02/02/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB93 | |
| HB90 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 2005
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to dentists and dental hygienists and the Board
of Dental Examiners; establishing certain committees for the
discipline and peer review of dentists; excluding the
adjudicatory proceedings of the Board of Dental Examiners and
its committees from the Administrative Procedure Act and from
the jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 90
"An Act requiring warrants drawn by the Department of
Administration against the state treasury to be negotiable
instruments."
- MOVED HB 90 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 93
SHORT TITLE: DENTISTS AND DENTAL HYGIENISTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ANDERSON
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
01/28/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/28/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/02/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 90
SHORT TITLE: STATE TREASURY WARRANTS
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) L&C, STA
02/02/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JON BITTNER, Staff
Representative Anderson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 93 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Anderson.
DR. GEORGE SCHAFFER, Dentist, and Member,
Executive Council of Alaska Dental Society
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 93.
DR. ROBINSON, Dentist, and Member,
Board of Dental Examiners
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 93.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained HB 90.
KIM GARNERO, Director,
Division of Finance
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 90, offered additional
information.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:21:31 PM. Representatives Lynn,
Ledoux, Guttenberg, Kott were present at the call to order.
Representative Crawford is still in Anchorage, Alaska. Today we
have two bills, HB 93 and HB 90. We do not plan on taking the
bills out of committee today.
HB 93-DENTISTS AND DENTAL HYGIENISTS
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to dentists and dental
hygienists and the Board of Dental Examiners; establishing
certain committees for the discipline and peer review of
dentists; excluding the adjudicatory proceedings of the Board of
Dental Examiners and its committees from the Administrative
Procedure Act and from the jurisdiction of the office of
administrative hearings; and providing for an effective date."
3:22:59 PM
JON BITTNER, Staff to Representative Anderson, started off by
stating that the committee should have a CS for HB 93.
CHAIR ANDERSON moved to adopt the CSHB 93, Version 24-LS0384/G,
for discussion purposes. There being no objection, Version G
was before the committee.
3:23:34 PM
MR. BITTNER began by stating that there were five amended
sections. The first one is on page 11, after 'dentistry' where
we added 'dental hygiene', and on line 13, we added 'dental
hygienists'. Page three, line 7-9, adds the words " threatens or
compromises patient care, has the potential to compromise
patient care, or after disability'. We added this into the bill
to protect against discrimination. Page five, lines 18-20, we
add 'a copy of the summary published under this paragraph shall
be delivered to the named licensee if possible the delivery will
be by electronic mail or facsimile'. Page ten, line one, has
been amended to add 'a mediator approved by the board', to
replace 'either a dentist or attorney licensed to practice in
the state'. This has been added to allow dentists to serve as
mediators. This amendment is something of an oversight from when
the bill was first legislated.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked Mr. Bittner to sum up why his staff
sponsors the bill.
MR. BITTNER stated that basically, this brings the expertise of
dentists and hygienists to the process of reviews, complaints,
within the industry. It also empowers the dental board to impose
remedial measures and disciplinary actions. It gives the board
the authority to refer certain types of complaints to a peer
review committee, and more serious complaints will go to a
disciplinary committee. The board will have the authority to
suspend licenses of those that endanger the public health. It
will add uniform standards to the dental practice in Alaska. It
gives patients a peer review process to address their concerns.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if Mr. Bittner could give an example of
what would happen within the new process should a crime be
committed by a dentist.
MR. BITTNER stated that one of the things that HB 90 addresses
is the availability of drug and alcohol treatment. This gives a
dentist that has a drinking problem, the family can intervene on
his behalf and go to the board who then can ask the dentist to
seek help or suffer penalties.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that the great thing about this is that it
has fellow dentists analyze these problems. Its like youth court
for young offenders.
MR. BITTNER said that they understand the problems best and they
also understand the techniques that are desirable in dentistry.
3:28:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what kind of physical or mental
disability would not threaten patient care.
MR. BITTNER stated that a disorder like Tourette's Syndrome
could be an example. He then retorted that it has not been
specifically laid out.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN understood this but acknowledged that he was
not sure if he wanted a dentist working on his teeth while
yelling out expletives.
MR. BITTNER answered absolutely and commented that there are
many less severe mental disorders that are out there. He then
commented that it would be up to the board to make this
determination.
CHAIR ANDERSON took this further and stated that dyslexia is an
example of an affliction that is less severe. He then goes to
public discussion.
3:30:11 PM
DR. GEORGE SCHAFFER, licensed dentist for the past 25 years,
member of the executive council of Alaska Dental Society, began
by stating that he had a roommate in dental school who was
certified paranoid. He was worried that the world was out to get
him, and that despite this mental disorder, he was able to
function in the profession and run a successful practice. His
problems did not affect his patients. They affected his personal
being only.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked what Dr. Schaffer thought of as the merits
of the bill before the committee today.
