Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/09/2012 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB326 | |
| HB202 | |
| HB259 | |
| SB122 | |
| SB51 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 326 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 51-STATE VENDING LICENSES
4:17:03 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
the CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 51(L&C), "An
Act relating to the operation of vending facilities on public
property."
4:17:26 PM
TOM OBERMEYER, Staff, Senator Bettye Davis, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the changes in the bill that passed the
Senate, labeled 27-LS0079\I, from the sponsor substitute. He
stated the sponsor originally asked to insert additional
properties available to the blind in SB 51 to change the
definition of property to include school property and municipal
property so that vending facilities would be available to more
people; however, it was determined after discussions with
schools and municipal entities that would not be feasible. The
sponsor created a sponsor substitute to remove the language. He
explained that the bill would pertain to six federal properties
under the Randolph-Sheppard Act and to six state properties
under the Chance Act of 1976.
4:18:58 PM
MR. OBERMEYER read the sponsor statement, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
SB 51 restores to blind persons first priority for a
contract to operate a vending facility on state and
other public property. This bill amends the Alaska
Chance Act of 1976 to require that the state Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation Business Enterprise
Program provide the same first priority to the blind
on state and other public property as it does on
federal property enforced under the Randolph-Sheppard
Act of 1936. The Alaska Chance Act for the first time
added disabled persons in addition to the blind in
preference for vending licenses on public facilities.
This loss of first priority and expansion of
beneficiaries has thwarted the spirit and letter of
the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The resulting decrease in
vending opportunities for blind merchants in Alaska
exacerbated their already extraordinarily high
unemployment rates among all types and severities of
the disabled and the population in general.
MR. OBERMEYER stated that this bill shows there are few
opportunities in the state for blind or disabled persons.
4:20:27 PM
CHAIR OLSON stated that Senator Davis has joined the
meeting.
4:20:39 PM
MR. OBERMEYER stated the total number of blind in the state may
range upwards to approximately 1,200. He related that 9.3
million visually-impaired people live in the U.S. The recent
U.S. Census asked whether disabled or blind persons reside in
the family, but the census question did not distinguish between
blind and disabled.
4:21:52 PM
MR. OBERMEYER continued to read the sponsor statement, as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
SB 51 recognizes that the blind are dissimilarly
situated compared to other disabled persons who do not
suffer the same degree of impairment and unemployment
as an economic matter. Although the State has
combined management and training opportunities for
both the blind and other persons with disabilities
under one Business Enterprise Program of the Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation, this bill requires that
it must give first priority to the blind for vending
contracts on state, federal or other public property.
SB 51 comports with original legislative intent and
gives first priority to the blind imposed under AS
23.15.100 prior to changes in 1974 and 2006 which
added persons with disabilities and severe
disabilities who currently compete with the blind for
licenses on vending facilities on public property. It
requires that the Division attempt to find and notify
blind persons of vending opportunities as they arise
on public property. These public properties may
include among others court houses, military bases,
state and federal office buildings, and other public
properties.
4:22:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether there are an estimated
12,000 blind or visually impaired individuals in the state.
MR. OBERMEYER answered he assumed the figures referred to the
visually impaired, noting there are different levels of
impairment for the blind and visually impaired.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the numbers of the severely
disabled people living in Alaska.
MR. OBERMEYER answered that he did not have the figures.
4:23:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the severely disabled would
be barred from obtaining contracts.
MR. OBERMEYER related his understanding they would not be
barred. He explained that the Business Enterprise program was
designed specifically to assist them. He further suggested that
some procedures exist for the disabled to temporarily take the
place of a blind person in the event a blind person was not
available, which may result in long-term positions for the
disabled. He pointed out that training is an important part of
the process.
4:24:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding the disabled
person might be able to take up the jobs.
MR. OBERMEYER related his understanding, but deferred to the
department or the bill drafter.
4:24:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether this bill would require the
severely disabled to give up contracts. He further asked for
the impact on the severely disabled.
MR. OBERMEYER related his understanding that everyone with
existing contracts would be grandfathered into the long term
project process. He characterized the long-term contracts as
essentially licenses since the contracts are indefinite in
duration. He did not envision any threat to current holders of
the vendor licenses. He pointed to Section 3, AS 23.15.133
allows the agency to contract persons who are not blind. He
referred to subsection (d), when there is a vacancy occurs the
agency will attempt to contact a blind person. He deferred to
the bill drafter to indicate if any prohibitions from the blind
not only taking disabled or other contracts for remote
locations. He provided an example; noting that a facility in
Kodiak could not obtain training for the vendor for the
facility.
