Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/08/2011 02:00 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB51 | |
| SB81 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 51 | ||
| += | SB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SSSB 51-STATE VENDING LICENSES
2:01:31 PM
CHAIR EGAN announced SSSB 51 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR DAVIS, sponsor of SB 51, said a number of people had
approached her because at one time blind people were given
preference in setting up vending businesses on state and other
public properties, but at some point other people were given the
same preference making it hard for the blind to get those
positions.
2:02:29 PM
TOM OBERMEYER, staff to Senator Davis, sponsor of SB 51, said
this bill restores first priority to blind persons for getting 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 Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Business
Enterprise Program provide the same first-priority to blind on
state and other public property like what is done on federal
property, and enforced under the Randolph-Sheppard Act of 1936.
He explained that the Alaska Chance Act, for the first time,
added disabled persons to the blind individuals' 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 resulting in decreasing
vending opportunities for blind merchants in Alaska, thus
exacerbating their already high unemployment rates among all
types and severities of the disabled and in the general
population.
SB 51 recognizes that disabled persons do not suffer the same
degree of impairment and unemployment as the blind, bringing up
the question of equal protection under the law. Although the
state has combined management and training opportunities for
both blind and other persons with disabilities under the
Business Enterprise Program, this bill requires giving first
priority to the blind for vending contracts on state, federal
and other public property.
MR. OBERMEYER said the bill has a new definition of "public
property," as well, and clarified that this language does not
prevent people with other disabilities from getting preference
after priority to the blind in these matters.
He said SB 51 comports with original legislative intent prior to
the 1974 and 2006 changes that added persons with disabilities
and severe disabilities to the same priority as blind
individuals for licenses on vending facilities on public
property by giving first priority to the blind under AS
23.15.100. Further, 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 other things, court houses, military bases, state and
federal office buildings and other public properties.
2:05:14 PM
He explained that typically, blind individuals who receive
Randolph-Sheppard contracts act as managers of large vending or
cafeteria facilities subcontracting with food service
organizations to provide meals and/or vending services on a day-
to-day basis. They may also independently operate lobby
concession stands or vending machine banks.
MR. OBERMEYER explained that in October 2009, Alaska's Business
Enterprise Program had only six sites operating in federal
facilities under Randolph-Sheppard and six sites operating in
state facilities under the Chance Act. This bill would greatly
expand opportunities for employment in vending locations for the
blind by amending the word "property" to include the property of
municipalities and school districts beyond the 12 locations.
MR. OBERMEYER provided the sectional analysis as follows:
2:07:20 PM
Section 1: amends powers and duties of the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation. It removes references to persons with
severe disabilities from the provisions dealing with the
operating of vending facilities on public property.
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.
Section 3: adds new subsections to the new section on the
issuance of licenses for vending facilities on public property.
Sec. 23.15.133(c): allows 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.
Sec. 23.15.150(d): says that when there is a vacancy in the
operation of a vending facility on state, municipal, or school
district property it requires the agency to attempt to contact
blind persons directly about operating it and directs the agency
to work with private organizations to contract blind persons.
This requirement is in addition to any other procurement
requirements of AS 36.30 (the State Procurement Code). Newspaper
advertising is not sufficient.
Sec. 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.
Section 4: deletes a reference to persons with severe
disabilities from a provision relating to hearings on agency
actions that relate to vending facilities.
Section 5: amends the definition of "licensee" to remove the
reference to a person with a severe disability.
Section 6: amends the definition of "public property" to include
the property of municipalities and school districts which is
what caused the sponsor substitute.
Section 7: adds a definition of "school district."
Section 8: repeals the section relating to vending facilities
operated by persons with severe disabilities.
2:09:46 PM
Section 9: indicates that the Act applies to vending facility
licenses issues and vending facility contracts entered into on
or after the effective date of this Act.
Section 10: states that the Act does not affect a contract
entered into before the effective date of this Act.
