02/02/2001 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 2001
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 70
"An Act extending the termination date of the State Physical
Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board."
- MOVED CSHB 70(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 50
"An Act extending the termination date of the State Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors to
June 30, 2005; relating to the temporary member of that board;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 50 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to the licensure and registration of
individuals who perform home inspections; relating to home
inspection requirements for residential loans purchased or
approved by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; relating to
civil actions by and against home inspectors; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 73
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Veterinary Examiners."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 70
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING BOARD OF PHYSICAL/OCC THERAPY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CRAWFORD, Hayes
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/17/01 0111 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME-REFERRALS
01/17/01 0111 (H) L&C, FIN
01/31/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/31/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/02/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 50
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BD OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, ETC.
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0051 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME-REFERRALS
01/10/01 0051 (H) L&C, FIN
01/10/01 0051 (H) FN1: (CED)
01/10/01 0051 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/16/01 0084 (H) CORRECTED TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/02/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 27
SHORT TITLE: LICENSE HOME INSPECTORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0031 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/01
01/08/01 0031 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME-REFERRALS
01/08/01 0031 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
01/08/01 0031 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
01/31/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/31/01 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/01 (H) MINUTES(L&C)
02/02/01 Text (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN GRAFTON, President
Alaska Physical Therapy Association
1282 Troy Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 70.
MARY VEAL, Physical Therapist
Alaska Chapter of the American Physical Therapy Association
8940 N. Douglas Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 70.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 79, HB 50, and HB 27 for
the division.
JAMES BIBB, President
American Institute of Architects, Alaska Chapter
522 West 10th
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 50 and continuing
education.
DWAYNE ADAMS
American Society of Landscape Architects
13231 Reef Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 50.
TED VEAL, Homer Resident
539 Elderberry Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 27.
FRANKO VENUTI, Homer Resident
P.O. Box 3652
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 27.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Lobbyist
Alaska Professional Design Council
327 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 27.
JOHN BITNEY, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
4300 Boniface Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 27.
TERRI LAUTERBACH, Legislative Counsel
Division of Legal and Research Services
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 329
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Clarified language in HB 27 for the
committee.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.
HB 70-EXTENDING BOARD OF PHYSICAL/OCC THERAPY
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the committee would begin by taking up
HOUSE BILL NO. 70, "An Act extending the termination date of the
State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board."
Number 0146
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, sponsor of HB 70, stated the bill is
designed to extend the sunset date for [the board of] physical
and occupational therapists until 2005. He said there is broad
support for extending the board and there is no known protest.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said the bill amends Section 1 of AS
08.03.010, subsection (c) (16), and extends the date from the
year 2001 to 2005. He asked for the committee's support.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the [legislative] audit report made a
recommendation to extend the board for a six-year period. She
asked if there was a reason it was only extended to 2005 instead
of 2007.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said four years was the standard time
and he didn't want to change what had been done before.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT mentioned that a few years back, the
committee made a conscientious decision to start looking at
extending the sunset boards to six years. He said that might be
the reason the audit report reflects six years. He said it
causes a headache to have to revisit these [boards] every four
years so they made it six years.
Number 0400
KAREN GRAFTON, President, Alaska Physical Therapy Association
(APTA), thanked Representative Crawford for issuing the
legislation and said APTA supports the bill as it's written.
She added that she would support extending the sunset date for
six years instead of just the four [years].
Number 0439
MARY VEAL, Physical Therapist, Alaska Chapter of the American
Physical Therapy Association, thanked the committee for
supporting the bill and mentioned they too would support
extending the bill for six years.
Number 0474
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), said
her division staffs the various licensing boards that the
committee will hear about today. She said the division supports
the continuation of the board for as long as the committee feels
comfortable.
MS. REARDON said it was probably [on] her advice that the
sponsor of the bill went with four years. She said two years
ago, the Division of Legislative Audit ("Legislative Audit")
recommended durations ranging from four to eight years for
different boards. This was an attempt to spread out the sunset
audit work. She said a couple [of boards] made it through [the
House] with longer durations between sunset reviews, and a
couple of Senators responded with frustration in receiving the
bills, not because they had problems with the particular boards,
but because it was an established principle - that a board
should be continued for four years.
