03/18/1998 03:24 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 1998
3:24 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gene Kubina
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 417
"An Act relating to the unclaimed property of persons dying
intestate."
- HEARD AND HELD
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 349
"An Act prohibiting the use of the title 'social worker' without a
license; relating to social workers, licensure of social workers,
and the Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 399
"An Act relating to an optional exemption from, and deferral of
payment of, municipal taxes on deteriorated property, and defining
'deteriorated property' for purposes of the exemption or deferral;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 399 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 417
SHORT TITLE: UNCLAIMED INTESTATE PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS, Hodgins
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/16/98 2332 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/16/98 2332 (H) L&C
03/18/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 349
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES, Kelly, Elton
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/23/98 2120 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/98 2120 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
02/04/98 2223 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON
03/04/98 2499 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED -
REFERRALS
03/04/98 2499 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
03/18/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 399
SHORT TITLE: EXEMPT/DEFERRAL DETERIORATED PROPTY TAX
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) RYAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/12/98 2307 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/98 2307 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
03/18/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 417.
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant
to Chairman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT Provided information on HB 417; provided
information on HB 399.
RACHEL LEWIS, Administrator
Unclaimed Property Section
Income and Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
Telephone: (907) 465-5885
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 417.
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director
Income and Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
Telephone: (907) 465-2320
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 417.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SSHB 349.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 349, suggested amendments.
EILEEN LALLY, Deputy Director
Community Programs
Hope Cottages, Incorporated
6508 Fairweather Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 561-5335
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 349.
BETH SIRLES, Chair
Department of Social Work
University of Alaska Anchorage
P.O. Box 633
Girdwood, Alaska 99587
Telephone: (907) 783-2238
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 349.
CECILIA KLEINKAUF
2220 North Star Street, Unit 2
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 274-7113
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 349.
COLLEEN PATRICK RILEY
3400 Illiamna Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 269-7317
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 349.
JOHN WATERS, President
Board of Directors, Alaska Chapter
National Association of Social Workers
1802 Evergreen Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 458-0447
MARIANNE MILLS
National Association of Social Workers
2806 John Street, Number 2
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3204
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 349.
ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director
Alaska Chapter
National Association of Social Workers
318 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4438
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 349.
STEVE VAN SANT, State Assessor
Division of Municipal and Regional Assistance
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
333 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 220
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2341
Telephone: (907) 269-4500
POSITION STATEMENT: Submitted statement with concerns about HB 399
which was read by Ms. Metcalfe-Helmar.
KIM METCALFE-HELMAR, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
P.O. Box 112100
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100
Telephone: (907) 465-4898
POSITION STATEMENT: Read Mr. Van Sant's statement and provided
department position on HB 399.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1325
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 399.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-31, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:24 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery,
Hudson, Sanders, Ryan and Brice.
HB 417 - UNCLAIMED INTESTATE PROPERTY
Number 0102
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business
was HB 417, "An Act relating to the unclaimed property of persons
dying intestate."
Number 0115
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS presented HB 417. The sponsor statement
read:
Under current law, when there are assets from an estate
for which there was no will and there are no known heirs,
the state has certain responsibilities and procedures for
determining whether there are heirs to the estate. If no
living heirs are located, the assets pass to the state.
House Bill 417 provides that certain community
organizations in the municipality in which the decedent
last lived may apply for these assets if the state has
had possession of them for a period of five years and no
one has come forward to claim them. If no community
organization applies for the assets, they become the
property of the state.
If only one organization applies, the Department of
Revenue will give the estate to that organization. If
there is more than one organization that qualifies and
applies, they may agree to share the property. If the
organizations do not agree to share, then the appropriate
local government - either the city or borough - will
identify the applicant that provides its services the
most broadly throughout the municipality.
In order to qualify, a community organization must be
located in the city in which the decedent lived, or in
the borough if the decedent didn't live in a city. It
must also be a nonprofit corporation exempt from federal
taxation, be operated exclusively to provide services
promoting the well being of the residents of the
municipality, and have been in existence for at least
three years.
Under HB 417, the state's only additional responsibility
will be to publish a notice in the municipality in which
the decedent lived stating that the decedent died
intestate and that no heirs have been identified. It is
the responsibility of the community organization to
investigate whether it may be qualified to receive the
estate and to apply for it.
Generally, when an individual dies intestate with no
heirs, the size of the estate is not large from the
state's perspective. However, the funds from the estate
could be used by a community organization to greatly
benefit the community at large. House Bill 417 provides
a mechanism by which these organizations can apply for an
estate, without causing the state undue expense or
administrative time.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated HB 417 is apparently a new idea, noting
they haven't found this in any other states. The property of value
belonging to someone who dies without a will currently reverts by
statute to the state and the state has procedures to dispose of the
property. This bill would allow qualifying nonprofit organizations
priority to accept the property of value of someone dying without
a will in a municipality. He noted the legislation gave time
frames to allow rightful heirs to come forward. The bill gives the
qualifying process for organizations and establishes a "pecking
order" determining which nonprofit would be the possible recipient.
If there are two nonprofits, the bill indicates those two
nonprofits could agree to split any of the assets. If there were
more than two, the controlling municipality would establish the
structure determining which nonprofit would receive the property.
Representative Davis said that was the bill, noting the Department
of Revenue (DOR) was present. Referring to Alaska's Uniform
Unclaimed Property Act, Representative Davis stated, "It's title
report of abandoned personal property and our legislation specifies
that intestate property would follow - follow the procedures in
statute as to the process that the state would need to go through
to make sure that there are no heirs, and ... I believe it also
determines the value of the property."
Number 0399
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY said the bill did not have a definition
of nonprofit except "'community organization' means a person who is
exempt from federal taxation ...." [page 2, beginning with line 29,
"(3) "community organization" means a person who (A) is exempt from
federal taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) (Internal Revenue Code);
..."] He asked about churches.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN commented churches were 501(c)(3)
organizations
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he knew that, but asked if that was the
sponsor's intent.
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he would prefer to exclude churches if it
was constitutionally provided, noting he had not really thought of
it.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he did not think the definition
was clear enough and said if it is the sponsor's intent to exclude
churches, they should say that in the bill.
Number 0495
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS referred to page 2; lines 29, 30 and 31, of
the bill commenting he thinks if churches fall under that
definition then they would be included. He said he didn't feel
very strongly one way or another.
Number 0523
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked about property outside of a
municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated his intent was to have it
specifically apply to property within organized municipalities, and
other property would follow the current procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE confirmed the property outside of
municipalities would go back to the state.
Number 0549
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN thanked Representative Davis for bringing this
forward, noting he was not a fan of government ending up with the
fruits of someone's life labors, no matter how small. He commented
it looked like a pretty good bill to him and perhaps could have
been made more inclusive.
Number 0586
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked if very valuable property like
land, real estate, things of that nature, of someone dying
intestate would be included in this. He asked if there was a
dollar value limitation.
Number 0626
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied there was no dollar value limitation
at this time, and that had occurred to him today as he was
reviewing the legislation. He had wondered if they needed to
consider the situation of property valued in a couple of million
dollars, for example. He noted he thought it would be highly
unlikely that someone with that amount of assets would not have a
will, but it could happen, and it would certainly be an opportunity
for a nonprofit to recover some value.
Number 0669
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON confirmed the three-year nonprofit
requirement was to halt opportunists. He asked if Representative
Davis thought that was long enough.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered in the affirmative, noting that
number was negotiable. He added he wanted to give as much
discretion as possible on details, although perhaps not limits, to
the municipalities to create an ordinance addressing this.
Number 0743
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how heirs who might be in the chain of
entitlement by law would be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied he wasn't sure and had not read the
existing statutes, but indicated he would think there are
procedures currently followed by the state for intestate property
ensuring the legally necessary efforts to locate heirs have been
made, including advertisements to the effect that someone has
passed away and anyone who claims any of that person's estate has
a certain time to come forward. Representative Davis indicated the
DOR was here to testify and he believed a representative of the
department could answer.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted that was a concern of his. He
commented he also believes it is possible in Alaska to receive a
divorce without the knowledge and consent of one party if that
party cannot be located.