MR. OBERMEYER noted that SSSB 51 has a zero fiscal note and that
an accompanying memorandum from Terry Bannister, Legislative
Council, explains why she didn't see an equal protection problem
with removing the "other people with disabilities" from this Act
in order to give priority to the blind since the issue is an
economic matter.
CHAIR EGAN said he intended to hold SSSB 51 for another hearing
and asked if the committee had questions.
SENATOR MENARD asked if a blind person also had a severe
disability would that qualify him to have notification for an
available vending facility.
MR. OBERMEYER replied that the phrase "severe disabilities" is
being deleted and in her example the blind person would still
get priority whether he had other severe disabilities or not.
2:12:15 PM
PAULA SCAVERA, Legislative Liaison and Special Assistant,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD), said that
Assistant Attorney General Anmei Goldsmith was on line to answer
questions about some legal issues with the bill and Cheryl Walsh
was available to discuss the way the program runs now.
CHERYL WALSH, Director, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD), said she
was available for questions.
2:13:53 PM
CHAIR EGAN asked that someone from the Department of Law explain
the problems they have with the legislation.
TERRY BANNISTER, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, was the drafter of SB 51 and related
that at first she thought it had an equal protection problem,
but she found a couple of cases that suggested otherwise, and
she didn't think there was an equal protection problem at this
time.
ANMEI GOLDSMITH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
said she saw the same equal protection problems under both the
federal and the state constitutions, and agreed with Mr.
Obermeyer that the scrutiny would probably be at the lowest
level because it's about an economic interest. She thought the
bill potentially invites a challenge under equal protection or
due process, but how the State or the U.S. Supreme Court would
deal with such a challenge was impossible for her to say. The
state scrutiny would be substantial relationship between means
and ends and the federal scrutiny would be rational review.
SENATOR GIESSEL referred to Ms. Bannister's memorandum and said
while she initially thought there was an equal protection issue
regarding item 1 she had determined there was not. The second
question pertains to item number 2 - direct notification of
blind persons. Ms. Bannister posed two questions in her memo and
she asked what the answers were or if they were to come from the
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
MS. BANNISTER responded that she had addressed the questions to
the Senator and didn't know the answers.
2:18:45 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN said he understood that both attorneys agree
that the equal protection law would be subject to minimal
scrutiny under either federal or state analysis and asked if the
committee should support the sponsor statement that says the
blind are dissimilarly situated compared to other disabled
persons in order to potentially survive any legal challenge. He
asked if there is an equal protection argument between
categories of blind people compared to other disadvantaged
persons.
MS. BANNISTER replied that it's always good to state reasons so
the meaning is clearer to the court.
2:21:33 PM
MS. SCAVERA asked Ms. Walsh to explain the existing program.
MS. WALSH said it is a complex program and pointed out that
individuals who are blind already have first priority and that
is how the program currently operates. She thought a challenge
had been made that they don't operate it in that manner, but she
didn't know the particulars.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if blind people should, as an economic
matter, continue receiving that first priority.
MS. WALSH replied that she didn't feel comfortable making that
decision, because in the programs she administers she represents
all people with disabilities. The feds have a priority for the
blind on their six properties and state statute allows people
with significant disabilities, but blind individuals still have
first priority.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if she understands the support at the
federal level for the establishment of that priority.
MS. WALSH replied that the priority goes back to the 1930s when
blind people, in particular, had a dissimilar advantage in the
economy.
SENATOR MENARD asked if she felt that current statutes are
sensitive to the blind.
MS. WALSH replied that she puts forth every effort to make the
opportunities available to the blind first. The priority issue
sometimes comes up when an individual with a current site wants
to take another site because no other blind person wants it,
excluding other disabled people who don't have anything
available to them. This is where hairs get split about who has
first priority, because she limits that individual to his
particular site.