MS. REARDON said the view may have changed but in responding to
that experience, with this one exception, all of the Legislative
Audit recommendations have been for four years. She said "they"
became more conservative and decided not to ask for more. She
said she thought Legislative Audit would be happy to have longer
extensions for some of these board, and "they" would too.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Reardon if she thought this profession
generates concerns or investigations that would necessitate
being audited on a more frequent basis, more than the four-year
rotation.
MS. REARDON said she is comfortable as long as the [sunset] date
does not interfere with ultimate passage, and as long as the
sunset audit reflects few concerns from the Division of
Legislative Audit.
MS. REARDON said she believes this is the only board, before the
committee, where the Legislative Audit has recommended a longer
extension. She said she didn't know why that happened.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the boards would ask Legislative Audit
to consider them for longer periods of time before sunset review
- whether it is [considered] typical.
Number 0759
MS. REARDON said the division and the boards have never had to
and never felt it was their place to ask. However, she said, if
the length of time [between sunset audits] were less than four
years, "they" would probably ask Legislative Audit what they
were worried about.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO explained that when the committee gets an
audit from Legislative Audit stating deficiencies in a
department, the committee works with the department to correct
them. He said he is not sure why the committee wouldn't accept
their recommendation to extend the sunset to 2007.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he feels comfortable extending the
sunset audit to 2007 now that he has heard from Ms. Reardon;
there seemed to be some adversity before. He said he would be
glad to amend the bill.
Number 0889
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred with Representative Crawford. He
made a motion to conceptually amend the bill to extend the
sunset review for the Board of Physical and Occupational Therapy
to 2007.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that there being no objection, the
conceptual amendment was adopted.
Number 1016
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move HB 70, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 70(L&C) was
reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 50-EXTEND BD OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, ETC.
Number 1058
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 50, "An Act extending the termination date of
the State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and
Land Surveyors to June 30, 2005; relating to the temporary
member of that board; and providing for an effective date."
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), said
she appreciates the committee hearing the bill to extend the
sunset date. She said the bill was introduced by request of the
governor, because of the second issue addressed in the bill -
the temporary landscape architect board member.
MS. REARDON said last year, the governor introduced a bill
addressing the topic, and there was a lack of unanimity of
belief about what should happen with the position. She said she
believed the governor wanted to bring conclusion to the topic by
working out a compromise, bringing it forward with the division
as the sponsor.
MS. REARDON said the bill extends the sunset date to 2005, as
recommended by the sunset audit. She said Section 2 of the bill
extends the temporary, non-voting landscape architect board
member seat, until 2005. She explained that the seat would
disappear at the next sunset date - giving the legislature time
to decide what to do with the seat.
Number 1206
MS. REARDON stated landscape architects were added as a group to
be licensed by the board a few years ago. She conjectured that
there are just ten landscape architects; that is one of the
reasons "they" believe the temporary non-voting member status
should be continued, rather than making it a permanent seat.
She added that the board regulates approximately 5,000 people,
so 10 or 12 is a small number.
MS. REARDON added that it is a good idea to have a non-voting
landscape architect on the board because it is a new profession
for the division and the board; having the person at the table
contributes valuable information about how the profession works.
She said the board continues to consider its first applications,
evaluate people's work experience and training, and come up with
reasonable regulations governing the profession. She continued
by saying it is a good time to have that representation at the
table, but not necessarily the time to make it a permanent
voting seat.
MS. REARDON said the other change to the status of the non-
voting landscape-architect position appears on page 2, line 4,
where there is a bracket around the word "not". She explained
that the current statute says the non-voting member is not
entitled to receive state money for per diem or travel to the
board meetings. If this bill passes, people will be eligible to
have their plane ticket and hotel paid for by the state when
participating in board meetings. She relayed that the division
thinks this is a good idea; it is awkward and confusing to have
a board members sponsored by their professional association, or
looking for money [to attend meetings].
MS. REARDON said the sunset audit included a few recommendations
that were responded to jointly by the division and board; they
appear in the submitted letter on the last page of the audit.
MS. REARDON commented that at this time "they" are not
recommending any statute changes in response to the
recommendations.
Number 1335
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon if she is speaking for
the department or the board today.
MS. REARDON responded that she is wearing two hats today; she is
always speaking for the department and did work in concert with
the board on the letter of response to the audit. She added
that she discussed it with them, and "they" decided jointly on
what the letter would say to represent their views.
