Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/26/1996 03:10 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 26, 1996
3:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearing on Governor's Appointments: State Medical
Board; Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives, Board of Nursing;
Occupational Safety and Health Review Board; Board of Pharmacy;
State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board; Board of
Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners; Real Estate
Commission; Alaska Public Utilities Commission; Alaska Workers'
Compensation Board; Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
HOUSE BILL NO. 73
"An Act relating to licensure of manicurists."
- PASSED CSHB 73(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 432
"An Act relating to the practice of veterinary medicine."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 73
SHORT TITLE: LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 39 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 39 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 39 (H) HES, L&C, FIN
01/16/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/16/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/16/96 2789 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 4DP 2NR
02/16/96 2789 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, TOOHEY, ROBINSON, BRICE
02/16/96 2789 (H) NR: ROKEBERG, BUNDE
02/16/96 2789 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
02/26/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 432
SHORT TITLE: VETERINARY LICENSING
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/19/96 2484 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/19/96 2485 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE
02/15/96 2772 (H) STA RPT 1DP 5NR
02/15/96 2772 (H) DP: JAMES
02/15/96 2772 (H) NR: PORTER, GREEN, ROBINSON, WILLIS
02/15/96 2772 (H) NR: OGAN
02/15/96 2772 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
02/15/96 2772 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
02/15/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/26/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Staff
House Labor and Commerce Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3306
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave information on the appointment of Clair
Ramsey to the Alaska Real Estate Commission.
Explained HB 432.
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: Gave information on the appointment of Clair
Ramsey to the Alaska Real Estate Commission.
Testified on HB 73. Testified in support of
HB 432.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 426
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465- 3466
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 73.
DAGMAR STRANAK, Owner
Classic Nails Plus More
4900 Palmer-Wasilla Highway
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 373-8477
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 73.
STORMY JOSTEN, Nail Technician
Classic Nails Plus More
4900 Palmer-Wasilla Highway
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 373-8477
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 73.
JO ELLEN HANRAHAN, Masseuse
P.O. Box 240484
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 586-9562
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 73.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-13, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was called to order
by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:10 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Sanders, Masek, Porter, Rokeberg and
Kott. Representative Elton arrived at 3:13 p.m. Representative
Kubina arrived at 3:15 p.m.
Number 066
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced the committee would address the
Governor's appointments to the various boards and commissions.
The first board the committee addressed was the State Medical
Board. Chairman Kott announced the people being appointed were
Keith Brounsberger, Beverly Fletcher, Donald Hudson, Sarah Isto,
Suzanne Lombardi and Donald Olson. He asked if there was an
objection to the appointments. There was no objection.
Number 149
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to move the State Medical
Board slate of names. There being no objection, the slate of names
were moved.
Number 151
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment the committee would
address would be Marilyn Homes to the Board of Certified Direct-
Entry Midwives. He asked if there was an objection. There was no
objection.
Number 183
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK made a motion to move the slate of
one. Hearing no objection, the slate was moved.
Number 214
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment the committee would
address would be Josephine Malemute to the Board of Nursing. He
asked if there was an objection. There was no objection.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS made a motion to move the Board of
Nursing appointee. Hearing no objection, the slate was moved.
Number 266
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment the committee would
address would be Timothy Sharp to the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Board. He asked if there was an objection. There
was no objection.
Number 317
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to move the appointee, Timothy
Sharp, to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board. Hearing
no objection, the nominee was moved.
Number 331
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment would be Chris Coursey
to the Board of Pharmacy. He asked if there was an objection.
There was no objection.
Number 356
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to move the nominee, Chris
Coursey, to the Board of Pharmacy. Hearing no objection, the
nominee was moved.
Number 378
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment would be Leslie
Schwartz to the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy
Board. He asked if there was an objection. There was no
objection.
Number 389
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to move Leslie F. Schwartz to
the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board. Hearing
no objection, the appointment was moved.
Number 410
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next appointment would be Gail Shortell
to the Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners.
He asked if there was an objection. There was no objection.
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move the slate of one person.
Hearing no objection, the slate of one moved.
Number 454
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address the
appointments to the Real Estate Commission. He said the five
nominees are Ruth Blackwell, Linda Freed, Eleanor Oakley, Clair
Ramsey and Larry Spencer.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said he had raised question with
staff about the time of Mr. Ramsey's appointment. There is an
expiration date of January 31, 1996.
GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Staff, House Labor and Commerce
Committee, explained he has made inquiries regarding Mr. Ramsey.
He said Mr. Ramsey was appointed for the dates indicated in the
letter located in the committee packets. As far as he has been
able to determine, there has been no subsequent appointment. As a
consequence, Mr. Ramsey is not technically on the board at this
time. Mr. Dozier said he made inquiries to Boards and Commissions
as well as the House chief clerk. The chief clerk is currently
looking into the matter. Mr. Dozier said he spoke to the
Legislative Legal Division and their opinion was that since the
expiration date of the appointment has expired, the individual was
no longer on the board and, therefore, cannot be confirmed by the
legislature. Legal counsel also indicated that the matter
shouldn't be ignored and perhaps modifying the normal report to
indicate that the committee has considered the matter and found
that the individual is not on the board and is not available for
confirmation pending further appointment.
Number 670
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would be disappointed if the
committee took action that would in any way embarrass Mr. Ramsey.
He noted Mr. Ramsey is one of the more outstanding practitioners of
the real estate profession in the state of Alaska. He said he
thinks the committee would be doing the state and the people a
disservice if the appointment matter wasn't cleared up
procedurally. He said he would like to hear from the
Administration.
Number 758
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, said Mr. Dozier
has brought the issue to her attention. She informed the committee
she has called the Governor's office and they explained that when
Mr. Ramsey was appointed, it was to complete the remainder of a
term which ended on the January 31, 1996. At this point, the
intention is to reappoint him for another term, but the Governor
hadn't actually taken that action yet. She suggested setting the
issue aside until the following week.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA moved that the appointments be set aside.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the Real Estate Commission appointments would be
set aside waiting further clarification from the Governor's office
on his intent.
Number 823
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next slate of names up for confirmation
would be Sam Cotten and G. Nanette Thompson to the Alaska Public
Utilities Commission. He asked if there was an objection to the
appointments. There was no objection.
Number 950
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved the slate of Sam Cotten and G.
Nanette Thompson to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was objection. Hearing none, that
slate was moved.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address the
appointments of Harriet Lawlor, Nancy Ridgley and James Williams to
the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board. He asked if there was an
objection to those appointments.
Number 874
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted one of the appointments was a short
appointment good until July 1, 1996.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS moved that the three nominees to the Alaska
Workers' Compensation Board be moved.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, it
was so ordered.
Number 911
CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee the last appointments the
committee would address would be Joseph Thomas, Jr.,
Operator/Owner, Triangle Club and Owner, Alaska Cache Liquor from
Juneau, to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move Joseph Thomas to the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. There being no objection, that
member was moved.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said in accordance with AS 39.05.080, and a
subsequent statute, signing off the sheet on each one of these
members does not reflect an intent by any of the members to vote
for or against these individuals during any further sessions for
the purposes of confirmation.
HB 73 - LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS
Number 1039
CHAIRMAN KOTT informed the committee the next order of business
would be HB 73, "An Act relating to licensure of manicurists," by
Representative Brice.
Number 1061
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, Sponsor of HB 73, explained the issue was
brought to his attention by some of his constituents in Fairbanks
who pointed out the fact that Alaska is one of only eight states,
nationally, that in no way regulates or oversees the practice of
manicure. He indicated this does pose a fairly important public
health question that must be addressed. Representative Brice
indicated in the committee file there is some information from the
Federal Drug Administration relating to manicuring and some of the
associated public health risks. He said his concern is that any
time you're taking sharp objects and playing with people's fingers
and toes, at some point in time there is the opportunity to have
problems, and in some cases it could be extreme. Representative
Brice noted there have been cases reported to him, anecdotally,
about people's fingernails and fingers getting disturbed. This was
because the practices of people doing the procedures were in no way
over looked.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained HB 73 would provide the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers to establish the standards and approve the
licensing of people who do practice manicure. He pointed out a
couple of issues have been brought to his attention. There is one
amendment relating to the clarity of the definition of
"manicuring," which would be on page 6, lines 20 through 24. It
wasn't clear as to what was and wasn't exempt. The proposed
amendment clarifies that issue. There was also a question raised
relating to a person who specializes in foot massage and if they
had to clip toenails, would they be prohibited. Representative
Brice said he isn't sure of the answer, but it might be an issue
the committee would want to take up.
Number 1294
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked Representative Brice if he would
object to a motion to change "manicurist" to "personicurist."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he thinks "manicurist" would be the
proper term.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said generally speaking, he thinks there are more
women who are manicurists.