Number 0878
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked what was the current ultimate
disposition of this property.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied it was his understanding, noting the
department could correct him, that the property goes to the
ownership of the state. If it is real property the state puts it
up for sale, option, or whatever process is followed. He thinks
other things like residences or facilities are treated the same
way; there is a procedure for disposal and the state collects the
money.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS confirmed that the money went into the
general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that was his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked what Representative Davis's motivation
was for the bill, commenting he's sure there probably aren't a lot
of decedents claiming that the state is receiving their money.
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said a former insurance agent of his, involved
in some health care nonprofit organization Representative Davis was
not familiar with, introduced the idea to him. Representative
Davis indicated he thought it sounded like a good idea, referring
to Representative Ryan's previous comments about the government
receiving someone's life assets. He indicated the legislature
provides some funding to nonprofit corporations which provide some
social benefit to municipalities, districts, and to the state as
well. He stated, "So any opportunity to supplant additional
dollars other than general fund dollars, which of course this would
- would in essence be general fund dollars in - in itself."
Representative Davis indicated that was his train of thought when
the idea was presented to him.
Number 1019
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS noted he could see a lot of problems but
stated he was not taking a stand on the bill at this point and
wanted to hear the testimony. He stated, "By putting it through
the state and us voting to give it to nonprofits, it removes it
from the individual. Of course ... the individual's not in a
position to complain about it, but still ... I can see where, like
you say, people have ... spent all their life building something
up, and perhaps they hate animals, and they certainly don't want
their money going to the SPCA [Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals] or perhaps they are atheists and over their
dead body their money's gonna go to a church, which is exactly
what's gonna happen here." Representative Sanders commented he was
bringing up these questions, but not saying "no" to the bill.
Number 1070
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS stated those certainly are questions
individuals might have, and there might be the same concerns under
the current situation over the state's final distribution of an
atheist's assets, for example.
Number 1089
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Sanders was suggesting
that if the chairman were to die intestate, part of his estate
could go to the Sierra Club legal defense fund.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS replied that was the way it sounded to him.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented it was a good reason to make a will.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested the mandated will bill.
Number 1110
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he was concerned about that several years
before he even thought of being in the legislature. When he did
get into the legislature he looked at some how or some way to
mandate wills, so that they could eliminate or drastically reduce
the amount of probate activity occurring in Alaska. Representative
Davis noted he has not found that mechanism yet.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS commented on that basis, he liked
Representative Davis's bill.
Number 1145
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented Alaska was about the only state which
gave attorneys actual fees, not a percentage of the estate, for
probate. He said the attorney had to present a bill with
particulars, noting this was something Alaska has going for it that
other jurisdictions did not.
Number 1162
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "You may take a question off the real
estate examination about this (indisc.), but it still is there."
He asked if any of these things were being repealed, or if "in the
event of" was just being substituted if there was no taker.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated they were substituting.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that those statutes would remain and it
would only be after the five-year period is (indisc.) that these
new provisions would come into effect and be the disposition of the
property.
Number 1192
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS noted that was somewhat confusing language,
stating he understood it to be "within five years," transferred
within five years.
Number 1202
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the relevant bill language on page 1;
lines 6, 7 and 8; "except that, if the property is not claimed
under AS 34.45.280 - 34.45.780 within five years after being paid
or delivered to the state under AS, 34.45.320, the property shall
be distributed as follows:". He asked what the sponsor's intention
was there.
Number 1212
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said "within five years" sounds fine, noting
again he has not had lengthy discussions with the department on
this question and was not completely sure he was reading that
accurately. He noted he was not sure, indicating perhaps there
might be transactions, research and investigations taking up to
five years, or perhaps a legal requirement for a five-year period.
Number 1252
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that the meaning of "within" concerned
him, asking if Representative Davis had spoken about this with the
bill drafter. The chairman suggested amending it to say "after",
"not less than" or something similar, if Representative Davis did
not look on that hostilely. He asked Representative Davis if that
was his intention.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied his intention was that it should be
transferred within five years.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned the meaning, asking if it meant 4
years and 11 months.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "Two years, three years ..."
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS commented, "If it's not claimed within five
years."
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, stated, "Zero to five."
Number 1284
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated a nonprofit could attempt to obtain
this money within a limbo period, asking if that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS replied that was his intent, but he was not
sure if that was the way the bill is drafted or if that was the
legal process currently in place.
Number 1308
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee could discuss it after
hearing testimony from the DOR.
Number 1329
RACHEL LEWIS, Administrator, Unclaimed Property Section, Income and
Excise Audit Division, Department of Revenue, came forward to
testify. She stated real and personal property are currently
separated in Alaska Statutes; HB 417 would change it into one
wording of "property" which could be difficult because the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) currently covered real
property. She indicated this raised questions because the two
types of property are handled in different ways. Ms. Lewis noted
the legislation had no minimum amounts. For example, if $10 came
in as intestate property, she asked if she would still need to
advertise statewide. She said she also had a question about
maximums, noting that had been mentioned. She stated intestate
property was not identified as an unique property under AS 34.45,
unclaimed property. Ms. Lewis said property comes in to the DOR as
bank accounts, life insurance proceeds, but is not specifically
identified as intestate property, and she stated, "So that
identification factor as intestate property isn't something that we
know, at the time that it comes to us, for the most part."
Number 1423
MS. LEWIS continued, "Occasionally, and these are the only three
times I've ever seen anything identified, a coroner's office will
send us some property that they consider intestate property --
they've not been able to find anyone, the state has had to pay for
the burial of the person, et cetera. A law firm has sent us
property that they've done as much as they could to find the person
who did have a will, but (indisc.) was left to their wife who
predeceased them, and they didn't update their will, so they've not
been able to find any heirs or beneficiaries on that one -- and
then [the] only other would be if it came from the court system.
But again, the property would have to be identified as intestate
property because we don't have an investigator that would look to
see, whatever name comes into us, if that person is alive or if the
social security administration has 'em deceased or - or any of that
kind of information. So, if the property came in and it was
identified as intestate, I could put it into a program similar to
this. Again, that would be personal property, it would be what we
handle right now, and real property would throw a big wrench in -
into our section. Department of Natural Resources probably would
still be happy to handle real property." Ms. asked about the
wording, "residing in at the time of death". She questioned, for
example, if Anchorage would be entitled to the lifelong property of
a person who had lived in Barrow all his or her life but who died
in Anchorage where he or she was residing periodically to receive
health care treatments.
Number 1535
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS confirmed Ms. Lewis did not feel the current
procedure was broken and needed to be fixed.
Number 1549
MS. LEWIS agreed. She also noted the state did not take ownership
of property which comes in as unclaimed. That property stayed
within the state in perpetuity for heirs or beneficiaries. She
said there was an escheat law in 1986 that allowed seven years to
make a claim then the state took ownership, but the Uniform
Unclaimed Property Act took away that physical escheatment of
property from anybody who had unclaimed property, so that property
would be available for any heir or beneficiary forever.
Number 1580
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned the disposition of any type of
chattel, asking whether it was converted into cash or stored.
MS. LEWIS replied that the only property they received was tangible
property from safe deposit boxes and there was language allowing
the department to auction those items off. She indicated that the
items could be auctioned off after a year, noting it takes a year
for the items to reach them and a year for them to advertise, so
that an auction could be held the following year. However, she
said an auction has never been held because they have never
received enough property to cover the costs of an auction.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that if someone died intestate the
contents of his or her safety deposit box would revert to the DOR
for keeping in perpetuity; real property would be handled by the
DNR and the escheat law was still in effect for seven years.
Chairman Rokeberg commented, "So this is not just a 'help your
local organization deal out,' it changes the entire escheat statute
of the state of Alaska."
Number 1645
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN confirmed that the contents of safety boxes
coming under the Unclaimed Property Section's jurisdiction were
inventoried. He asked if the contents were then just held onto
forever.
MS. LEWIS said they would eventually hold an auction when they ran
out of storage space.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN posed a hypothetical situation, asking if an
automobile would be left to depreciate to zero value or if it would
it be converted to liquid assets.