4:26:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked in instances in which there are not
visually impaired or disabled people with first priority
available to take the contract, whether any provision exists to
contract out or if people could be hired on behalf of blind
person.
MR. OBERMEYER offered his belief that it is possible and in some
cases it is almost imperative, such as an instance in which the
facility has a large cafeteria so the vendor must hire others to
assist them.
4:27:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether this pertains not just to
operate the facilities but to contract to operate the
facilities.
MR. OBERMEYER deferred to the department to answer. He related
his understanding some concern arose over the term contract, but
that a contract is issued on a temporary basis to try to place
people; however operating agreements/contracts are used even
with long-term licenses, but again, he deferred to the
department.
4:27:32 PM
MR. OBERMEYER referred to the bill that passed the Senate,
Version I. He reviewed the sectional analysis of the bill. He
stated that Section 1 amends a provision dealing with powers and
duties of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). It
removes references to persons with severe disabilities from the
provisions dealing with the operation of vending facilities on
public property. He stated that Section 2 directs the agency to
issue a license for the operation of vending facilities on
public property to blind persons who meet certain criteria,
including criteria established by agency regulations. It
requires these regulations to provide blind persons with first
priority for a contract to operate a vending facility on public
property.
4:28:21 PM
MR. OBERMEYER detailed that Section 3 adds new subsections to
the section on the issuance of licenses for vending facilities
on public property. He stated that proposed AS 23.15.133(c)
should allow the agency to contract with a person who is not
blind to operate a vending facility until the agency can locate
a blind person who qualifies to operate the vending facility.
He detailed that proposed AS 23.15.133 (d) indicates that when a
vacancy in the operation of a vending facility on state property
the agency must attempt to contact blind persons directly about
operating the vending facility. This proposed section would
also direct the agency to work with private organizations to
contact blind persons. This requirement is in addition to other
procurement requirements of AS 36.30, the state procurement
code. He clarified that news advertising is not sufficient. He
reported that proposed AS 23.15.133 (e) allows a blind person
operating a vending facility to operate another vending facility
if the agency cannot find a blind person to operate the other
vending facility. He recapped that it would allow for a
multiple vending contract for an individual.
4:29:32 PM
MR. OBERMEYER referred to Section 4, which deletes a reference
to persons with severe disabilities from a provision relating to
hearings on agency actions that relate to vending facilities.
Section 5 would amend the definition of "licensee" to remove the
reference to a person with severe disability. Section 6 would
repeal a section relating to vending facilities operated by
persons with severe disabilities. Section 7 indicates that the
act applies to vending facility licenses issued and vending
facility contracts entered into, on, or after the effective date
of the bill. Section 8 states that the act does not affect a
contract entered into before the effective date of the act,
which answers the question of whether licensees would be have
grandfather rights.
4:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether this would add work for the
department since they would not use the regular notice process.
MR. OBERMEYER deferred to the department to answer.
4:31:11 PM
LOREN KEMPTON, Project Manager, Inspirational Action, Inc. (IAI)
stated that Inspirational Action, Inc. is a nonprofit to help
developmentally disabled people obtain contracts by offering a
training program. She expressed the IAI concerns that by taking
out language geared to the disabled strips their program. She
highlighted that IAI is not asking for priority over the blind,
but does not want to lose the job opportunities for the
developmentally disabled. She related the progress people have
made by the time the training is completed, including that after
training they could take contracts and provide a living for
themselves instead of having to rely on public assistance,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or becoming homeless. She
estimated that 65 percent of the homeless have mental or
physical disabilities that prevent them from working. She said
the IAA helps people overcome these hurdles.
4:33:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thanked her for the service she provides.
He asked whether this bill would hinder the IAI's ability to
secure contracts if the developmentally disabled are given
second priority.
MS. KEMPTON answered that the developmentally disabled are
already given second priority, which is not the issue since they
are able to reach out and assist people. She explained the IAI
does not want to lose "what little bit we do have."
4:33:43 PM
SHERRYLYN MORELL, Assistant Manager, Inspirational Action, Inc.
stated that she has had the pleasure to work with the Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) to train people. She
understood the point to give priority vendor contracts to the
blind. She agrees with Ms. Kempton's testimony. She has worked
with several people and she has learned as much from them as
they have from her.