MS. REARDON clarified that on the last sentence of her
presentation where she said, "We are not recommending any
statute changes in response to the audit at this time," she was
speaking for the department. She said the board thought it
might be good to add permissive language to its statute that
would allow the board, if it so chose, to require continuing
education by regulation; that is stated under the Audit Report,
Agency Response, Recommendation 1.
MS. REARDON said she heard testimony in the Senate on the
companion bill [to HB 50], and it appears that there is still
disagreement within the industry about mandatory continuing
education. She said because of the lack of consensus, it might
not be good to have it attached to HB 50. She said perhaps the
Alaska Professional Design Council could speak to the issue.
Number 1435
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reminded Chair Murkowski and Ms. Reardon
that it is "their" responsibility to look after and protect the
interest of the citizens of Alaska. He said he agrees with the
audit, but is reluctant to recommend that board members have
"their toes stepped on."
MS. REARDON said continuing education requirements are not
universal among all of the professions in the Division of
Occupational Licensing; they are common with the health care
professions but not universal. She added that most members of
the engineering and architect industry acknowledge that
continuing education is coming, but know that they are not at
that point yet. She said the issues that would arise, from
people who don't want mandatory continuing education, at this
time would be: that it is a hardship for people outside of the
major metropolitan areas of Alaska; and it is expensive for
"them" to get continuing education. She added that there isn't
research showing that continuing education requirements reduce
incompetence in a profession.
MS. REARDON went on to say that responsible professionals
educate themselves every year in a variety of ways including
attending conferences, reading materials, and so forth. She
said when talking about requirements for license renewal, it
needs to be kept in mind that for bureaucratic reasons,
continuing education needs to be documented and verified. She
said it is hard to recognize the genuine self-education that a
competent professional might do; without the diploma, it is hard
to know whom to grant [licenses to].
Number 1581
MS. REARDON said some professionals are trying to weigh whether
the hassle will be beneficial to consumers. She said a person
might take a course that isn't worth much and not pay much
attention. Therefore, "we" would be penalizing the responsible
people that are already doing self-education by making them
spend money. She mentioned that this might be an argument that
opponents might have about mandatory continuing education.
MS. REARDON said "they" feel Recommendation 2 [from the Division
of Legislative Audit ("Legislative Audit")] is addressed in the
bill. She said it states that the legislature [could] consider
revising the membership of the board by eliminating the mining-
engineer's designated seat, and in some way deal with the
temporary landscape-architect seat. She said this bill deals
with the landscape-architect temporary seat but does not remove
the mining-engineer seat - a topic taken up by the legislature
in the past.
MS. REARDON said there is an appreciation of the mining industry
in Alaska. And just because the number of mining engineers in
Alaska is small, it doesn't mean there shouldn't be someone at
the table who knows about correct mining engineering. She added
that removing the seat [from the board] gives the perception
that Alaska doesn't care as much about mining as it ought to
which is the reason the governor didn't propose removing the
seat in this bill.
MS. REARDON finalized her testimony by saying that "they"
believe the final item the board addressed in regulation was an
ambiguity in the architecture statutes.
Number 1680
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred with Representative Rokeberg's
previous statement that "they" are charged with looking out for
the public's interest; he referred to the recommendations in the
report and a letter from Jeffery Wilson, President, Alaska
Professional Design Council (APDC), and Sam Kito III, Chair. He
said their letter leads him to believe that there is not
consensus on the recommendations [Legislative Audit
recommendations for changes to AS 08]. He said "they" do
support the extension of the Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors (BRAELS).
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the governor's bill went beyond just
the BRAELS extension. He asked if the issues were taken up at
the board meeting, and if "they" supported the way it came
together.
Number 1728
MS. REARDON said the board was supportive of the language used
in the bill now, "Extending the temporary non-voting member",
and paying for the cost of the member. She said the board
clearly gave her the message that she was to try and achieve
this.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Reardon if the board had considered
voluntary continuing education with an offset to licensure fees.
She said the Alaska Bar Association (ABA) does this and it is an
alternative to mandatory continuing education.
MS. REARDON said she hadn't thought of it, but it looked as if
the legal profession was sort of in the same situation as the
design professionals, where there is not unanimity of belief
about continuing education. She said this is apparent in rural
areas.
Number 1770
MS. REARDON explained that voluntary continuing education has
been instituted and would be considered a mitigating
circumstance if a person is faced with disciplinary action;
doing continuing education would be a "star" in a person's favor
during sanctions. She added that there is also a 10 percent
reduction in the renewal fee. She said she didn't talk to the
board about it [instituting a voluntary system like the ABA's],
because when she talked to them, she wasn't aware of the idea.