Number 1670
MS. LEWIS said she would need another example, noting most of the
items have to fit in a safety deposit box. She suggested a pocket
watch, gold nuggets or silver bars.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he was asking about something that would
depreciate in value if kept, a soft good with a useful life. He
asked, "Do we just set on it and hold it till it's of no value or
wait for the upswing till (indisc.) collectors' value?"
Number 1696
MS. LEWIS indicated the department does not play the market with
stocks or any of those kinds of items that come into the Unclaimed
Property Section from safety deposit boxes. She indicated that
when they have enough items they can have an auction so the cost of
the auction does not exceed the value of the items being sold. She
noted Mr. Bartholomew might need to elaborate. Ms. Lewis noted not
very much property comes in from safe deposit boxes.
Number 1737
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said she mentioned real property had to be
under DNR, but, he said, "Doesn't this bill on the first section
state, 'Deliver to the state,' and both - both departments are in
..."
MS. LEWIS said that was what scared her, the bill put them
together.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said all departments had been put together,
and he asked if he was correct in his reading that it would go to
the appropriate department.
MS. LEWIS replied, "It says repealed and reenacted, so it takes
away part 1 and part 2 ...."
Number 1747
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Audit Division,
Department of Revenue, came forward to testify. To Representative
Cowdery's question, Mr. Bartholomew said he thought it came to the
state but then would be administered under Title 34, unclaimed
property in DOR. He said DNR currently administers the real
property that department receives under a different statute. He
indicated HB 417 put both real and personal property under Title
34, so that the process currently used for personal property would
be followed. Mr. Bartholomew stated he thought, as Ms. Lewis spoke
to, that there were more steps in the process when dealing with
real property. Regarding that, there was a fiscal note from the
Income and Excise Audit Division of DOR asking for a position "out
five years." He commented he wanted to clarify one other thing,
indicating the previously discussed line 6 of the bill gave the
original owner or any heirs five year to claim the property, it
would remain untouched for five years, and a nonprofit would not be
able to apply for it until after five years. He thought the rules
on real property were different. Mr. Bartholomew said there would
not be a fiscal note if the division did not have to deal with real
property, but he indicated the position they have requested in year
five would be involved with the business of transferring title and
disposing of real property which would begin occurring in year
five.
Number 1834
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how taxes that might be accruing on
real estate over that five-year period would be handled, if real
estate was involved.
Number 1849
MR. BARTHOLOMEW indicated he thought that currently if property
taxes were not being paid the city had a claim against the estate,
and the taxes would have to be satisfied or the lien taken care of
before anyone could receive that property.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he was referring to situations
where the value was more than the taxes owed but there were
outstanding taxes, giving the example of property worth $100,000
with $10,000 or $20,000 in outstanding taxes. He said he knew
nothing was exempt from taxes in this situation.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said, "And I think before you could get clear title
to it ..."
Number 1883
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked, "Before the state could get clear
title or anyone?"
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said, "Right. That ... you'd have to pay off the
debt, so it'd be part of any settlement, ... if the state was gonna
sell that property, or transfer that property to a nonprofit. And
maybe Representative Ryan might know, ... I would think you'd have
to satisfy the - the tax debt before ... a nonprofit could obtain
real title ...."
Number 1903
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "(Indisc.) title reverts to the state,
the state cannot be taxed by a subdivision so there wouldn't be
anything for that period of time that the state held ownership of
the property.
Number 1911
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the committee had two other bills on the
meeting calendar.
Number 1915
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he appreciated the questions and the
review. He stated he thought it would be more of an administrative
nightmare to have DOR handle real property disposition, indicating
this could be solved simply by including the DNR statutes so that
DNR would be handling any real property transactions. Regarding
the question about the minimums, Representative Davis stated HB 417
referred to AS 34.45.280 to AS 34.45.780 which contained a $100
minimum, and it would be their intent to keep that minimum as it
already stood in statute. Representative Davis said they would
work on amendments to clarify any confusion about where the
residency would be and acceptable possible recipients of the
proceeds. He stated they recognized that this afternoon in
reviewing the legislation and asking questions. Representative
Davis indicated they had received communication from the department
that morning and had not had time to completely address those
concerns. He said they would certainly examine all the concerns
raised by Mr. Bartholomew and Ms. Lewis, working with the
department and reporting back to the committee.
Number 1998
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that communication had not been in
written form. The chairman suggested the clarity on the five-year
period be very clear when the bill was reviewed, "not less than or
whatever ...."
Number 2013
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he thought Mr. Bartholomew clarified
that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the committee had a different
interpretation from Legislative Legal and Research Services.
Number 2020
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said it was also completely opposite of his
intention, stating, "'cause it would be, if it's not claimed by any
possible heirs within five years, so it would not be available for
distribution before five years."
Number 2030
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated HB 417 would be held for further action.
SSHB 349 - REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
Number 2042
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was SSHB 349, "An Act prohibiting the use of the title 'social
worker' without a license; relating to social workers, licensure of
social workers, and the Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 2063
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES came forward to present SSHB 349.
She thanked the chairman for having such a prompt hearing on the
bill, stating she has never worked so hard on any piece of
legislation trying to orchestrate all the various interests. She
said she finally realized she needed a sponsor substitute to
include the amendments but there are still a few more. The sponsor
statement reads:
HB 349: Act prohibiting the use of the title 'social
worker' without a license; relating to social workers and
to the Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners; and
providing for an effective date.
There are some key points on "Multi-level" licensure for
Social Workers in Alaska. First, it requires the State
of Alaska to recognize social work as a profession, and
social workers as professionals. The licensure of
professional social workers will protect the health,
safety and welfare of Alaskans through the effective
control and regulation of persons using the title of
social worker.
This bill will prohibit the use of the title "social
worker" for those who do not have a license, while
maintaining what is in current law that a person must be
licensed as a clinical social worker to practice clinical
social work.
As stated in the backup, this bill amends the current
statute by adding two additional levels of professional
social work licensure. Currently available in Alaska is
the following:
1. Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW), which requires
a Master's of Social Work Degree (MSW) or doctorate, and
two years of supervised experience.
This proposed legislation would add the following: (1) a
Licensed Master's Social Worker (LMSW), which requires a
MSW, and (2) a Licensed Bachelor's Social Worker (LBSW),
which requires a Bachelor's of Social Work degree (BSW).
This legislation establishes the minimum qualifications
for each level of social work licensure, and requires
that those practicing as professionals in the state of
Alaska hold a license. The bill also defines the duties
of the Board of Social Work Examiners; identifies those
individuals who are exempt from social work licensure in
Alaska; establishes the grounds on which the Board of
Social Work Examiners can impose disciplinary sanctions
on a licensee.
HB 349 provides for an exemption from social work
licensure, or optional licensing for individuals employed
under the title of "social worker" but who lack the
educational requirements. At the same time it is
designed to protect all people in Alaska by ensuring the
most positive, professional influence and direction
possible for vulnerable children and adults. Social Work
licensure will promote professional social work practices
by setting educational and ethical standards for
professional social workers, and by offering consumers a
legal recourse against unethical or damaging social work
services.
We must consider the responsibility of social workers to
have a healthy positive influence on their clients. I am
sponsoring this legislation because of my growing concern
about the quality of care provided for the people of
Alaska. As well, the State of Alaska has the goal and
the responsibility to provide the best care possible.
This legislation, I believe, will help us to achieve that
goal.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES emphasized at the beginning of her reading of
the sponsor statement that HB 349 is an Act prohibiting the use of
the title "social worker" without a license, but not the practice
of social work. After reading the statement, she re-stressed her
concern about people dealing with vulnerable children and adults,
making decisions affecting people for the rest of their lives. She
said she wants to be absolutely sure that these practitioners are
qualified to make those decisions, and if they have the opportunity
to make mistakes, there is some recourse for those people affected
by errors. She commented it has been difficult to coordinate the
various interests throughout the various agencies and
practitioners; they tried very hard to get a balanced piece of
legislation. Representative James noted Ms. Angela Salerno,
Executive Director, Alaska Chapter, National Association of Social
Workers (NASW), had worked very hard with her on this legislation
and asked that any technical questions about the inner workings of
the bill be directed toward Ms. Salerno.