4:35:02 PM
GARY JAMES, Employee, stated that he is employed by IAI. He got
the job through DVR.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER thanked him for testifying. He asked him
how long he has been part of the program.
MR. JAMES answered he has been part of the team since October.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER related his understanding that currently
without the bill the developmentally disabled or disabled
persons have more of an equal footing with the visually
impaired.
MS. MORELL stated that she understood that the program already
gave a priority to the blind with a secondary priority for the
disabled persons. She explained that the bill removes any
reference to disabled persons.
4:37:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for the types of disabilities of
those employed.
MS. MORELL answered that IAI works with all disabled as long as
it has been determined it is safe for them to work in food
operations. She related that in her experience she has mainly
worked with people with mild mental disabilities, but the IAI
can work with people who have physical disabilities.
4:37:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether Mr. James likes his job.
MR. JAMES answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked what his job duties entail.
MR. JAMES answered that he is a back-up cook and operates the
register.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether he was trained by IAI to
perform his duties
MR. JAMES answered yes.
4:38:10 PM
CHERYL WALSH, Director, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
(DVR), Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), asked
to address concerns the division has with SB 51. She explained
that 13 business enterprise sites exist within the state,
including one in Juneau at the State Office Building. This bill
would direct the division to work with a private organization
that specializes in the employment of blind people to contact
them about business enterprise program (BEP) openings. She said
she was unsure which private organization specializes in the
employment for the blind. Thus it is difficult for the division
to determine associated costs since the organization is not
identified in the bill. She emphasized that the DVR is the
organization that specializes in the employment of people who
are blind.
4:39:44 PM
MS. WALSH stated it is also unclear whether the passage of SB 51
would allow the division to combine its two programs. The DVR
has a separate program for state sites and one for federal
sites. These program divisions are necessary since the program
includes people with severe disabilities at state sites.
Therefore federal dollars cannot be used on state sites. She
stated that a person with a severe disability currently works on
a state site. That individual holds an indefinite license to
the site and would be grandfathered in. She said she was unsure
if the division can divide or combine the programs and the
funding mechanism for the position or associated benefits.
MS. WALSH explained that licenses are granted for an indefinite
period of time. She was also unsure when the person may choose
to retire, noting the DVR can only remove a person if they
terminate voluntarily or for cause, which is defined in
regulation.
4:41:16 PM
MS. WALSH expressed other concerns. She stated that SB 51 is
unclear as to whether it is establishing first priority for
blind persons for all BEP contracts or if it is limited to
temporary contracts, which could impede the division's ability
to manage the program. She related that the division issues
temporary contracts to industry or subject matter experts,
particularly if a feasibility study needs to be done on a site
to determine viability. Additionally, feasibility studies are
done if the DVR is considering a site as a training site, in
which the division would bring in an industry expert on coffee
carts or for other specific training. She expressed concern
that a blind person may not have the expertise to meet the
business or programmatic needs of the temporary contracts. She
stated that the division believes the first priority should be
limited to the permanent assignment or licensing of a vending
facility and not to temporary contracts. The bill would allow a
blind individual to operate another facility even if he/she
already is permanently assigned to a facility if the division
cannot locate an individual. She pointed out that blindness is
a low incidence disability so it is possible the division may
have an opportunity to open a new site or a vacancy could occur
at a time without a current trained blind person to immediately
assume the contract or facility. She further stated that the
bill is unclear as to the length of time the division must keep
the contract open. Further once the site is offered to a
permanent vendor the site is locked up permanently. She
expressed concern this may lead to future lawsuits. She
indicated it was also unclear how many sites a currently
licensed individual would be allowed to have since people
advance in the system based on seniority and experience. This
could lead to people taking over multiple sites and diminishing
the number of sites available to others entering the program or
for transfer or promotional opportunities for others.
4:44:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what happened to the coffee cart in
the entry way at the State Office Building.
MS. WALSH said she was not sure.
4:44:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether costs would be associated
with any outreach.
MS. WALSH answered that she was not certain who the outreach
would be directed at and the need for it. She explained that
currently all the individuals in the program are certified by
the DVR. They apply with the client services program and
identify a goal to become a dining facility manager or snack bar
manager and the division writes a plan. She related that the
division is aware of the certified managers and have a committee
of blind vendors the division works with who represent all of
the current vendors. She said she was certain that anyone who
moved to Alaska who had been certified from another state would
contact them about participating in the DVR's program.