SENATOR MENARD said language on page 2, line 22, states the
state will provide the training and supervision necessary to
enable blind and severely disabled persons to buy the equipment
and initial stock necessary to operate vending facilities, and
asked if that has a cap. Does the fiscal note reflect any
ongoing equipment replacement costs and maybe even technology
upgrades?
MS. WALSH replied that the funds for the program come primarily
as a set aside that vendors use to feed money back into the
program, so the department wouldn't see any additional costs.
She explained that the department provides the initial stock and
equipment for a site and those generated monies go into the set
aside to continue the program.
2:26:49 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the list of blind people is available
or if it is confidential.
MS. WALSH replied that the division doesn't maintain lists of
people, but they know the people they are currently serving and
the disabilities that they have. These people work together with
their counselors to determine an appropriate vocational goal and
sometimes that would include entry into the Business Enterprise
Program. Two people are currently in training to become licensed
vendors, she said.
Because a client becomes a business owner, she explained, he or
she has to have an entrepreneurial spirit and be interested in
the types of businesses that are available. Generally those are
espresso stands, snack bars and some larger military dining
contracts. It takes a significant period of time to train a
person to take over a site and then they compete with people who
currently have sites. Someone with more seniority in the program
could bid on a site and take it over, giving up their current
site and making it available to someone else. So, there is
movement within the program.
SENATOR GIESSEL said it seems like section 3(c) and (d) on page
3 say the agency may contact blind persons directly and let them
know about this opportunity.
MS. WALSH responded that people who become interested in the
program contact her directly. She also works closely with the
Alaska Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired that might
identify someone who may have an interest or some potential.
They don't go and solicit separately from that. The competitions
are advertised and people have to be licensed with them already
to be eligible to bid on a site.
SENATOR GIESSEL referred to the list of vendors and said one
site didn't identify the name of the vendor but mentioned a one-
year contract. She asked if all those individuals are blind that
qualify under the existing statute.
MS. WALSH replied that just one person on that chart qualifies
because he has a severe disability.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if she was referring to the state list or
the federal list and how many blind people on the list hold
vending licenses.
MS. WALSH answered there are three with the state and one that
is currently under a one-year contract at Ft. Richardson, a
difficult site to fill because many people need a driver to get
there and for other reasons. Sometimes a person that is in the
process of being trained to be a vendor has a contract.
Sometimes a site has closed because no blind individual wanted
it.
SENATOR DAVIS said according to the chart there are a total of
12 sites throughout Alaska and one that is not on it making it a
total of 13 sites.
MS. WALSH answered yes.
SENATOR DAVIS asked out of the names listed under Alaska State
how many are blind.
MS. WALSH answered all but one.
SENATOR DAVIS said she expected testimony from people who
probably won't agree with that. She knew there were some changes
in the law that at some point made it more difficult for blind
people to be considered at the top of the list because of the
addition of other disabled persons. This bill was also expanded
to include other sites, which would give more opportunities for
not only the blind but any other handicapped person to be able
to bid.
2:34:02 PM
SENATOR DAVIS said she hadn't heard Ms. Walsh say anything
necessarily positive about the bill and asked if she thought
they were on the right track by expanding the facilities.
MS. WALSH replied that she hadn't heard from anyone about what
it means to go into a municipal site or into a school district
site and wasn't sure of its implications to the program, but she
would be happy to find out. She doesn't oppose the bill, she
said, but was here in a neutral position to try and understand
the need for it, because they believe that the current statute
does give first priority to the blind.
2:36:12 PM
SENATOR MENARD asked what a "dry stand" means relative to
"Bill's Mini-cash" in the Anchorage federal building.
MS. WALSH offered to get more information, but thought it could
be where magazines are sold and espresso-type drinks aren't.