Number 1367
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned the figures in the HESS fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked that questions relating to the fiscal
note be referred to the director of the Division of Occupational
Licensing.
Number 1433
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the proposed amendment had been
offered.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that it hasn't.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said as a spouse of a masseuse, he is
concerned that people who do massage or offer massage therapy are
now going to have to be licensed manicurists. He said he doesn't
know what massage of the hand or feet for cosmetic purposes may
mean. It would seem that there is a question that somebody who is
doing massage is now going to have to become a licensed manicurist.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that was a question committee staff had
brought to him. In response, the amendment was written which
states, "notwithstanding (A) of this paragraph,". In other words,
they would not be considered manicurists if they're massaging both
hands or feet solely for the treatment of disease of physical or
mental ailments. He said he would suggest that a massage might be
considered the treatment of a mental ailment.
Number 1544
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he goes to a masseuse and not for
treatment of disease or physical or mental ailments. He goes
because it makes him feel good.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested deleting that section.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he wouldn't have an objection if that is
something the committee finds appropriate. There are major
questions that still need to be addressed.
Number 1626
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was not aware that there were
criminal sanctions in this area of the law. He said what he would
suggest, if the bill is adopted, is that someone who gives a
massage for money without a license is subject to criminal
prosecution. He said he can't see what the big public safety issue
is with a hang nail. It is ridiculous to make it a criminal
sanction.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he would agree that it is not that big of
a public safety issue. He said he would agree that it is more of
a public health issue. Representative Brice said, "Having
discussed the issue with numerous operators, it can and does
regularly have problems -- or people, people do regularly have
problems with what happens by the manicurist, or people who are
doing their nails as it were."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if there is a significant problem in
that area and he would submit that it won't be addressed by
criminal prosecution. He said he doesn't know a district attorney
in the state who would accept this case.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the committee is discussing Section 14 on page
6.
Number 1703
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the bill would force people to get their
permit.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER informed the committee he has a problem with
having something in law that is intended not to function the way it
appears to be designed. He said there would be a civil penalty
rather than criminal prosecution.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said much of the licensure laws are like
that. He said as a holder of a state license, he has been upset by
it being there because if there is an accusation on any statutory
or regulatory breach on the part of any license holder in the
state, normally it can become a class B misdemeanor.
Representative Rokeberg asked if there is anything in the bill that
restricts him from giving his wife a pedicure.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated there wouldn't be a restriction
unless his wife is paying him to give her a pedicure. He said he
is concerned with money exchanging hands.
Number 1871
DAGMAR STRANAK, Owner, Classic Nails Plus More, testified via
teleconference from Mat-Su. Ms. Stranak said she would address the
issue of a hang nail not being a primary cause or major concern.
She said she would do this in direct correlation with some of the
clients she has who are diabetic. Ms. Stranak said if a hang nail
gets terribly infected and isn't taken care of, people could be
looking at the loss of a limb because they have no proper
circulation whether it is to their hands or feet. Ms. Stranak
noted she is licensed in New York, New Jersey and Virginia. She
referred to massaging the hands from the palm up to the (indisc.)
not (indisc.) longer than three minutes per hand as opposed a
masseuse who spends ten minutes, if not more, on a particular
extremity of the body. She indicated this issue is being confused.
Ms. Stranak said it is not a matter of who has a license and who
doesn't, it is a matter of going ahead and keeping the people in
the public sector aware and keeping education above where it should
be. There is a difference between a professional and somebody who
is just doing it for the money they think is in it.
Number 1965
STORMY JOSTEN, Nail Technician, Classic Nails Plus More, was next
to testify via teleconference. She explained she will be using the
term "nail tech" rather than manicurist because she believes there
is a difference between the two. Ms. Josten said education is
vital to every aspect of the industry and the need for continued
education is most important towards being a safe and qualified nail
technician. This issue must not be taken lightly, not only for the
health of a client but for the nail tech as well. This can be
broke down into several categories but, again, the key is
education. A nail tech must know about the safety and/or hazards
of the chemical she uses and the proper way in which to use them.