4:45:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for the length of the training.
MS. WALSH answered that the initial training is for six months,
which involves some testing and job shadowing. She stated that
they provide a $500 training stipend for continuing education
(CE). Additionally, the blind vendors hold an annual meeting
with training provided by industry experts. She attended one
last year that showcased a variety of foods vendors may wish to
add to their menus.
4:46:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for an estimate of the number of the
blind as compared to all other divisions.
MS. WALSH referred to a chart that indicated the DVR placed 29
individuals who were blind in other occupations outside the BEP
sites within the past two years, plus the 13 facilities, 10 of
which are operated by blind individuals. She explained that the
blind is a lower incidence disability and that the division
worked with 2,500 cases of people with disabilities. She
estimated less than five percent of the cases would be for blind
individuals.
4:47:53 PM
RICK RENAUD, Chief Executive Officer, Pentagon North, Inc.
(PNI);, Chief Executive Officer, Inspirational Action Inc.
(IAI), stated that IAI is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization.
He said he is also a BPE vendor. He explained that both
organizations provide food service to state and federal
facilities and employment training to people with disabilities.
He referred to the sponsor statement for SB 51, which indicates
a loss of employment and priority for persons with blindness to
hold and operate vending facilities on state and other public
properties. He refutes this document on the basis that people
like him with severe disabilities are involved in the decrease
of vending and employment opportunities on state and public
properties including court houses, military bases, and office
buildings. He explained that disabled people will make a
difference with respect to employment of the blind. He took
issue with the first statement of the sponsor's statement which
states that that SB 51 restores to blind persons first priority
for a contract to operate a vending facility on state and other
public property. He said it is impossible to restore what was
never taken away in the first place. The Alaska Chance Act of
1976 and its related programs has had clear clauses regarding
first priority for the blind which still holds true according to
AS 23.15.210, and Ms. Walsh's testimony.
4:50:53 PM
MR. RENAUD emphasized that the act does not indicate that the
blind do not have priority for vending contracts. Furthermore,
he argued against the implication that the inclusion of people
severe disabilities in the Chance Act has hindered opportunities
for the blind to gain vending contracts or employment. He
pointed out that the blind vendors' committee removed three
federal facilities from their program. Additionally, two other
state facilities have remained vacant for over two years because
there has been no success in finding qualified blind merchants
to occupy the spaces. He emphasized that it is not that there
is a lack of opportunities since they have been taken over by
vendors with other disabilities, but rather that blind vendors
and associated programs have been giving up these opportunities
and have not taken advantage of them. He highlighted that the
lack of employment among the blind has little to do with the
disabled and has more to do with the blind vendors and their
associated programs. He indicated that if there is a real
difference in employment rates that more needs to be done from
within. He acknowledged that there is indeed a problem of
extreme high unemployment rates among persons who are blind.
According to a report of federal programs for unemployment for
persons with disabilities, in 2004, 337 blind workers were hired
out of 2,681 licensed BPE vendors and even less workers with
disabilities; however, the number of workers hired without any
disabilities was 6,607. Therefore in order to create more
employment opportunities blind vendors and programs need to hire
and train more people who are blind. He concluded by pointing
out that the problem is not expanding opportunities of vending
locations for the blind by taking away the opportunities made
available to the severely disabled, but finding trained,
experienced blind vendors who are willing to fill the positions.
He concluded that it shouldn't be the fault of people with other
types of disabilities with qualifications, but rather on the
programs to train and prepare the blind.
4:53:55 PM
CAROL RENAUD stated that she is a person with severe
disabilities. She said that if the legislature takes away the
program that it will not be available when she may need it. She
might be forced to go on welfare or apply for social security
benefits (SSI). She related that she can currently work part
time.
4:55:04 PM
LYNNE KORAL, testifying on behalf of herself, stated that she
has been blind her whole life. She stated that she was told in
middle school that she might not find a job as an adult. She
surmised that people with other disabilities do not hear similar
statements. She offered her belief that blind people are seen
as the most feared and abhorred disability in the U.S.,
including cancer and aids victims. She said she olds two
college masters' degrees and people are not willing to see the
capabilities of blind people. She stated that this program was
established in 1936 since blind people were not able to find
employment. She recalled a blind man holding a masters' degree
who committed suicide because he could not find a job. She
emphasized that this program was not established to
disenfranchise other disabled people, but was set up by the
federal government to help those who are blind to attain gainful
employment.