Number 2255
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said in the Division of Family and Youth
Services (DFYS), Department of Health and Social Services (H&SS),
"social worker" is used as a job title. He asked if that was a
union description, noting he has been told "social worker" is
described in the union's contract.
Number 2269
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said other witnesses might correct her, but
she indicated she thought the drafting of the titles came from
administration by the state, and that the union, if it has interest
in these titles, received the titles from the state, not the other
way around. She reiterated this legislation does not seek practice
protection, only title protection at this point. She commented
that practice protection could be pursued if title protection works
well. She said practice protection really should be the goal,
stating, "Because if you're doing anything called a social worker,
or doing anything that isn't even called a social worker which is
really social work, that's another area where we should have the
consumer protection."
Number 2305
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said his only problem with SSHB 349 is the
exemption, Section 08.95.911, on page 10, relating the great
personal effort and personal expense he went to to receive the
necessary training and certifications in his fields as an aircraft
mechanic and licensed airline transport pilot. He indicated
grandfathering in people without the required educational
background didn't seem professional or fair to those people who had
made the effort and put in the work to attain the required
education, and he asked how that was justified. Section 08.95.911.
of the bill reads:
Section 08.95.911. Exemption. (a) Notwithstanding
AS 08.95.100(b)(1), a person who, on June 30, 2000, was
employed or providing services under the title "social
worker" may, without obtaining a license under this
chapter, continue to use the title "social worker" while
the person is employed by the same employer or, if self-
employed, while providing the same scope of services, as on June
30, 2000.
(b) The exemption under (a) of this section does not
authorize use of the title "social worker" outside the
context of the person's employment or self-employment, as
applicable.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person who is
employed by
(1) the federal government is not considered to
have changed employers if the person begins employment
with a different agency of the federal government;
(2) the state is not considered to have changed
employers if the person begins employment with a
different agency of the state;
(3) a municipality is not considered to have
changed employers if the person begins employment with a
different agency of the municipality.
Number 2361
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Ryan, but said the
reality of the issue is that people who are working for the state
fall into different categories: some do not have the educational
requirements, some have degrees in other fields, and some do have
the proper degree and would qualify for licensure. She commented
that the job security provision and union contracts were also a
concern, noting the union would be perfectly happy if the state
could provide education to bring these people up to the requested
level, but she said that is not a possibility. She stated,
therefore, there has to be a transition period as far as having
people out there qualified to do the work. There is probably a
current shortage of licensed social workers or those who qualify,
and the department has been working with the university to set up
specific types of classes, et cetera, so that those who are able
can bring up their skills. She indicated that someone who has been
doing social work in a department for ten or more years without
having the educational requirements probably has some level of
skill, but, because of financial limitations, would not be able to
take off from work to go to school. She said that was the reality
and a concession that had to be made in order to get started on
this program, noting that was her best explanation. Representative
James also commented they had worked very hard to get a zero fiscal
note for this legislation and she thought they had made all
necessary concessions, but had received a fiscal note that day for
$25,000 from the Division of Occupational Licensing.
Number 2439
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG invited Representative James to join the
committee at the table. He requested a brief explanation of the
fiscal note from Ms. Reardon.
Number 2460
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), came
forward to testify. She noted employees from the division staff
the Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners which would be taking
on the additional licensing responsibility for these two other
social worker levels. She said the explanation is on the second
page of the fiscal note; the division asks for a half-time
licensing examiner [$20,300] and $4,700 for ..." [TESTIMONY
INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
[From page 2 of division's fiscal note: Contractual Services,
$4,700. "This funding covers communication costs, public noticing,
printing, advertising and legal services to establish new
regulations."]
TAPE 98-31, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. REARDON continued, "... a brief explanation right below that,
which does indicate that occupational licensing programs are
required to cover fees to cover their costs so this would not be an
additional contribution to the budget balancing problem." She
added that there are currently 253 LCSWs. One licensing examiner
staffs the board dealing with those social workers and also staffs
the boards of Marital and Family Therapy, Psychologist and
Psychological Associate Examiners, State Physical Therapy and
Occupational Therapy Board, and State Athletic Commission. This
examiner estimates 20 to 30 percent of her time is currently being
spent with social work. Ms. Reardon stated she is concerned that
if she adds to this examiner's workload, the responsibility for the
State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board would have to
be removed in order for this examiner to deal with the 250
applicants the division estimates will be seeking licensure at
these other levels in the coming two years. Ms. Reardon commented
she has found in preparing fiscal notes that it is not possible to
ask for a quarter of a person, stating, "You either ask for no new
staff and say, 'I can absorb the function,' or you need to have
half. There's nothing in between." She indicated that sometimes
there are functions which take more staff work, causing problems,
but perhaps not reaching the threshold of half a position, and she
noted she had been somewhat in that place in this situation. Ms.
Reardon stated the other factor is that the licensing examiners
keep time sheets and bill the programs for time actually spent. If
half an examiner is not spent, particularly in later years after
the program is "up and going," social work would not continue to be
billed for that time. She also noted she hasn't asked for any new
investigative or enforcement resources, and it is possible that if
there are more complaints because there are more social work
licensees, some of the existing investigators would spend more time
with social work and that would show up in the social work fees.
Number 0113
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented he was not putting this particular
question on Ms. Reardon, noting he intended to speak with the
commissioners in the budget subcommittee. He referred to a
legislative audit done on DCED last year, which brought forth that
the department had attributed certain department costs to the
Division of Occupational Licensing. He said this was a nice way of
getting some extra money because the division "charges whatever the
traffic bears and if you incur a cost then you just increase the
fee, so there's a little bit of legerdemain that allows the
Department of Commerce to perhaps have a little more money for
discretion or to offset some of their - their costs on your
division, and therefore, have extra budget fund." He asked what
there was to insure them that something similar would not happen
with this program, that it would increase to 1 1/2 to 2 people,
therefore driving the cost up to not only these licensees, but
perhaps all of the licensees. Representative Ryan said he
understands there were a lot of fees this year because of a lawsuit
which went awry involving an airline pilot or something. He
stated, "(Indisc.) great increase in license fees this year, many
rumors running around (indisc.) cost, but ...."
Number 0162
MS. REARDON assured Representative Ryan that did not have to do
with anything outside the division's licensee areas, and had
nothing to do with aviation as the division does not license in
those areas. If the division has an additional half-time employee
and that person is used on some occupations in the division, she
agreed that someone will get billed for it. She said there will be
$25,000 in additional fees charged to someone in the division's
world of 35,000 licensees, noting it would not all necessarily go
to the social workers if it turns out and additional half person is
not necessary. Ms. Reardon indicated that person's time would be
billed to the programs actually receiving that time and those
programs would see fee increases. Referring to the issue brought
up in the legislative audit, which she said she thought had also
been had began to be addressed with the commissioner in her
confirmation hearing [House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee,
March 4, 1998], Ms. Reardon stated there are costs in the Division
of Administrative Services and the commissioner's office that are
assessed to the Division of Occupational Licensing. The
department's position is that these are reasonable costs associated
with having a Division of Occupational Licensing, and licensing
occupations. She noted costs, for example, in the Division of
Administrative Services of having, she stated, "A personnel and a
fiscal and a - a units, and that they do handle matters connected
with bills from Occupational Licensing or - or people that we hire,
and that the oversight from the commissioner's office is also a
cost of regulating professions, that if the division didn't exist
and we weren't regulating professions, then these activities would
not have to be engaged in by the commissioner's office. But as you
said there - there are other opportunities probably to discuss
this, (indisc.) probably want to discuss it in greater detail."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, "We're just want to be assure that, you
know, won't (indisc.--rest of sentence)."
Number 0259
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the management cost, personnel time
required, and number of people covered currently for this
occupational license.
MS. REARDON replied there are currently 253 people at the clinical
social worker level, the only level the division licenses. She
said, in terms of direct staff, there is one range 12 licensing
examiner spending an estimated 20 to 30 percent of her time
handling this program, in addition to the other programs Ms.
Reardon mentioned. She noted there is also part of a range 18
investigator who handles complaints related to the other behavioral
health programs: psychology, and marital and family therapy, as
well as dentists and optometrists.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the amount of the current biennial fee.
MS. REARDON replied $410.
