Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/17/2017 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 | |
HB195 | |
HB222 | |
SB93 | |
SB64 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | SB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 222-LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS/NAIL TECHS 3:43:27 PM CHAIR KITO announced that the second order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 222, "An Act relating to the licensure of nail technicians; relating to the practice of manicuring; and providing for an effective date." 3:43:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 222, Version 30-LS0803\O, Bruce, 4/17/17, as the working document. There being no objection, Version O was before the committee. 3:44:15 PM OWEN PHILLIPS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor, introduced HB 222. In 2015, he stated, the legislature passed House Bill 131 in hopes of improving the health and safety of nail salon patrons. House Bill 131 outlined new regulations, including 250 hours of education and an examination to become a licensed nail technician. Prior to that bill, a person could receive a manicurist's license by completing 12 hours of training, though many people received many more hours outside of the state of Alaska. In 2015, he explained, the House made an amendment on the floor that brought unintended consequences on existing licensees seeking renewal in 2017. The floor amendment added a grandfather clause, but the clause was unclear. The Board of Barbers and Hairdressers consultant consulted with the Department of Law and interpreted the new statute to have a temporary and confusing grandfather clause. Therefore HB 222 seeks to remedy the onerous renewal process enacted in 2015 while protecting the health and safety of Alaskans. MR. PHILLIPS outlined what is currently required of experienced manicurists seeking to renew their license: by August 31, 2017, proof of 250 hours of work as a manicurist; by August 31, 2017, take and pass a written or oral examination; after one renewal period, however, an experienced manicurist is nevertheless required to take 250 hours of additional coursework to receive a nail technician license after the two-year grandfather license that does not require any coursework. He said HB 222 would remove the education requirement for people who are already licensed and working under statutes prior to December 31, 2015. He pointed out that requiring 250 hours of coursework, which is six to eight weeks of full-time effort, could mean these experienced working manicurists might not be able to work. Affected individuals include small business owners and single mothers, he continued. Requiring this training for persons who have been successfully practicing for years could have detrimental impacts on their finances and their families. 3:46:46 PM MR. PHILLIPS provided a sectional analysis of Version O. He said Section 1 adds legislative intent to the uncodified law that the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers allow an applicant to use a foreign language translator during an exam. Currently, he noted, the exam is only offered in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Korean. Section 2, he explained, clarifies the grandfather clause by stating that the board may not require an applicant applying for or renewing a license to complete 250 hours of instruction in manicuring if the applicant holds a valid license that was issued on or before December 31, 2015. Section 3, he stated, amends Section 13(a), ch. 27, SLA 2015, allowing manicurists who hold a valid license on January 1, 2016, to continue practicing manicuring until their license normally expires. [Paragraph] (1) provides that manicurists can renew their license before August 31, 2017, if they meet pre-existing requirements under AS 08.13 as it existed prior to January 2016. [Paragraph] (2) states that manicurists may renew their license for an additional period before August 31, 2019, if they submit proof of 250 hours of satisfactory work experience and have taken and passed the written or oral exam under AS 08.13.090. Section 4, he said, retroactively amends Section 13(a), ch. 27, SLA 2015, as amended by Section 3 of this Act. Section 5, he continued, sets an immediate effective date for this bill. MR. PHILLIPS added that the intention of HB 222 is to remove the unnecessary burden of education and training hours for experienced manicurists who practiced prior to December 31, 2015, and to extend equal opportunities to individuals who may have a difficulty with a language barrier. 3:49:17 PM CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 222. 3:49:33 PM JEANNINE JABAAY testified in support of HB 222. She related that she was a former public member of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers and an advocate of House Bill 131 in 2015. As outlined by Mr. Phillips, she stated, it was [the board's] understanding that for Alaska's nearly 1,000 current licensees, those 250 hours required for new licensees would be grandfathered hour for hour for the hours they worked on the job and incurred incumbently. However, the [floor] amendment changed that accidentally, she continued, and [the board] would like to see that fixed, which HB 222 would do. MS. JABAAY recalled that regarding the testing requirement, [the board] was asked directly by a legislator whether it came in the Hmong language. She said she doesn't remember the exact answer given by the decision, but it was her understanding that it came in nine languages and now it is down to only four. The State of Alaska uses the National-Interstate Council of State Boards of Cosmetology, Inc. (NIC) test, she continued, which is a proprietary test that cannot be translated or interpreted according to the NIC regulations. A person who doesn't speak one of the four languages outlined by Mr. Phillips will be unable to understand the questions being asked. There is a large population of licensees in Alaska's nail technician industry who don't speak any of those four languages. She said HB 222 would correct that by allowing the test to be translated or interpreted and would give the board that discretion. This bill does a good job addressing those things that are confusing, she added, and would bring House Bill 131 back to its original intention of increasing public safety without removing the livelihood of the current 1,000 licensees. 3:51:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked whether Ms. Jabaay said she currently serves on the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers. MS. JABAAY replied she served for four years and her term ended March 31, so she is no longer on the board. She said she was part of House Bill 131 two years ago and has been approaching legislators since January while she was still on the board. REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD inquired whether it seemed at that time that 250 hours of instruction was important to teach the safety of instruments being sterilized and the safety with patients or whether it seemed that maybe it could have been a smaller field of time utilized for teaching manicurists. MS. JABAAY responded that the board spent quite a bit of time debating the number of hours. Alaska had the lowest number of hours and only had 12 hours of sanitation, she said, so not even two days of bookwork and no testing. But the industry has changed, she continued. She stated that the 12 hours was back from the 1970s. She added, ut now they're using drills; they're using files, cheese graters; they have ... transference of [acquired immune