4:57:20 PM
MS. KORAL stated that blind and disabled people want an
opportunity for a chance at upward mobility. She stated that
blind people have a disability that affects more than their
mobility, daily living and communication. She reiterated that
the public have a hard time understanding blind people can hold
jobs and use specific technology and fear blind people. She has
been told blind people can't be trained well. She explained
that most people in the vending programs are visually impaired
and not totally blind. She recalled people telling her she
should have a realistic goal. She said she is not a vendor and
does not want to be one, but she thinks that some of the issues
many blind people have are related to their inability to find
jobs and their lower standard of living. She pointed out the
blind are treated by stereotypes, including that the blind
cannot hold high-paying decent jobs. She offered her belief
that if she was not blind she would be paid five times as much
as she has been able to earn. She suggested that this bill is
not about parity since the Chance Act of 1936 specifically gave
blind people a hand up not a hand out. She emphasized that the
blind need to continue to have the first priority, which has not
been adhered to or implemented by the DVR. She said she has
degree in public administration and social work so she
understands the legislative process and political implications.
5:00:26 PM
MS. KORAL recalled some 2001 figures for the blind. She
indicated that the appropriate organization, the nonprofit that
would help with employment would be the Alaska Center for the
Blind and Visually Impaired, which would be at least as well
equipped to train people as the DVR to help certify and train
the blind. She characterized this bill as smoke and mirrors.
She asked to get the facts on table and stop treating the blind
as people who cannot be trained.
5:01:23 PM
RICHARD GARDENHIRE, President, Alaska Independent Blind, stated
the Alaska Independent Blind is a consumer organization of blind
and visually-impaired people. He said he does not have a
prepared statement. He asked to speak in support of SB 51. He
related that like Ms. Koral, he is not a vendor, but is
employable. He stated that several years ago he went to the DVR
to apply for small business loan. He offered that he had
blueprints and projected revenues. He related that the
counselor said he/she was sorry and could not help him. He
found that response to be discouraging since he was a DVR client
who wanted to apply for a small business loan. He indicated
that he did not necessarily need financial help as help to
figure out how to buy and purchase equipment. He emphasized
that time after time the DVR has violated the state statutes by
not giving blind people the priority to operate the state
vending stands. He concluded that he is speaking in support of
the bill since the bill will clarify and better define what
first priority means.
5:05:23 PM
JIM SWARTZ, Alaska Independent Blind, stated that he is
currently a BEP vendor. He said that he previously worked as
the DVR's BEP Director from 1992-1995. He stated that the DVR
trains and places hundreds of people in employment
opportunities. He highlighted that BEP is unique in that the
program was developed specifically for the blind and provides an
employment opportunity. He emphasized that since he is an
entrepreneur as are all the vendors within the program since
they own their own businesses. He said that he owns Jimmy's
Espresso stand located in the Alaska Native Medical Center in
Anchorage. He employs six people, two of whom are blind, and
one is deaf. In 2006, he applied for a vending stand in the
court house and as a blind person should have received first
priority. However, he was denied the opportunity and it was
given to a non-blind person. He related that the non-blind
person today is the CEO of two corporations; however, he still
retains the facility denying a blind person of the employment
opportunity even though it is very clear that the person should
not have been awarded as vendor. He urged members to pass SB
51, since it does not deny anyone an employment opportunity, but
just protects the right of the blind and their first priority
for vendor jobs. He noted that he operated the coffee stand at
the Juneau State Office Building.
5:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what happened to the stand.
MR. SWARTZ offered his belief that the DVR mismanaged the
facility and did not place a qualified vendor in the facility.
5:09:01 PM
SENATOR DAVIS stated there is a real need for this bill, but she
is not ready to move SB 51 forward in its present form. She
noted that the bill is not ready. She expressed concern about
the direction that the DVR is moving in and she would like to
ask for an audit at some point to investigate some of the
situations raised by the blind, including that they were not
given priority for jobs. She also expressed concern about the
training they provide and the need to improve services. She
informed the committee she would be withdrawing her bill and
would not request another hearing.
CHAIR OLSON commended Senator Davis for bringing the bill
forward. He advised the committee that the bill would be
tabled.
[SB 51 was tabled.]