Number 0312
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the stand-in teleconference monitor, Randy
Lorenz, an intern in Chairman Rokeberg's office and for the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, is studying for a degree in
social work at the University of Alaska Anchorage and therefore
Chairman Rokeberg's office has a keen interest in SSHB 349.
Number 0350
EILEEN LALLY, Deputy Director, Community Programs, Hope Cottages,
Incorporated, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of SSHB 349. She stated she has been a professional social
worker since 1970; coming to Alaska in 1973 and teaching at the
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) and the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF). She noted she had recently taken a sojourn to New
Mexico State University in Las Cruces. She is a LCSW, and has
worked with child protection and developmental disabilities in a
variety of areas with children and families. Speaking in support
of SSHB 349, she noted she has struggled for multi-level licensing
for well over 20 years. Ms. Lally stated she has served on the
board of directors for the NASW at two different times, once before
there was any licensing for social workers. She said,
unfortunately, during both of those times that board of directors
had to hear sanctions brought to NASW by community members who had
been egregiously treated by social workers. Ms. Lally stated the
problem has not been solved by licensing only at the LCSW level.
She indicated really the only policing action the NASW could take
then and currently is, if the offender is an NASW member, the
organization can exclude that person from membership in the
professional organization. Ms. Lally said that is not very
effective for consumer protection in terms of malpractice and
ethical issues, and that is the main reason she asks the committee
to pass this bill, so that the public will have some other recourse
as they do now with LCSWs. She noted there were also other reasons
she believes SSHB 349 should be passed.
Number 0468
BETH SIRLES, Chair, Department of Social Work, University of Alaska
Anchorage, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. She
provided background on bachelor's and master's level social workers
for the committee's understanding. There are two accredited
bachelor degree social work programs in Alaska, at UAA and UAF.
The University of Alaska Anchorage also has a master's level social
work program which is in the final stages of achieving
accreditation, graduating its first master's level social workers
in 1997. Both the Anchorage and Fairbanks campuses are working
very closely with DFYS to create educational opportunities for DFYS
social workers. She pointed out that professional education serves
some very significant functions, one of which is screening for
readiness to assume responsibility in a very complex field. She
indicated social workers deal on a daily basis with vulnerable
children and adults; specifically with child abuse and neglect,
domestic and family violence, substance abuse, poverty and many
other social problems. Professional education provides supervised
experience working with very complex problems. At the bachelor's
level, a social worker is trained in interviewing skills, case
management, crisis intervention, advocacy, problem solving; and
entry-level skills in working with individuals, families and
groups. Bachelor's level social workers have learned about human
development, understand public policy, and have been very carefully
supervised in learning the code of ethics which teaches what is and
is not appropriate conduct for social workers working with clients.
The bachelor's level prepares people for entry-level social work
practice. Ms. Sirles stated there is also very close supervision
and training in the code of ethics at the master's level, but
master's level training prepares people for advanced practice in a
variety of arenas; primarily in administration, program development
and evaluation, community organization, et cetera. A person with
a master's degree in social work is ready to work autonomously, and
to supervise entry-level practitioners. She noted both are very
important degrees; she said they support this bill because they
believe strongly that someone without the education should not be
practicing social work.
Number 0620
CECILIA KLEINKAUF testified next via teleconference from Anchorage
in support of SSHB 349. She stated she had been in Alaska since
1969 and has been practicing social work in one capacity or another
for all of that time. She noted she is a lawyer by profession as
well as a social worker. Ms. Kleinkauf stated she was on UAA's
faculty for many years, helping start UAA's baccalaureate social
work program and helping the program receive national
accreditation. For many years, as the committee has heard, they've
been trying to get public recognition for the social work
profession. She indicated they want social work recognized as a
profession, but more importantly, they want the clients who receive
services from social workers to have two assurances: 1) The person
providing services has had certain training and education, has
passed examinations, and been supervised adequately. This allows
the consumers of services to have some assurances the provider has
the necessary knowledge, and ethical base the consumer can trust.
2) Without licensing two levels, the client served by a provider
with a baccalaureate degree in social work, or a provider under the
master's degree in social work, has no place to go to actually get
a grievance addressed. She said they believe all social workers
should be licensed because consumers of social work services need
a place where their grievances can be heard if inadequate or
harmful services are received from someone practicing under the
title social worker.
Number 0700
MS. KLEINKAUF indicated that is one the benefits of licensure; the
establishment of a board that can hear, review and investigate
complaints and issue sanctions against a professional in any
profession who is not practicing adequately. Since 1988 LCSWs have
been licensed in Alaska, but she said probably four times as many
people in Alaska receive services from baccalaureate level and
master's level social workers, stating, "Who have not, because
licensing does not exist now for those two levels, have not been
able to be assured of those two requirements: both for someone who
is assured of meeting standards and someone who is subject to
review and possible sanctions by a board of examiners and a
licensing board." For those reasons as well as many others, she
said they would like to urge very swift passage of SSHB 349. She
thanked the committee for hearing the bill so soon, also thanking
Representative James for her hard work and support for what is
needed as the problems of abused and neglected children in Alaska
are grappled with, as well as the other clients served by social
workers including the mentally ill and senior citizens.
Number 0767
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he had questions about the Class B
misdemeanor penalty provided in the bill for the title misuse,
noting it seemed to be a relatively draconian penalty in terms of
licensure law. He referred to other sanctions and advisory groups,
asking about a commission.
Number 0793
MS. KLEINKAUF replied that the new licensees at the baccalaureate
and master's level would be licensed by the existing Board of
Clinical Social Work Examiners, whose functions are expanded under
this bill to issue those licenses as well as hear any complaints
about those new licensee groups, as the board currently does for
LCSWs. The licensees are responsible to that entity for their
standards of practice, and for review and sanctions should clients
complain about services.
Number 0866
COLLEEN PATRICK RILEY testified next via teleconference from
Anchorage in support of SSHB 349. She noted she is a lifelong
Alaska resident and has been employed as social worker for the past
25 years. She works in both nonprofit agencies with children and
families, and for the state of Alaska as a mental health clinician
for both the Division of Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities, H&SS, and the Department of Corrections. She was
chair of the NASW licensing committee at the time the 1988
licensure for LCSWs passed, and has served on the NASW board. She
has been a member of the Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners
since 1990 and is currently the board's chair. She is quite
familiar with the deficits in the current licensing statutes for
LCSWs and she believes this bill corrects those, as well as expands
and extends consumer protection to the citizens of Alaska. In
reality, thousands of consumers in Alaska are served by social
workers and are currently not really protected from that service.
As chair of the current board, she said they have had social
workers who have had sex with clients and have lost or surrendered
their licenses, but have still been able to continue practicing
because there is currently no practice protection for clinical
social work. She stated this bill, as she understands it, affords
practice and title protection to LCSWS, and title protection to
bachelor's and master's level social workers. She believes those
are critically important points in providing consumer protection,
stating the board itself fully supports like multi-level licensure
including the BSW, MSW and LCSW levels, with any additions or
amendments recommended by the Division of Occupational Licensing.
Number 0971
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if this would have any effect on
payment through Medicaid or Medicare, for example.
Number 0983
MS. PATRICK RILEY replied it was her understanding it would not,
noting Ms. Reardon might have other comments. She indicated she
thinks Medicaid currently has certain provisions for allowed
providers, and she knows that already certain individuals who could
be exempt under licensing statute have elected to become licensed
because, in nonprofit agencies in particular, they favor having
licensed individuals provide that service. She noted licensure is,
in fact, an advantage.
Number 1044
JOHN WATERS, President, Board of Directors, Alaska Chapter,
National Association of Social Workers; licensed clinical social
worker, testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of SSHB 349. Mr. Waters spoke from a prepared statement:
I am speaking in support of HB 349. I'm a Licensed
Clinical Social Worker and the current President of the
Board of Directors of the National Association of Social
Workers, Alaska Chapter. Our organization has a
membership of over 470 Alaskan social workers. I'm also
employed as the social worker at the Fairbanks Pioneers'
Home and I'm supervisor of Adult Protective Services for
the Northern Region. I believe passage of this
legislation will help our elders receive the highest
quality professional social work services possible.