Proper sanitation is a must. With the risk of certain
transmittable disease such as AIDS or Hepatitis, even if there is
only a slight risk, a nail tech must still exercise caution in
taking the necessary precautions to avoid and eliminate these
risks. For example, instruments that are used must be properly
sterilized. If a client is cut with a file or buffer, it would be
much safer to throw it away and dispose of it properly than risk
using it on another client. A nail tech must learn the proper way
to apply and use certain chemicals and products on the nails to
avoid injury, chemical reactions and the possibility of a client
developing a fungal or bacterial infection under the nail plate.
A nail tech must learn to recognize a client who is having a
chemical or allergic reaction to certain products. They must also
recognize an infection or disease affecting a nail in order to
avoid reactions. She should also know when to refer a client to a
physician or dermatologist.
MS. JOSTEN said those are some of the main issues. She stressed
that without education of the following certain guidelines, a
person cannot be considered a professional in this industry and
practice as a nail technician safely. Licensing should be a
requirement and should be broken down into three categories with
different (indisc.) requirements for each. (1) A manicurist is a
person who can preform a basic manicure or pedicure and apply
polish to the nails. They can also provide the service of a hot
lack manicure; (2) A nail artist is a person who can preform a
manicure or a pedicure and also apply nail art to the nail; and (3)
A nail technician is a person who can preform a manicure or
pedicure, apply nail art and can apply artificial extensions to the
nail with the use of different products and applications.
Number 2092
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked what happens in a situation where a
person may be a resident of a pioneer home and a nurse or a nurse
practitioner does this on behalf of a client. He asked if they
would need to have a manicurist license.
MS. STRANAK explained the pioneer home in the Mat-Su area has gone
ahead and looked at their nail technician to be licensed in another
state before they can go ahead and work on one of their residents.
Number 2122
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked how many different types of chemicals are used
that would be considered dangerous or hazardous.
MS. JOSTEN indicated there are at least eight of them. She noted
she has experienced problems such as allergic reactions around the
finger tips with redness and rashes developing. Certain people are
allergic to certain products. Ms. Josten informed the committee
she has developed respiratory problems and asthma from breathing
certain chemicals. There needs to be adequate ventilation.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to when those symptoms occur and asked what
type of solutions she uses.
MS. JOSTEN said they are usually referred to a physician.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he would assume a nail technician falls
under the statute of manicuring. MS. JOSTEN indicated that is
correct. Representative Kubina said they would all have to be
licensed under this. Ms. Josten said that is correct.
Number 2200
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came before the
committee to answer questions on HB 73.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the existing board has an opinion on
the additional responsibilities.
MS. REARDON said the current Board of Barbers and Hairdressers does
support licensing of manicurists. She explained the fiscal note
reflects a neutral impact on the budget gap. As with all of the
programs within the division, the license fees are expected to
cover the costs of the program. It becomes complicated because the
fiscal note just shows the additional costs that the division will
incur, but the actual license fees charged to the licensees also
would include their share of the activities that the division is
currently doing. The administrative and board costs are already
being incurred so they wouldn't ask for more expenditure authority
to spend that money a second time. She noted they will charge the
manicurists a share of that. What will happen is the barbers,
hairdressers and other licensees fees will be reduced a little bit
because there will now be more people to spread out those overhead
costs to.
Number 2288
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted there is information in the committee packets
which indicates that the board is in unanimous support of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 4 of the fiscal note and
asked if the indirect costs reduced to other programs is
$26,538.20. He asked Ms. Reardon if that is what she is referring
to as far as spreading the fees.
MS. REARDON explained the very first year that the program is in
effect, fiscal year 97 if it passes this session, the division
won't charge the individual manicurists for the division's indirect
costs because they have already included that in everyone else's
fees. It's too late to lower them when they were charged the fees
last month. It included money to cover the division's entire
indirect costs. That is why they are only charging the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers indirect costs for FY 98. She referred to
FY 97 and said they're going to get a free ride because there is no
sense in over collecting, they've already been built into everyone
else's fees. Ms. Reardon referred to FY 98 and said by then they
would have hoped to have lowered everybody else's fees to
compensate for this new bank of payers. The indirect costs reduced
to other programs is supposed to be the $26,000. Ms. Reardon said
you don't see the indirect costs on the front page because they're
not new expenditures, they aren't going to hire any more
bookkeepers, receptionists or directors.
Number 2431
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the fiscal note is predicated on the fact
that there are an X number of pedicure salons. One person on
teleconference alluded to the fact that indeed there are going to
be some nurse practitioners or others in nursing or pioneer homes.
He asked if that would make a difference in the fiscal note.