DR. GEORGE SCHAFFER started off by stating that dentistry is a
very different profession. Medicine, law, and engineering are
almost always practiced in groups. Dentistry is practiced alone
in a single office. Dentists do not have other professionals
looking over their shoulders. The concern here is that they rely
on the state licensing board to judge the dentist's practicing
ability. He went on to say that when he served on the board, a
complaint would come in, and it was investigated by someone in
law who would then hand it over to the board. The board does not
see the name or any of the evidence. They get what the
investigator has related in the summation. They also get an
advisory opinion on any action that should be taken. The problem
here is that the board has no name, no evidence, and no real
part in the investigation. The professionals need to see the
evidence before they are forced to make a decision against a
fellow dental practitioner.
DR. SCHAFFER went on to say that the new bill does this and
defines the standards how the evidence is gathered and how it is
handled when it is in the state's hands. He finished by stating
that this bill allows the president or vice president of the
board to 'triage a complaint'. If it is something very serious,
the board as a whole will deal with the complaint. If it is less
severe, like polishing teeth when not permitted to do so, then
these issues are put into peer review or a disciplinary
committee. The president of the board would decide the severity
of the complaints and the penalties. One of the three groups:
the peer review, the disciplinary committee, or the whole board
itself will address the issues.
CHAIR ANDERSON decided that unless there was a pressing
question, he would ask Dr. Schaffer to be available next time
the bill is heard.
3:37:55 PM
DR. ROBINSON, general dentist in Alaska for 40 years, member on
the board of Dental Examiners, added two things to the testimony
given by Dr. Schaffer. He started by stating that is possible
that a case be dismissed after review. The other thing is that
this bill puts in writing the program for substance abuse that
is available and gives it further credibility.
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that his staff and Mr. Urion at the
Department of Occupational Licensing would work on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the chair was expecting
substantial rewrite from Mr. Urion.
CHAIR ANDERSON answered that he did not think so. He then
announced that he was holding public testimony until next time.
[HB 93 was held over.]
HB 90-STATE TREASURY WARRANTS
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 90, "An Act requiring warrants drawn by the
Department of Administration against the state treasury to be
negotiable instruments."
3:40:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that HB 90 simply makes state warrants negotiable
instruments. The state pays its bills with warrants. He
informed the committee that the question as to whether these
warrants are legally negotiable instruments under the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) arose. The Alaska Supreme Court case,
Univentures [National Bank of AK v. Univentures 1231 (1/24/92),
824 P 2d 1377] case, to hold that warrants are negotiable
instruments. In the aforementioned case the banks were put in
the position in which the state would say the warrants weren't
negotiable instruments, and therefore the banks would be left
"holding the bag." Representative Gruenberg specified that a
warrant is similar to a check and the state still pays its
employees with warrants. He informed the committee that this
legislation was introduced last year, went through the House
State Affairs Standing Committee and passed the full House and
proceeded to the Senate Rules Standing Committee, where it
resided. He said that he wasn't aware of any objection to this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to how the state failed to
honor its instruments.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered that being a warrant, the
state took the position that they weren't instruments and the
dishonor provisions of the UCC didn't apply. He recalled
introducing legislation on this back in the mid 1980s. The
state was so opposed to this, that it took the banks taking the
matter to the Alaska Supreme Court where it upheld that the
warrants were negotiable instruments.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that she was asking why the
state was not honoring its own warrants.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG specified that it would depend upon the
individual warrant. The state may have felt the vendor was
supplying defective merchandise, for instance, and thus didn't
want to honor the warrant. He recalled that in the Univentures
case the state was a tenant in an office building owned by
Univentures. There was a dispute between the partners of
Univentures and the state was notified that it shouldn't pay the
monthly rent to one of the partners of Univentures, which
resulted in the state stopping payment on the warrant. The
state was directed to hold the rent in abeyance until a court
appointed receiver was named. Meanwhile, National Bank of
Alaska had paid out $28,143.47. Representative Gruenberg noted
that the aforementioned wasn't the largest warrant that was
dishonored.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that the state has followed
the court ruling and this legislation merely inserts conforming
language in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed.
3:48:44 PM
KIM GARNERO, Director, Division of Finance, Department of
Administration, confirmed that this legislation simply codifies
in statute the earlier mentioned 1992 Alaska Supreme Court. The
case meant that warrants should be treated as checks in the
banking industry. Since that decision, the state has
administered its warrants as negotiable instruments, and
therefore no administrative changes are necessary if this
legislation passes.
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining there were no questions or
witnesses, closed public testimony.
3:50:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved to report HB 90 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
3:50:48 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|