She went on to say that the department sets the fees, so it
would take departmental action to decide what the amount would
be for someone doing continuing education.
MS. REARDON clarified that she wouldn't be opposed to a fee
system [like ABA's] and would be looking to the professionals to
self-certify that they did the education; without a requirement
for licensure, there is no reason to audit. She said the board
may want to think about it, and she does not know if it would
require a change in statute.
Number 1865
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the ABA is not checking to ensure
completion of continuing education; there is no additional cost,
and it is a way to encourage continuing education. She
encouraged Ms. Reardon to bring it up [with the board].
Number 1888
JAMES BIBB, President, American Institute of Architects (AIA),
Alaska Chapter, said he supports the extension of the sunset for
the BRAELS. He said the AIA is ready to support continuing
education and has, for several years, developed continuation
education. He said "they" see the benefits to the profession
and are ready to support the state on this issue. And he said:
This is strictly within the architects association,
with the AIA, and does not really represent the design
professionals of Alaska - so that is something to be
noted.
MR. BIBB said "they" would support mandatory continuing
education and have seen it in many states across the nation;
Oregon and Florida just passed this [legislation]. He said it
is something "they" anticipated, and there is a format in place
to gain 18 hours of learning units a year; some [education]
areas cover health and welfare in the profession, which are
fairly well organized.
Number 1970
MR. BIBB said the AIA also supports extending the temporary
[non-voting landscape-architect] board member seat. He said
there is an issue regarding Recommendation 3 - clarifying the
statutes and keeping them clean. He said across the nation, AIA
recommends against restricting licensure to a single process.
He said AIA is looking at the National Council of Architectural
Registration Board (NCARB). He explained that NCARB is in
place, so if a person becomes certified through a national
board, the Alaska board of licensing accepts it as a
requirement.
MR. BIBB explained that NCARB standardizes education and
training across the country. He said the AIA is concerned about
members licensed in other states; "they" want to make sure, upon
entry into Alaska, that "they" are accepted in some format. He
said AIA doesn't want to restrict prospective licensees, and
would like to see an alternative route developed. He added that
the AIA wants to ensure that the revision of the statute is
completed. He said in some way, AIA is asking for the amendment
to be set aside and reworded.
MR. BIBB said AIA represents about 75 percent of the licensed
architects in Alaska; they don't have consensus, and would like
it before moving forward with NCARB exclusively. He said he has
a memo for the committee that would provide some clarity.
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he was going in this direction when he
commenting on Recommendation 3. He said he would like to read
it [the memo] and ensure that it accurately reflects the
position of the board. He said the statute is semantically
unclear to the board, the way it is currently worded. He said
he doesn't believe consensus can be reached with every design
professional. However, if there is a problem that the committee
can fix to make it semantically clear, they should do it. He
said he would like to hear from others as to whether the
committee is taking the right approach in moving the bill out
without corrective action.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked Mr. Bibb about the BRAELS becoming an
autonomous board.
MR. BIBB said he did not know anything about it but said Ms.
Reardon might have information.
Number 2113
MS. REARDON said over the last five or six years, the
architecture industry has expressed an interest in some type of
autonomy from the division. She wasn't aware of the industry's
current thinking, and thought there were varying opinions
amongst the 5,000 Alaskans [members].
MS. REARDON explained that there had been legislation and debate
on the topic a few years ago. She said within the department,
it came down to the definition of autonomy. She said autonomy
could mean many things, such as when a profession or program
wants to be outside the Division of Occupational Licensing and
form its own government agency, as a separate entity, not a part
of the whole package. She said it would be like the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska or something along those lines. She said
autonomy could also mean [being] outside government altogether,
or somewhere in between.
MS. REARDON said deciding on the definition of autonomy can be
difficult. She said while the department and possibly the
administration, as a whole, might have strong views about having
self-regulation outside government, a different response might
be received from a proposal to leave occupational licensing.
MS. REARDON said in talking about leaving occupational
licensing, one gets into financial, economies-of-scale-type
issues. And in talking about leaving state government
completely, there are issues for groups not connected with
elected officials, including: fining people, disciplining
people, and saying who can and can't practice the profession.
She said personally, she feels it is important to have elected
representatives or government involved because otherwise there
is a guild.