MS. REARDON said they had to make a guess as to how many
manicurists there would be. It is very hard to know until you
start licensing something. On the front page of the fiscal note in
the box on the bottom, they guessed about 590. If that guess is
low, then they will probably try to raise the (indisc.) or increase
their expenditure authority to reflect exam fee pass throughs.
[End of tape].
TAPE 96-13, SIDE B
Number 011
CHAIRMAN KOTT said they essentially doubled the number of business
licenses that currently exist.
MS. REARDON said that is correct. She said if there is an
individual business that does manicures, there is probably at least
an average of two people.
Number 031
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if this is annual license.
MS. REARDON explained it is a two year license.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to the transitional provision on
page 6, line 28, and said there appears to be a grandfather clause
but it is only 12 months. He asked if they are grandfathering
people in that have satisfactorily completed 350 hours last year,
but those same people would have to get a license the following
year regardless of their previous....
MS. REARDON explained this is qualification for a license. You
have to have done 350 hours within the past 12 months. You'll
still get a two year license. She said it does grandfather them in
as eligible to be licensed if they have 350 hours within the last
12 months, but the license that they then pay for now that they're
qualified for will extend for two years into the future.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if they have to take the examine
MS. REARDON explained they did and that is on line 31.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said they're really not grandfathered in.
MS. REARDON explained they don't have to go to school. She noted
it was an incorrect term to say grandfathered in.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER questioned whether there will be any
exceptions for someone doing the work and not having to have a
license.
MS. REARDON indicated there wouldn't be exceptions.
Number 103
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there was a reciprocity clause that
would allow someone from out of state, who has taken a similar
exam, to be grandfathered in the program. He questioned whether or
not other states license manicurists.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out that all but eight states license
manicurists.
MS. REARDON noted she didn't know the answer to the question of
there being a reciprocity clause.
Number 158
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he thought a cosmetologist had taken
various courses that have a higher level of expertise.
MS. REARDON explained that people who currently have hairdressing,
cosmetology or barbering licenses may be doing manicuring because
it is an unlicensed activity. There is usually a little bit of
manicurist training given, but it isn't required. They may have
some training in manicuring.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned how the class B misdemeanor,
being a sanction, would work.
MS. REARDON explained it is true that almost of the licensing areas
on licensed activities are class B misdemeanors. In some cases it
is a class A misdemeanor. She said it is currently the same
situation for barbering and hairdressing, concert promoters, etc.
Ms. Reardon referred to HB 457, introduced by Representative James,
and said it would give the division civil fining authority for all
of the areas of licensing. If HB 457 passed, would allow the
department to fine unlicensed people up to $5,000 and give them a
Administrative Procedures Act hearing within the department and not
have to go through the court system. She noted that is something
the department supports.
Number 325
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Section 5 and said it talks about the
period of apprenticeship required to qualify an applicant for a
license to practice manicuring which is 350 hours. He asked how
the number 350 figure was chosen. Chairman Kott said the
reciprocity probably wouldn't apply if we compared hours to hours
from other states to our statute if it were to pass. He said he
believes only 16 other states have a requirement for 350 hours or
greater.
Number 362
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said 350 is an average number across the rest
of the states. He pointed out some states have higher numbers. He
said out of 44 states, 11 require 350 hours, 11 require 300 hours,
1 requires 400 hours and 4 require 500 hours. He noted there is
some background information in the committee files. Representative
Brice said they want fairly high standards. Several schools
already include 350 hours as part of their regular curriculum. It
was a number that the schools approached him with.
Number 435
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many manicurist schools there are
in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he doesn't believe that there are
specific schools. He pointed out there are specific federal
standards that establish certain backgrounds as far as establishing
appropriate manicure curriculum. It is his understanding that the
schools do provide that amount of training prior to graduation.
Number 515
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA moved that the proposed amendment be adopted
on page 6, lines 20 to 24.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to move Amendment 1, 9-
LS0358\G, Lauterbach, 2/26/96.
Number 522
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he has two simple changes to the
amendment. On line 9, strike the word "massage," and on line 14,
strike the word "massaging" and insert "massage treatment or". He
stated the purpose of the amendment is to make it very clear that
massage treatment is not defined as providing service that would be
provided a manicurist.