Often in protective services, when a report of harm is
received a person is at significant risk because of abuse
or neglect. These persons are the most vulnerable
Alaskans and deserve the services of well-trained and
skilled social workers. When family members seek
assistance for a loved one in danger they need to know
the social worker they call on is someone who is
knowledgeable and competent to guide them through some
very difficult life decisions.
Positive aspects of this bill include that licensed
social workers will be held accountable to well-
established professional social work practice standards. These
standards are found in a social work code of ethics that was
established first in 1955 and extensively revised in 1996. To
protect consumers, licensing regulations provide a system to
investigate and address complaints against social workers. And
also, licensed social workers will have continuing education
requirements to maintain [and] enhance their professional skills.
I applaud Representative Jeannette James, the sponsor of
this bill, for her understanding of, and commitment to,
adequately trained and regulated Alaskan social workers.
And I also thank you, Representative Rokeberg for
allowing this bill to be heard so quickly in your
committee.
Number 1171
MARIANNE MILLS, National Association of Social Workers, came
forward to testify next in support of SSHB 349. She stated she is
a professional social worker working in the private sector with
senior citizens. Ms. Mills spoke from a prepared statement:
I'm here today to please urge you to support House Bill
349, Representative James' bill to license and limit the
title "social worker" to those who are properly trained.
This bill will protect Alaskans; those who receive
services as well as those who want to see their money
invested wisely.
At the current time the term "social worker" is used, not
to refer to a professional with a degree in social work,
but as a job title. The actions or failure to act by a
social worker often have significant effects on the
health and mental health of both individual clients and
their families. Regulation by licensing will hold social
workers accountable to one of the most comprehensive code
of ethics in the helping professions.
In light of concerns regarding Alaska's fiscal gap, it is
essential that money spent on services be used
effectively to assist people in providing for themselves
and to protect those at risk of harm. An effective way
to monitor our investment in social services is to
require the hiring of qualified social work personnel.
House Bill 349 will enforce standards for social work
practice and allow Alaskans to raise charges of
malpractice and complaints of improper conduct.
On behalf of all Alaskans, potential recipients of social
work services, I thank you for your consideration of my
request.
Number 1262
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON restated his previous question, "Will this
bill increase the opportunity for people of your profession and
people who would fall under this professional [designation] to have
access to Medicaid or Medicare, or other funds that they do not
have access to at the present time? That is, will this give us an
advantage of placing more of these professionals into the line for
Medicaid or Medicare, for example?"
MS. MILLS replied she did not know the answer to that question, but
confirmed raising the standards would not be a disadvantage.
Number 1305
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, "I'm not really sure if I can answer
that question, but I think our agency -- we got our people licensed
as clinical social workers so they could fall under the Medicaid --
I think that was one of the requirements. I'm not sure what a
master's level would do."
Number 1321
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG acknowledged Representative Ryan's comments,
stating he sees a clear case of "insurance creep" in this bill,
indicating this would need to be considered by the committee. He
asked Ms. Reardon if she had anything else to offer.
Number 1341
MS. REARDON stated she had some items written in amendment form she
viewed as minor and technical in nature, which she distributed to
the committee. These recommended amendments from the Division of
Occupational Licensing read: [Note: capitalization and punctuation
per amendment copy]
Amendment 1
Delete page 2, lines 18-20
Amendment 2
Page 7, following line 14, Insert
(d) The board may refuse to grant a license to any
applicant for the same reasons that it may impose
disciplinary sanctions under AS 08.95.050.
Amendment 3
delete page 7, lines 23-24
Amendment 4
Page 8, line 3, following "suspended", insert
or surrendered in lieu of disciplinary action
Page 8, line 24 same as above
Amendment 5
page 10, following line 2, insert
(c) As used in this section "health care or mental health
professional" means "practitioner of the healing arts" as
defined in AS 47.17.290(13)
Page 10, following line 11, insert
As used in this section "health care or mental health
professional" means "practitioner of the healing arts" as
defined in AS 47.17.290(13)
Number 1374
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she was unable to comment on these
proposed amendments because she had just seen them a few moments
ago.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon to explain the amendments.
Number 1387
MS. REARDON stated most were items she had gone over very briefly
a few days previously with the sponsor's aide, but had not been
typed up in amendment form at that time. Regarding the division's
amendment 1, she stated the Department of Law had commented the
lines being amended there had been repealed with HB 265 [HB 265 -
Reports & Records of & to State Agencies], reducing the number of
reports state agencies are required to make. She noted HB 265 had
passed relatively recently and was, she thought, currently in the
Governor's hands. The division's amendment 2 was suggested by the
Department of Law to augment the Board of Clinical Social Work
Examiners' ability to reject applicants it did not feel comfortable
with. She commented she thought this was a relatively innocuous
change, but has found the NASW may not want in included. Ms.
Reardon said it is not really important to her, stating that it is
just whether the legislature would like to have that option for
denial of license.
Number 1482
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to page 2, line 21, of the bill, noting
it seems to him that they have deleted the duties of the board by
deleting "imposing disciplinary sanctions." He asked if he had
missed something and was the division adding that back.
Number 1505
MS. REARDON said amendment 2 was on page 7, following line 14,
where the qualifications for licensure are discussed. This
amendment would allow the board to reject an applicant for the same
reasons it may discipline someone. She indicated the list of
disciplinary sanctions occurs on pages 3 and 4 of the bill,
beginning with line 19. The division's proposed amendment 3 was
also supplied by the Department of Law. It would delete lines 23
and 24 on page 7, "(3) has not failed the examination for a license
to practice clinical social work in this state;". The reasoning
for this deletion is that the new lines 25 and 26 on page 7 require
all the applicants to pass the examination. She explained that
previous to this bill it was licensing by credentials and that
language had been in there to prevent people from failing the test
in Alaska, getting licensed in another state and coming back to the
state to get in that way. The division's amendment 4 on page 8,
lines 3 and 24, goes back to grounds for denying a license,
suggesting the insertion of "or surrendered in lieu of disciplinary
action" after "suspended" in the bill's current language which
reads on line 3, "(6) has not had a license to practice clinical
social work revoked or suspended in this state or another
jurisdiction;" and on line 24, "(6) has not had a license to
practice social work or to use the title "social worker" revoked or
suspended in this state or another jurisdiction;". She noted
sometimes in other states people will turn in their licenses
instead of getting it disciplined and we might not want to have
those people come here either.
Number 1668
MS. REARDON referred to the division's amendment 5, deferring to
legislative drafters. She stated the Department of Law felt that
health care or mental health professional might need to be defined
and wasn't defined in the bill. The terms are used in the
confidentiality of communication and immunity sections; she said
there is a reference to information that is given or obtained from
health care or mental health professionals "and yet that they
weren't defined as what they are" so the suggestion is just to say
it is the same list of professionals already found in the bill as
practitioner of the healing arts, found on page 12, beginning line
6, which reads:
* Sec. 25. AS 47.17.290(13) is amended to read:
(13) "practitioner of the healing arts" includes
chiropractors, mental health counselors, social workers,
dental hygienists, dentists, health aides, nurses, nurse
practitioners, occupational therapists, occupational
therapy assistants, optometrists, osteopaths,
naturopaths, physical therapists, physical therapy
assistants, physicians, physician's assistants,
psychiatrists, psychologists, psychological associates,
audiologists licensed under AS 08.11, hearing aid dealers
licensed under AS 08.55, marital and family therapists
licensed under AS 08.63, religious healing practitioners,
acupuncturists, and surgeons;
MS. REARDON commented this includes all the people they would want
to consider health care and mental health professionals, and by
saying it is that same list they would have a definition in case
there is any question about who or who doesn't count.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented it is an ever expanding list.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG disagreed.
MS. REARDON noted she had had an additional amendment 6 which she
was convinced out of.
Number 1767
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON confirmed this was HB 349's first hearing in
the committee. He asked if the chairman wished to consider the
amendments.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG deferred to the sponsor's and staff's ability to
sort the amendments out.