MS. REARDON said she hopes if occupational licensing meets the
needs of the industry well enough, within the division, the
interest in leaving will lessen.
Number 2253
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about the language in the statute
contained in the [legislative] audit [page 9] in the bold
section, "in the opinion of the board," with respect to
reciprocity and registration of someone from another state. He
said "the opinion of the board" was somewhat troubling. He
asked Ms. Reardon if the board had ever offered reciprocity.
MS. REARDON answered by saying the board frequently grants
licenses to architects licensed in other states. She said she
thought the board always required the NCARB certification to
come in by reciprocity. She said there are many architects from
other places getting licenses in Alaska.
MS. REARDON explained that the board is not saying that no one
can come in from outside, that one must come in fresh to Alaska.
She said the language in the statute implies that there are two
tracks [to reciprocity]: holding a license from another state,
or holding an NCARB certification. She said the board
interprets both tracks the same.
Number 2313
DWAYNE ADAMS, American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA),
said they accept the legislation as written and had worked
closely with Ms. Reardon, who did a good job capturing the
issues - those pertaining to landscape architects, the temporary
board member, and continuing education.
MR. ADAMS said the ASLA has a national council, the Landscape
Architects Registration Board (LARB), which is much like NCARB
for architects. He said "they" deal with continuing education
every year, and 10 percent of the states that are licensed
require continuing education. He said it is somewhat
problematic because LARB doesn't provide the [continuing
education] tracking that NCARB does.
MR. ADAMS explained that in states that require continuing
education for licensure, there are costs and administrative time
involved in deciding on appropriate courses and maintenance. He
said LARB is in favor of continuing education. He said it is
seldom that a member would not comply. He said the questions
that remain include how to track it, and how to handle the
administration.
Number 2436
SAM KITO, Chair, Alaska Professional Design Council (APDC), said
APDC supports the extension of the sunset and the landscape-
architect temporary board member position, consistent with HB
50. He referred to the audit recommendations and said the
engineering community agrees on continuing education, but not on
how it should be implemented. He said this is why APDC has
asked that it not be considered at this time [in HB 50]. He
said additional discussion with all of the design professionals
is necessary to implement the continuing education program.
TAPE 01-11, SIDE B
Number 2452
MR. KITO said with respect to the "architectural comity" issue,
they defer to the AIA, since it is primarily an architects'
issue. He said as an organization that also represents the
architects, APDC concurs with AIA on the issue.
MR. KITO clarified that from APDC's perspective, with respect to
AELS board autonomy, the Division of Occupational Licensing was
put on program receipts for the board last year; APDC would like
to see what the impacts would be. He said:
AELS autonomy would have benefited our professions on
the board. [There were two issues] ... Those two
issues were the issues of travel, ... whether or not
there would be flexibility to travel out of state for
professional functions, and ... the issue of licensed
disciplinary action enforcement.
MR. KITO went on to say that with more control over the fee
structure and spending within the AELS board structure, APDC
wants to see how the changes address some of the problems that
they have seen, and the board's ability to operate.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if APDC's members were surveyed to
see if they would accept a fee increase.
MR. KITO said the membership did not have a problem with paying
additional money to provide the services for the board members.
He said the issues [raised] were about budget restrictions and
whether funding could be used if the fees were increased.
Number 2372
MS. REARDON said last year the legislature decided to move
occupational licensing receipts into a new receipt-supported
services category. She said at the same time they granted
expenditure authority for travel so the BRAELS' could
participate in national meetings. She said as a result,
participation in out-of-state professional conferences for the
board has increased significantly this year.
MS. REARDON said investigations and enforcement actions are
areas that still need to be addressed; the travel issue has been
addressed by the legislature.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Kito about voluntary educational
commitments and whether he thought ADPC members voluntarily take
ongoing educational seminars to stay current [in the industry].
MR. KITO said there are seminar programs circulating throughout
the country for engineering professionals that have continuing
education credits recognized in other states. He said the
credits are available to the ADPC membership in Alaska. He
added that there are seminars taken by engineering professionals
in Alaska that qualify [them] for continuing education credit in
other jurisdictions.
MR. KITO explained that it is not a matter of whether continuing
education should happen, but "how" it should happen in order to
be fair to all professionals.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the board could be set up to issue a
license to someone who is not NCARB certified. He said he
doesn't want to hold the bill up, if it is the wish of the
committee to move it out. He noted that it has a House Finance
Committee referral, and will eventually end up in the House
Rules Committee, where he could develop language with the help
of the professions.