2:37:36 PM
JAMES SWARTZ, Executive Vice President, Alaska Independent
Blind, supported SB 51. He said he has been involved in this
program since 1983 both as a vendor and director of the program
(1992-95). At that time the "severely handicapped" issue came up
when a gentleman applied for entrance into the program and was
denied. His interpretation of the "severely handicapped" portion
of the Chance Act is that it was supposed to be an entirely
separate program, and that led to his resignation. But he stated
that statute even made provisions for the severely handicapped
to have their own committee for active participation in the
administration of that program.
He said he believed that clarification of the priority to the
blind was needed because it had been recently violated when he,
as a current vendor in the program at the Alaska Native Medical
Center, applied for another facility that no other blind person
had applied for, and a non-blind person whose disability is
being dyslexic was awarded that facility over him. He wanted to
know how first priority to the blind came into play there.
MR. SWARTZ went on to say that Ms. Walsh commented, "It's
splitting hairs," but he thought a better interpretation was
needed and that is what this bill does. He explained that the
Randolph-Sheppard Act was created in 1936 and the reason for its
creation was because a huge group of veterans returned from WWI
who suffered blindness caused by exposure to mustard gas. It was
created because there were no opportunities to put these people
to work. Since that time, all states except Wyoming have adopted
this act following the federal act in suit. Only two states have
provisions for severely handicapped: Georgia, where it has never
been enacted,- and Alaska.
He summarized that the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation was
created to find employment opportunities for the handicapped,
but there is "a little piece of pie in there that the blind
have," and he would like to keep that priority in the program.
SENATOR GIESSEL remarked that he had applied for a second
location and as she looks at the list of folks that are vendors,
she saw another gentleman with two sites. Yet she heard Ms.
Walsh imply that each individual could have only one site and
asked Mr. Swartz how many sites he thought an individual could
have.
MR. SWARTZ replied nothing in either the federal or state
programs limits the number of sites one can have if he has the
qualifications to handle them. He added that a "dry stand" sells
prepackaged products like magazines, candy bars and sodas.
2:43:48 PM
LYNNE KORAL, President, Alaska Independent Blind, supported SB
51. She said that 70-80 percent of blind people are unemployed
or underemployed. For them that means it's always a recession.
People don't see blind people as being capable; their blindness
is seen first.
She related that she conducts workshops on abuse against people
with disabilities and the worst abuse comes from state and
federal institutions because they do not understand what blind
individuals' capabilities are. The biggest employer of the blind
and people with disabilities is the federal government, but
blind people don't want to be known as the "worthy poor." They
want to have the same opportunities and upward mobility that
everybody else has. That is why she is starting her own business
outside of the program.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if she knew of a waiting list of blind
folks who want these vending sites.
MS. KORAL said she thought there was a list.
2:47:30 PM
SANDY SANDERSON, Alaska Independent Blind, supported SB 51. He
related how a dyslexic person was given a Ft. Richardson
National Guard Armory site over two blind persons in 1995. That
is why they brought this bill to their legislators.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if Ms. Walsh could answer two questions:
one if there is a waiting list for disabled folk and can an
individual have more than one site - as it appears on the list
that they can.
MS. WALSH responded that she wasn't aware of a waiting list; but
some people are in training at this time. One gentleman has two
sites because sometimes it takes two sites to generate a viable
income; the state has economic standards, as well.
CHAIR EGAN thanked everyone for their testimony and said SB 51
would be held for further work.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 51 Employment Statistics - Braille Monitor.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 51 Article - Forbes.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 51 Employement Statistics - AFB.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 51 LAA Legal Memo.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 51 Employment Statistics - OK City Journal Record.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 51 Sectional Analysis.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 51 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 51 Leg Research Report.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 51 Sponsor Substitute changes from original.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB051SS-DOLWD-CS-3-4-11.pdf |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 51 Vendors and Vendor Statutes.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 51 |
| SB 81 LAA Legal Memo.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| SB 81 Letter AARP support.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| SB 81 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| SB081-DOA-HPA-02-24-11.pdf |
SL&C 3/8/2011 2:00:00 PM |
SB 81 |