Number 590
CHAIRMAN KOTT said Amendment 1 is amended. He said there is a
motion to amend Amendment 1. He asked if there was an objection to
the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he objects for the purpose of
discussion. He asked if "massage treatment" is a term of art.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is trying to delineate to act of
massage or getting a massage treatment is something that people
often pay for. He pointed out there is a masseuse in the room who
can answer whether massage treatment is a term of art.
Number 649
JO ELLEN HANRAHAN, Masseuse, noted she is a licensed massage
therapist in New York State and is nationally certified. She
stated, for the record, that she works for the Department of
Environmental Conservation and wants to be clear that she is not
speaking on behalf of the department. Ms. Hanrahan said she agrees
with Representative Elton's wording of massage treatment and said
it is a term used within the field. She said she thinks it would
be appropriate to say "massage" but "massage treatment" would do
the same thing.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he wouldn't have an objection to not
including the word "treatment."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that isn't what he is objecting to.
He said he is looking at the existing language.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to the amendment to
the amendment.
Number 737
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER withdrew his objection to Amendment 1.
Number 760
MS. HANRAHAN asked if this would mean that people who are in
nursing homes will have to hire a manicurist to cut their nails.
She said as a child of an elderly parent, she doesn't want to add
to her health care costs in having a manicurist come in cut her
parent's nails. She asked if somebody would be in jeopardy if they
are a sweet person and sit down and paint her mother's nails.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that is if the person receives fees for
that activity or if her mother pays them to do that.
MS. HANRAHAN questioned if it was on the medical record that
cutting her mother's nails was a treatment that the nurses aid gave
and charged it through Medicare.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG they would be employees of the state and
would be acting within the scope of their employment, but they'd be
under the statutory requirements.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he doesn't believe that we license employees of
the state.
Number 928
MS. REARDON said they do license nurse aids who work in licensed
facilities which would be hospitals, nursing homes and pioneer
homes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he thinks the issue could be addressed in
Section 7, change the wording to read, "The board may by regulation
create areas of limited professional licensing in the area of
cosmetology and manicure. Any limitation shall be stated on the
license." He said he would suggest that if somebody is coming into
the pioneer homes to do these things for a fee that they do need to
be licensed. On the other hand, it isn't his intent, nor is it the
intent of the people involved with the bill, to stop a nurse from
providing care.
Number 900
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred the committee to page 4, Section
10, lines 28-29 and said the committee may feel easier.
MS. REARDON noted the licensure by reciprocity is in Section 8,
page 4, line 9. She said if you're licensed in another state then
you're entitled to a license without examination.
Number 955
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to Amendment 1.
Hearing none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move HB 73, as amended, with
attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations out of
committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, CSHB
73(L&C) was moved from the Labor and Commerce Committee.
HB 432 - VETERINARY LICENSING
Number 1001
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would hear HB 432
"An Act relating to the practice of veterinary medicine,"
was the next order of business.
GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Staff, House Labor and Commerce
Committee, explained HB 432 accomplishes three objectives. The
first objective is that it modernizes the Alaska licensure statutes
relating to the practice of veterinarian medicine. As the law
currently stands, the licensure statutes refer to examinations that
are no longer given. HB 432 substitutes the correct examinations.
MR. DOZIER explained the second thing the bill does is it tightens
up the meaning behind unauthorized practice of veterinarian
medicine.
MR. DOZIER informed the committee the bill makes it an unclassified
misdemeanor subject to a $10,000 fine and up to a year in jail for
the unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine. He noted the
bill has a zero fiscal note.
Number 1098
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the bill also sets up a veterinary
technician. MR. DOZIER answered in the affirmative. He noted he
believes there are currently regulations that addresses
technicians. What the bill does is requires that the technicians
be licensed.
Number 1129
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, said the division
supports HB 432. She said it is a compilation of things that the
Board of Veterinary Examiners (indisc.--coughing) have changed.
Number 1144
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the current sanctions are. He
said there is a new subsection that adds a $10,000 fine on page 2.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he doesn't believe there are criminal sanctions.
MS. REARDON said as she recalls, this has been one of the
difficulties. There hasn't been a penalty for unlicensed activity.
Ms. Reardon said strength is being added to the enforcement
ability. She said she would try to provide a board member to speak
to the issue as she doesn't have adequate information.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted he doesn't read Section 2 as being a
prohibition about performing veterinary services without a license.
It is for ways to try to pretend you had a license or used someone
else's license.
Number 1282
CHAIRMAN KOTT said it is not his intent to move the bill until the
committee hears from someone that is knowledgeable of the bill.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1310
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|