Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/12/2002 09:57 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 244(L&C)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Examiners in Optometry; and relating to optometrists."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Ms. Brakes explained this committee substitute provides for a new
termination date for the Board of Optometrists and allows for
statutory changes to enable the Board to "more effectively license
by credential, update continuing education requirements" and bring
the requirements in line with current practice and regulations. She
detailed some of the changes such as the replacement of the state
tactical exam with the National Board of Examiners and Optometry
examination.
Ms. Brakes referred to the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit
report on the issue [copy on file] which supports the extension
date proposed for the Board. She referenced page seven of the
report which details the findings and recommendations of the audit.
Ms. Brakes noted that page 15 of the audit report contains the
Department of Community and Economic Development' response to the
audit recommendations. She informed that SB 244 was drafted based
on the findings and recommendations of the audit.
Senator Green noted that the original bill included a requirement
that the applicants submit a photograph with their application;
however that requirement was omitted from the committee substitute.
She asked for clarification about this change.
Ms. Brakes responded on page seven of the audit report,
Recommendation No. 1 recommends the Board rescind the application
requirement of requiring a photograph of the applicant. She stated
the drafters attempted to draft the legislation based on the audit
recommendations, and, as the sponsor, "we wanted to put those out
on the table for discussion and to let that work through the
Committee process." She noted the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee reinstates the photograph requirement; however, it
specifies photographs are not permitted to be forwarded to the
Board at time of licensure.
Senator Green asked if the photograph requirement is typical of all
licenses.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development responded that the
Department "looked through all of the programs, as a result of this
issue coming up. Approximately two-thirds of the 38 licensing
programs do require photographs with the application; however, in
most of those instances, it is not because of a statute or a
regulation that requires it, but a board policy." She continued the
requirement is on the application form which was approved by a
Board. She continued that this particular wording stating a
photograph should be submitted, but would not be "forwarded to the
Board during the application process, is unique to this bill."
Senator Green inquired as to the purpose of the photograph.
Ms. Reardon responded the photograph is included in the file and is
used for identification purposes. She qualified that the
application is signed and notarized; however there are instances in
which "people do try to pass themselves off as other people." She
continued that some boards view having the photograph as "useful."
She noted that photo identification is useful at exam check-in, to
make sure that a "ringer" is not taking the test for the "correct
person."
Senator Green asked if the photograph is used for the issuance of a
state of Alaska photo identification card when a person is
licensed.
Ms. Reardon responded that the Department only issues paper
licenses printed on a laser printer that do not contain
photographs.
Senator Ward inquired as to "how many ringers have been used to
take tests."
Ms. Reardon responded she "is not aware of that happening" during
the seven years she has been with the Department. She continued
that "very rarely, if at all" can that Department prove that this
has occurred. She continued that on the national level, there is "a
lot of concern about that, particularly with the big professional
exams," such as engineering. She noted there has been "an instance
in Alaska in the last two years where a nurse applicant tried to
pass herself off as an entirely different person." She detailed how
this person "was caught" during the application process. She
informed that "strange things" do happen.
Senator Green asked if "we expect this language to start appearing
in all licensure and renewals" for these various licenses or would
this be better addressed in a separate statute.
Ms. Reardon responded the photograph requirement is addressed in
this particular bill because of the audit recommendation to remove
"the board's ability to require photographs." She stated this is
"not an effort to add photographs to the process, it is a reaction
to the recommendation that the ability to require photographs be
removed." She stated "there was discussion in the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee about whether that was a good idea."
Ms. Reardon summarized the language in the committee substitute is
perhaps, "a compromise." She continued, "the recommendation to not
require a photograph was to eliminate a potential opportunity for
discrimination based on the photograph." She continued "there was
some debate about whether it was necessary, whether that really was
a significant risk," and this language is "a way of coming up with
protecting against discrimination while retaining the ability to
ask for photographs."
Senator Olson asked if the Division is in favor of having
photographs.
Ms. Reardon responded that the Division supports the position of
the Boards and "if a board feels this is important," then the
Division would support "obtaining the photographs" for them." She
voiced support for not submitting the photograph to the Board
during the application review process as the current bill describes
"to eliminate anyone's concern that that might be influential."
Senator Olson asked if "there have been any complaints by minority
groups that they have been discriminated against through the
application period."
Ms. Reardon responded she was not aware of any complaints.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that one of the reasons not to include a
photograph is just a "general sense" that the Board may make a
decision based on a photograph.
Senator Olson spoke of his experience as a member of the Board of
Optometrists and stated it was "quite helpful" to have photograph
as it made it easier to identify a person and easier to recall the
person if their name came up at a later proceeding. He stated he
"did not necessarily agree with the findings of the audit."
Senator Ward asked if the Board could make a decision as to whether
a photograph would be required.
Ms. Reardon commented "boards review the application forms" so she
would "look to boards for direction."
Senator Ward clarified that if Board did not require a photograph,
the Department would not object.
Ms. Reardon concurred.
Senator Ward clarified that if Board did want a photograph that
also would be fine with the Department.
Ms. Reardon concurred, stating "as long as it was not contrary to
statute."
Senator Leman voiced he did not agree with the audit
recommendation, and he believes it is important to have photographs
on file. He stated that the terrorist events of September 11, 2001
make him "realize what some people will go through to defraud and
harm other people." He opined that requiring a photograph is
appropriate. He continued "this language is not necessary because
the policy of division has been to do this and if that is the
boards policy they can continue to do that." He does not foresee a
"problem with discrimination" as these people will interact with
other professionals and the public in their profession.
Senator Green stated the current language takes the decision
whether to require photographs away from the Board and perhaps it
would be more appropriate to let the Board make that decision.
Co-Chair Kelly asked "if it is not the statute to let Board deal
with this anyway."
Ms. Reardon replied the current statute language authorizes such
discretion to the Board. She suggested changing the language to
clarify that the Board and not the Department make this decision.
Amendment #1: This amendment changes the wording in Section 2, line
11 to reflect "the board may require.." instead of "the Department
may require…"
Senator Green moved for adoption.
Co-Chair Kelly reiterated the change.
There being no objection, Amendment #1 was approved.
Senator Leman asked if the Committee should address this photograph
issue through statute instead of through Board policy. He suggested
removing a portion of Section 2 from the bill. He discussed the
normal application process.
Ms. Reardon clarified that photographs are handled varies among the
boards. She detailed that some boards require photographs at
different stages of the application process. She stated that the
Optometrist Board has not been viewing the photographs during the
application process.
Senator Green stated this language should be addressed throughout
all licensure boards.
Co-Chair Kelly agreed.
Senator Green suggested statutory language could be enacted to
leave the photograph requirement up to the discretion of all
boards.
Ms. Reardon informed that the Department does have a statute, AS
08.01. under which something of this nature could be addressed.
Co-Chair Kelly acknowledged this change could be done in this bill,
and then addressed in a "more generalized statute" at a later date.
Amendment #2: This amendment deletes Section 2 of the committee
substitute in its entirety.
Senator Leman moved for adoption. He stated if Section 2 were
deleted, there would be no change to existing practice.
There being no objections, Amendment #2 was ADOPTED.
Senator Leman offered a motion to report CS SB 244 (FIN), 22-
LS1267\J with a prior $17,700 Department of Community and Economic
Development fiscal note from Committee.
Without objection, the bill MOVED from Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|