Number 1813
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated there was another proposed amendment,
which read:
Page 4, line 17 before "engaged":
Insert "while practicing clinical social work"
The language to be amended begins on page 4, line 17, of SSHB 349
and currently reads:
(11) engaged in sexual contact with a person during the
time period that the person was a client or within two
years after termination of the licensee's professional
relationship with the client.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, "That was a real difficult (indisc.-
noise) -- the sexual contact issue was very difficult, and we put
it in and took it out, and put it in and took it out over the
period of time. ... That is a very important part of the
requirements to have a license, and it's in the ethics of the
licensure, so, it's already protected without putting it in the
bill, and so I'm comfortable with taking it out and there are some
interests in taking it out of the bill and so I have no problem
with that. And what I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if I might, is
that what I would like to see go through you as the chairman, if
you might, and staff, to go through these amendments and if you
wish to come back with a CS [committee substitute] I wouldn't have
any problem with that."
Number 1881
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated it might be more expeditious if the
sponsor provided the proposed committee substitute. He commented
there is one major question in his mind concerning Sections 24 and
25, relating to the definition of a social worker as a practitioner
of the healing arts and the proposed amendments. Chairman Rokeberg
stated that, unless she could convince him otherwise, he is
adamantly opposed to those sections. His reason, as he indicated
earlier, is "insurance creep," the problems of health insurance in
Alaska, and the "whole global issue of it." He said he is not sure
why they are even getting into that there and he was assured
previously that is not the bill's intention, noting he doesn't
consider social workers practitioners of healing arts "for terms of
insurance purposes." Section 24, page 11, beginning line 21,
reads: [Note: bracketed, capitalized text is being deleted;
Section 25 was shown above]
*Sec. 24. AS 47.17.020(a) is amended to read:
(a) The following persons who, in the performance of
their occupational duties, have reasonable cause to
suspect that a child has suffered from harm as a result
of child abuse or neglect shall immediately report the
harm to the nearest office of the department:
(1) practitioners of the healing arts;
(2) school teachers and school administrative
staff members of public and private schools;
(3) [SOCIAL WORKERS;
(4)] peace officers[,] and officers of the
Department of Corrections;
(4) [(5)] administrative officers of
institutions;
(5) [(6)] child care providers;
(6) [(7)] paid employees of domestic violence
and sexual assault programs, and crisis intervention and
prevention programs as defined in AS 18.66.990;
(7) [(8)] paid employees of an organization
that provides counseling or treatment to individuals
seeking to control their use of drugs or alcohol.
Number 2001
ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director, Alaska Chapter, National
Association of Social Workers, came forward to testify next. She
stated this provision's inclusion is not about insurance at all; it
is about some of the duties or responsibilities of practitioners of
the healing arts, and came as a request from the LCSW licensing
board. Those individuals who are practitioners of the healing arts
are able, without parental permission, to send a child for a
medical exam or x-ray, or to take a picture of a child. She
explained the thinking was that is certainly what a DFYS social
worker and a professional social worker should be doing, and that
is why they are trying to make the change. Referring to Section
24, she noted "social worker" is being removed from the list of
mandatory reporters of child abuse in order to avoid redundancy
because practitioners of the healing arts are mandatory reporters.
She note she does not believe "practitioner of the healing arts" is
a term associated with insurance but she could be wrong. She
reiterated that certainly was not their intent.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented it was a whole different statute.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he knew, but commented this committee was
the "gatekeeper."
Number 2120
MS. SALERNO said a division representative was present and might be
able to more definitively answer the chairman's question.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested this be taken up when the bill was
brought back before the committee, indicating SSHB 349 would be
held, and said he was not convinced at this juncture "if that's the
reason, if a ... [DFYS] social worker is to refer a child for some
medical treatment, I still am not sure I am convinced that's an
appropriate reason to change their definition ...." He stated the
committee would open-minded on this, but he referred to several
current bills "attempting to add themselves as a profession to the
list of people who qualify for reimbursement by medical insurance
carriers, ... and that is, I view as a very negative thing to the
consumers of the state of Alaska because of the chilling effect it
has on insurance companies underwriting business and providing for
insurance for the people of the state of Alaska."
Number 2200
MS. SALERNO reiterated that certainly was not their intent.
Number 2207
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that was his reason for pointing it out
and why he looks with a jaundiced eye upon things of this nature
that could be interpreted as insurance creep. He indicated he
wished the committee to be convinced otherwise. Chairman Rokeberg
asked if there were any further questions of Representative James
or Ms. Salerno. There being none, he stated SSHB 349 would be held
for further consideration.
Number 2258
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a three-minute at ease at 4:55 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 4:57 p.m. [THE TAPE WAS CHANGED
DURING THE AT EASE]
TAPE 98-32, SIDE A
Number 0001
HB 399 - EXEMPT/DEFERRAL DETERIORATED PROPTY TAX
Number 0005
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was HB 399, "An Act relating to an optional exemption from, and
deferral of payment of, municipal taxes on deteriorated property,
and defining 'deteriorated property' for purposes of the exemption
or deferral; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0021
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN, the bill sponsor, presented HB 399. He noted
it was a four-paragraph bill which would add a tool to Title 29,
indicating that the states of West Virginia, Missouri, Arizona,
Florida, and New York have done the same thing. He said it
basically "puts another tool in the box" of a municipality; it is
an option, nothing requires the municipality to do anything.
Representative Ryan noted this is related to deteriorated property,
indicating this type of property was found quite a bit in the Lower
48 because of rent control. He said owners could not maintain
buildings so they took the rent, letting the buildings deteriorate
until completely unserviceable, and then walked away. He gave the
example of Detroit, Michigan, noting the whole downtown area had
blocks and blocks of shells of buildings that were once good
apartment and office buildings, commenting that it looked like
Berlin after World War II. He indicated municipal governments have
added a tax incentive to encourage people to renovate these types
of buildings, making the structures useful again. If the building
was torn down, the resulting lot lacking any improvements might
generate $50 or $60 in property taxes annually, but if the building
was renovated, the improvements would be there, and the property
value increased substantially. The taxes and assessments would
then correspondingly go up.
Number 0189
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated the governing body receives revenue,
the neighborhood improves, and so forth; and the structure of the
arrangement would be entirely up to the municipality. The
governing body would have to pass an ordinance and would be acting
somewhat like a banker. The property owner would come in saying,
"Here's what I'd like to do, and here's what I need." The
governing body would then reach an agreement with the property
owner. He noted there would be a great deal of latitude; it could
be done up to five years and could be renewed under conditions
established by ordinance. Representative Ryan indicated there was
really not a downside because nobody would be required to do
anything, it would just be a tool allowing the governing body the
latitude to improve the community. He commented about the large
amount of information in the bill packet, referring to a "chiding"
from the chairman that perhaps he had not had his staff work hard
enough in the past. Representative Ryan noted there were plenty of
examples from other jurisdictions where this had been done, letters
of support, and a resolution in favor from the Municipality of
Anchorage assembly. The sponsor statement read:
The intent of this bill is to authorize local
municipalities to provide for tax exemption for
improvements to deteriorated real property. The concept
is based on other states' local economic revitalization
tax programs. Local municipalities will have the
flexibility of allowing renovations of real property in
order to increase the value of that real property, for
tax purposes.
Number 0331
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY mentioned a locked-up, pink building in
downtown Anchorage in relation to this legislation, noting he
assumed taxes were currently being paid on it.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented he thought the estate of McKay (ph)
and Sullivan (ph) was.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he thought Sullivan (ph) had bought the
property, and he asked if HB 399 would encourage that development
if "they were encourageable."
Number 0372
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN answered that, correspondingly, the "L" Street
Towers, just next to 501 "L" Street, was an exact duplicate of the
McKay (ph) building.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he was in Anchorage when both
buildings were built, and during the 1964 earthquake.
Number 0387
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that then the building should be
structurally sound. He said, according to some information he had
received, someone from the state of New Jersey bought the building
for $25,000 from the bank in Seattle and surreptitiously removed
the asbestos, which, he said, was now in the borough landfill. He
indicated the building was now a much more attractive renovation
prospect and would be a prime example of how a deteriorated
property could be brought back into use. He noted there were a
number of options - it could be an office building, condos, et
cetera. It would produce an income and would certainly beautify
the neighborhood. Representative Ryan said he thinks the
municipality owns a couple of adjacent lots so that property would
also increase in value.
