said
the department has an interesting staffing structure in which
most boards have licensing examiners who tend to be junior level
assistants. Furthermore, several boards have executive
administrators, which are partially exempt positions, who can
engage in policy. She said in the absence of an executive
administrator, the department's management team helps provide
information to the board and its examiners. She noted that at
the end of the day, the boards are responsible for hearing the
information that is being passed along to them.
4:17:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN expressed her concern about the
temporary licenses. She said "I want to make sure that we're
not putting any group before another group, so we have Alaskans
who are trying to start working and they need to get their
approval through a board, and we also have military families who
are coming in and maybe it becomes a status quo to do everybody
with temporary licenses, but again the exposure to liability
worries me.
4:20:21 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ agreed that she would be reticent to "rip the
band aid off" when it comes to major reforms. She said that
it's legislators' job to do the due diligence to understand the
implications of the decisions that are being discussed. She
reiterated that today's discussion is about HB 93 which would
require a report around military spouse licensure, not about the
omnibus bill that was introduced by the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS noted that he has heard from doctors who
are very opposed to anything that would expand or even use
temporary licensing for medical professionals. He added that
they are very concerned about the health and safety implications
involved with such a step.
4:21:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLIS asked if military personnel and their
spouses can apply for a temporary license at this time.
MS. CHAMBERS confirmed that they can if the board offers a
temporary license; however, part of the problem is that not all
boards offer temporary licenses, and if they aren't in
regulation then they're not available for people to apply for.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLIS asked if the boards currently offer any
temporary licenses.
MS. CHAMBERS answered yes, the boards currently offer quite a
few temporary licenses for a variety of programs including
doctors and nurses.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLIS inquired as to how many licenses have been
requested in the last three years. He opined that the term
"shall" instead of "may" sounds like "you're not giving
licenses." He asked how many have been requested and how many
have been given.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ clarified that the language in the original bill
was "may" not "shall."
4:23:04 PM
MS. CHAMBERS said the numbers stay low. She explained that they
don't have a "push-a-button-and-this-is-the-number-of-military-
licenses-that-are-available-type system." She offered her
belief that the report would help the department get there,
because what's expected in the report would cause them to make
some database changes. She approximated that last year they had
100 or fewer military spouse applications.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLIS questioned whether 50 percent of the
license requests made by military spouses have been granted.
MS. CHAMBERS explained that if they're qualified, they are
issued a license. She said she would expect that all of them
are qualified because they are coming from a state where they're
already licensed and credentialled.
4:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN addressed the zero fiscal note and
asked how the department would be able to handle the necessary
database changes for the reporting requirement with no
additional cost incurred.
MS. CHAMBERS said over the last few years, the department has
been figuring out a way to get certain levels of database
changes done without having to request additional IT help. She
said they are trying to keep the cost low and not hire
contractors or additional staff.
4:26:26 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked how many boards oversee licensure.
MS. CHAMBERS answered 21 licensing boards and 22 regulated
professions.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked how many of them have executive
administrators.
MS. CHAMBERS said seven.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ questioned whether they have the capacity to
undertake the support of the boards that would be necessary to
explore military spouse licensure in each case.
MS. CHAMBERS answered yes, they have systems for communicating
with boards and farming out that communication responsibility to
the management team, which occurs regularly.
4:27:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that U.S. Department of Defense has a
contract with the University of Minnesota to evaluate
occupational board implementation of laws and policies that
support military spouses in all 50 states. He directed
attention to a report included in the committee packet, entitled
"Military Spouse Licensure Portability Examination State
Report." He reported one of the study's general findings: that
there's no information available pertaining to how many spouses
have transferred their licenses in the last year. It went on to
say that spouses cannot be licensed by endorsement or temporary
licensure for any of the following boards: cosmetology, dental
hygiene, massage therapy, mental health counseling, occupational
therapy, and the real estate commission. He indicated that
temporary licenses are issued on a board-by-board basis and that
it's necessary to find out where each board is at, where the
legislature can help out, and to understand why some occupations
do not have temporary licensure. He addressed a concern from
Representative Fields with an anecdotal example.
4:31:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN returned attention to the University of
Minnesota's analysis of the portability exam and the six boards
that they chose to study. She sought clarification on why those
six were specifically selected. She asked if it's because they
have the highest number of applicants or if military spouses are
most likely to hold licensure and ask for reciprocity in those
areas.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Ms. Perreault.
4:32:20 PM
TAMMIE PERREAULT, Regional Liaison, Defense-State Liaison
Office, U.S. Department of Defense, said the six specific
occupations were chosen randomly by the researchers because they
felt that they represented a cross-section of occupations which
military spouses participated in. She said they used these
[six] occupations in all 50 states, adding that there's an
identical report for each state that addresses the same
research.
4:33:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked when the study was conducted.
MS. PERREAULT replied the study was conducted in 2017. After
completion, they asked each state to go back and look at how
their occupational licensure laws were being implemented and how
they are working for the military spouses, which is part of what
led to HB 93 and this reporting request.
4:34:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that HB 28 states that boards may
issue temporary licenses, but also that they shall expedite
application procedures for military spouses. There's a
combination of both "may" and "shall," he said.
4:35:05 PM
MS. PERREAULT addressed the PowerPoint presentation included in
the committee pack, entitled "Defense-State Liaison Office."
She explained that most of the information had been covered and
directed attention to slide 9, entitled "Licensure Portability."
She said the slide shows where different efforts have been made
for license portability by different states and where Alaska
falls on this continuum.
4:36:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Ms. Perreault where she would place
Alaska on the continuum.
MS. PERREAULT stated that Alaska is in the yellow zone for this
particular subject. She went on to say that Alaska is fully
implementing its current laws; however, the state has not
implemented or adopted any interstate occupational licensure
compacts.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that Alaska is not displayed
anywhere on the continuum.
MR. MASON indicated that Alaska is represented by the lighter
shade of yellow on slide 9.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 93 was held over.