deficiency syndrome] (AIDS) and [Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus] (MRSA) [The board] looked at the standards in all the states across the U.S. and found that 250 hours brought reciprocity for the licensees - they could take their livelihood from one state to another without being overly burdened. She noted that Alaska is still in the bottom one-third of those hours, meaning that another two-thirds of the states require more hours than does Alaska even after passage of 250 hours. The board felt it was a good number going from 12 hours to 250 and the legislature at the time agreed. REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD, regarding language, said she wants to know that a manicurist understands what she is asking and vice versa. She asked whether that came up in the discussions when the board was looking at the different languages that it wanted to assist in accommodating. MS. JABAAY answered that the board did not, and does not, try to regulate people being necessarily good at their practice. The board wants to ensure that [manicurists] are safe, she said. When a customer specifically requests a rounded nail versus a square nail, that's between the customer and the practitioner and the board thinks that will get regulated just by commerce and economy. The board's responsibility is to ensure that those who are licensed by the state and governed by the board to practice can do so safely. [The board] felt that 12 hours did not accrue that safety, but 250 hours did, she continued. So, if [a manicurist] uses an electric drill and brings it down to the meat the customer will know he or she is protected as an individual because [the manicurist] will know how to respond to that, but if a customer doesn't like the paint polish that [the manicurist] did, that would be between the customer and [the manicurist] to determine. The board doesn't try to govern someone being good at their field, just safe at their field. 3:55:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD said that was not what she was trying to get at; rather, she was trying to clarify the issue of communication. She asked, "So, if you're seeking communication with regard to the testing aspect of being a manicurist, and you need someone there to help make sure they understand the testing based on different languages, then how ... does that pertain to the business? She added, "If English is not a second language for them, is there difficulty then in the workplace?" MS. JABAAY replied there probably is going to be some difficulty if English isn't [a manicurist's] primary or secondary language. The testing would be confusing and so could be the job. She said she imagines that commerce would regulate some of that [customers] who feel they don't have good ability to communicate with their practitioners probably won't go back. But, she added, the board would hope to govern the safety. If the question is whether [applicants] who don't speak English as their primary or secondary language should be allowed to have their tests translator interpreted, she said she personally believes they should, and HB 222 would allow that accommodation so that [these applicants] are able to work in Alaska. 3:56:52 PM RACHEL LAUESEN, Attorney, Fortier & Mikko, P.C. Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of HB 222. She said she wrote an extensive letter to various representatives, has also contacted some senators, and has provided supporting documents relating to the flaws of House Bill 131. She stated that Ms. Jabaay did an excellent job explaining the history and intent of the legislature behind passing House Bill 131 as well as the intent of the board, but she thinks it was misunderstood. She said her testimony today is in support of HB 222. MS. LAUESEN noted that she represents a licensed manicurist who wishes to remain anonymous because she has some concerns about retaliation. She added that she has spent quite a bit of time delving into House Bill 131 and the legislative history behind it, as well as the history of the meetings with the board reflecting the board's intent. She stressed the importance of passing HB 222 because of the inherent flaws with the existing bill and the threat it serves to this group of existing professionals. There is simply not enough time by August 31, 2017, she explained, for these individuals to pass the test, particularly where many of them are unable to take it in their native language; the only language that is offered for the oral test is English. MS. LAUESEN stated it is important to clarify that there is nothing in the legislation that has passed that says individuals with 250 hours of documented work experience but can't pass the test are then eligible for a nail technician license, but they are not required to attend 250 hours of school afterwards. However, she said, that is how the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing has interpreted it, and it's an erroneous interpretation. All the existing legislation says, she continued, is that to sit for the exam, an applicant for a nail technician license must have satisfactorily completed 250 hours of schooling from a licensed manicurist school. The legislature already previously determined that 250 hours of work experience would qualify somebody to sit for the exam, but somehow the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing has determined that to receive the nail technician license even with 250 hours of documented work experience and with passing the exam, [the applicant] still needs to afterwards complete 250 hours of schooling, which can cost upwards of $4,000. It is an additional step that was not required previously of the holders of the advanced manicurist license, she pointed out. She recommended that HB 222 be adopted to fix the many problems with [House Bill 131]. 4:00:57 PM BEVERLY HARPE testified in support of HB 222. She related that she has a close family member who has been working as a manicurist for the last five years. This family member would have had the total hours license prior to the 2015 deadline and was notified then that she needed to pass a written exam and then obtain education. English is not this family member's first language, and it was confusing to the family member, as well as to herself, as to why examination would be before education since it is typically the other way around. MS. HARPE stated she did research and worked with Representative Claman, and that she and many others noticed that the statute and regulations simply did not match up. She said the family member did take and pass the exam, but it was a terrible financial burden to take off 250 hours of work for the in- classroom education because in-classroom is how it is offered in Anchorage. The cost is $3,500, she noted, and the person must attend in-classroom during the day every day, five days a week, until reaching 250 hours. It is very burdensome, she added, to expect someone who has met all the requirements, proved to be proficient and competent by the testing, and passed all the safety portions to then pay $3,500 for education for which they've already proven they have the information and to forego all income for one and a half months. Ms. Harpe expressed her support for HB 222. 4:03:36 PM KEVIN MCKINLEY, Chair, Board of Barbers and Hairdressers, testified in support of HB 222. He said the previous witnesses did a good job explaining HB 222 and as chair of the board he is stating support for the bill. 4:04:21 PM CHAIR KITO closed public testimony on HB 222 after ascertaining no one else wished to testify. CHAIR KITO held over HB 222.