Number 0466
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he was assuming the current statutes
precluded this from happening.
Number 0477
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN referred to Title 29, Section 45.050, optional
exemptions and exclusions, indicating he been unable to find a
exemption relating to "private property." He reiterated that this
would be an option, nobody would have to do anything.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated he liked the legislation.
Number 0541
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that there were no teleconferenced
witnesses for HB 399. He asked Representative Ryan if this bill
had been a request from the Municipality of Anchorage, or where it
had come from.
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated it had been suggested by an
individual in Anchorage, noting he had examined it and did not see
where it could hurt anyone.
Number 0588
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed it had not been on the Municipality of
Anchorage's list of priorities.
Number 0595
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented that Representative Hudson's
district, Juneau, would be prime for something like this since a
lot of the housing had been constructed in the 1920s.
Number 0605
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that HB 399 would provide the
moratorium for real property taxes so those monies could be
redirected to upgrading the properties and things of that nature,
indicating he was familiar with the McKay (ph) building.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY mentioned the "L" Street apartments.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that, questioning what the other building
had been called. He commented it had formerly housed Channel 2,
and that he had gone to dances there in high school.
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, noted it was the McKinley (ph) building.
Number 0654
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that the "rebar" and (indisc.) steel in
the very heavy concrete might be in jeopardy because damage from
the 1964 earthquake had not been repaired.
Number 0666
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented he had been in that building
within the last five years and it was not structurally sound.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON confirmed Representative Cowdery was
referring to the McKay (ph) building.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY answered in the affirmative.
Number 0706
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated to the committee that Steve Van Sant had
signed up to testify on HB 399 via teleconference but was no longer
on-line. Chairman Rokeberg asked Representative Ryan if he had
spoken with the state assessor about this.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN's reply was indiscernible.
Number 0747
STEVE VAN SANT, State Assessor, Division of Municipal and Regional
Assistance, Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA)
signed up to testify via teleconference from Anchorage on HB 399
but had to leave before the bill was heard.
KIM METCALFE-HELMAR, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Community and Regional Affairs, came forward to
testify. She stated she would read Mr. Van Sant's testimony into
the record, and would be happy to forward any questions to him.
Mr. Van Sant's statement read:
HB 399 would allow municipalities to exempt or defer, in
whole or in part, property taxes on the value of
deteriorated property for a period of up to five years
and allow renewal after the initial period.
"Deteriorated property" has three definitions under the
proposed legislation; 1) property that's been the
subject of an order by a government agency requiring the
property to be vacated, condemned or demolished by reason
of non-compliance with laws, ordinances or regulations.
Under existing law, property is to be valued at its full
and true value, which is synonymous with the term "market
value." If a property is suffering from the condition
described in Section 1, the assessed value should also be
reflective of that condition under existing law. In
other words, the value, if carried on the assessment
roll, should be minimal.
The second definition: 2) property on which a structure
or other improvement not less than 15 years of age has
undergone substantial rehabilitation, renovation, or
replacement, subject to conditions prescribed in the
ordinance;
This subsection appears to offer an exemption for
property over 15 years old which has been renovated or
replaced. No definition is given for what constitutes a
renovation or substantial rehabilitation, however, it
appears that someone remodeling a home could qualify
under this exemption. The exemption also appears to be
an after the fact exemption in that it is given after the
condition of deterioration has been removed. This
exemption will place additional tax burdens on other
taxpayers for the revenue lost due to the property's
renovation, even though it is receiving the same
services.
The last definition: 3) property located in a
deteriorating or deteriorated area with boundaries that
have been determined by the municipality.
This subsection does not define the term, "deteriorating
or deteriorated area", but could exempt property within
that area. This could have the effect of exempting
property which may not be deteriorated as defined in the
previous two definitions, but may just happen to be in
the area. Again, this shifts the tax burden to other
taxpayers who are receiving the same municipal services
as the affected property.
Number 0906
MS. METCALFE-HELMAR noted the next subject of Mr. Van Sant's
testimony had been brought up in the committee's questioning.
Under existing statutes a municipality may exempt the
increase of property taxes if the increase is directly
attributable to new maintenance, repair or renovation, AS
29.45.050(f). And a municipality may exempt certain
"economic development" property within the jurisdiction,
AS 29.45.050(m).
These statutes allow an exemption for which renovation
action has taken place rather than the proposed bill
which could conceivably allow an owner to sit on the
property without any action for up to five years.
Based on the fact that municipalities already have the
exemption authority mentioned above, there is a question
of whether or not this proposed legislation is necessary.
If the legislature finds that it is, indeed, necessary,
I ["Mr. Van Sant" stated by Ms. Metcalfe-Helmar on tape]
would recommend that the property tax deferral be made
available rather than the exemption. The deferral would
assure the municipality of ultimately receiving the taxes
on the property even if the property owner chose not to
continue with renovation plans. With today's dwindling
revenues, local municipalities need all the help they can
get. A deferral of taxes would not be a total loss of
these revenues.
Number 0990
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that the committee had obtained a copy
of the testimony.
Number 1013
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League, came
forward to testify. He thanked the sponsor for bringing the bill
forward and the spirit in which the bill was offered, noting it was
offered as a voluntary property tax ordinance. He said the Alaska
Municipal League policy statement says that generally voluntary
property tax exemptions are acceptable, because they give the local
people and community the option to decide. He said the exemption
provided in HB 399 goes a bit farther than that by kind of
providing an open framework so that the local community would have
a lot of discretion to design something which would be most
acceptable for that community. Referring to the economic
development property tax exemption, he noted Juneau, for example,
crafted a five-year progressive property tax exemption for
construction of export industry capability. He said a downtown
fish processor and a local brewery expanded, and were exempted 100
percent of their property tax increase on the new construction for
five years and then that progressively decreased over a period of
five years, but gave them the chance to get their feet on the
ground. He said it was possible these companies might not have
expanded without that incentive, or that at least they were much
more eager to do so.
Number 1104
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON confirmed the Alaska Municipal League
supported HB 399.
MR. RITCHIE answered in the affirmative.
Number 1113
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated he appreciated Mr. Van Sant's testimony,
noting, however, that Mr. Van Sant presented a lot of suppositions.
Representative Ryan brought the committee's attention to the first
line of the bill, "A municipality may by ordinance partially or
totally". If the municipality wants to "cut a deal," it has to
answer to its voters for any loss of revenue for whatever kind of
deal made; nothing at all would be mandated by this legislation.
If a municipality chose to enter into something and it turned out
to be a bad deal resulting in a property increase, he is sure the
municipality would hear about it. He said they hear a lot of
testimony from environmental organizations telling them the sky is
falling because something could, or would, or perhaps might happen.
He said so far he hasn't burned up from the hole in the ozone layer
in 61 1/2 years and might survive another few years without doing
so.
Number 1190
MS. METCALFE-HELMAR noted that DCRA does not oppose HB 399; Mr. Van
Sant simply wanted to point out concerns he had with the
legislation.
Number 1199
MR. RITCHIE commented that his reading of the bill leads him to
believe the flexibility is there, as Representative Ryan stated,
for a municipality to address all of those concerns.
Number 1210
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he had been approached by the Municipality
of Anchorage to introduce some bills. He commented that one was
"Priority of Liens for Building Abatement and Demolitions," which
would give a lien priority for dangerous buildings. Another one
was "Real Property Tax Collection of Contaminated Property" which
exempted the municipalities from taking title on (indisc.)
foreclosures on contaminated properties, noting currently the state
was exempt but the municipalities were not necessarily. Chairman
Rokeberg asked if Representative Ryan would be interested in
"tacking them on" to HB 399.
Number 1265
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated HB 399 was a fairly simple bill,
indicating he would like to transmit it to the Senate as soon as
possible to see if it met with agreement there. He noted adding
something else complicated the issue.
Number 1276
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that they were in the same genre of
municipal-type tax bills and that was his reason for bringing it
up. He confirmed Representative Ryan's preference would be to keep
it simple.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN answered in the affirmative, noting for the
time being at least.
Number 1293
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move HB 399 out of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee with individual
recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note, asking unanimous
consent.
Number 1309
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, he stated HB 399 was so moved.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1314
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|