CHAIR MURKWOSKI asked Ms. Reardon about the Senate companion
bill and whether the Senate has done anything that would address
Representative Kott's concern.
Number 2229
MS. REARDON said the identical bill [to HB 50] passed out of the
Senate Finance Committee this morning and the issue of comity
wasn't addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he was not ready to make an amendment
to the bill; he wants to talk to the professionals and find out
if the issue of comity needs to be addressed.
Number 2181
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to report HB 50 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 50 was moved out of the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said it might be good to send HB 50 to the
House Judiciary Committee to address whether it is a legal issue
and whether there is liability from the board's perspective. He
said if the board is challenged [by a prospective licensee], the
question would be raised as to whether they would have to issue
the license without NCARB certification. [HB 50 was reported
out of committee.]
HB 27-LICENSE HOME INSPECTORS
Number 2108
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the next bill the committee would consider
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An Act relating to the licensure
and registration of individuals who perform home inspections;
relating to home inspection requirements for residential loans
purchased or approved by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation;
relating to civil actions by and against home inspectors; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said a fair amount of information was received
since the committee last took up the bill on January 1, 2001.
In addition, she stated that there was an amendment from the
sponsor, and three pages of single-spaced comments from
Catherine Reardon, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED).
Number 2041
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, speaking as the sponsor of HB 27, said
he would review the information the committee had received and
add public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he had submitted some technical
amendments and one substantive amendment to the committee. He
said the committee would hear public testimony and hold the bill
over while he reviews the information submitted by the Division
[of Occupational Licensing]. He said he was upset about the
submission and didn't expect the committee to go through it line
by line. He said the committee also received a letter of
support from State Farm Insurance, and a letter from the Stanley
family in Homer, Alaska, which was sent to Bill Pellman at the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The Stanleys lost
$130,000, he noted.
Number 1879
TED VEAL, Homer resident, asked about revisions to the bill. He
said it appears that it [the bill] is being pursued because the
real estate community is having problems with inspectors
retained to inspect houses. He asked about the thought process
behind putting a "real estate individual" on the inspector
board, rather than a residential home building contractor or
someone else.
MR. VEAL asked who would develop the requirements under the
continued competency requirement in Version F [adopted as a work
draft on January 31, 2001], page 3, line 25 of the bill, and
asked what they would include. He asked if the department would
produce the "board and departmental publications and seminars
related to this chapter" from page 4, line 15 [of the bill], for
licensed inspectors. He said the pre-inspection document
required on page 5, line 19 [of the bill] is redundant because
when an International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
inspection is done, the builder requests a particular inspection
from the inspector; for the inspector to submit a written
document stating that he is coming to do the inspection seems
like more paperwork.
MR. VEAL said in his experience, once the builder of the project
satisfies the particular requirements for the inspection, a
summary of building inspections for site-built construction form
is signed off [on]; a lengthy report isn't necessarily written
about the condition of the sign-off.
MR. VEAL referred to proposed amendment F.1 [22-LS0136\F.1,
Lauterbach, 2/2/01], which read:
Page 1, line 14, following "broker":
Insert ", associate broker,"
Page 3, lines 10 - 13:
Delete all material.
Insert "examination must include a written portion; the
examination may, as determined by the board,
(A) use testing methodologies in addition
to the written portion;
(B) test for competency in relation to
Alaska construction techniques and other matters;
(C) be based on a recognized national
examination or other methodology;"
Page 6, line 7:
Delete "commission"
Insert "board"
Page 10, line 6:
Delete "interior"
Page 12, following line 23:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 18.56.300(c) is repealed.
* Sec. 9. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. The change made by sec. 8 of this Act
applies to causes of action that accrue on or after July 1,
2003."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 13, line 19:
Delete "or"
Insert "and"
Page 14, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 15. Sections 8 and 9 of this Act take effect July 1,
2003."
Page 14, line 23:
Delete "11 and 12"
Insert "13 - 15"
[End of amendment F.1]
MR. VEAL referred to the portion of amendment F.1 that amends
page 12, line 23, to insert a new bill section to read: "'*Sec.
8 AS 18.56.300(c) is repealed."
MR. VEAL said the proposed amendment limits some of the
liability of the inspector unless he or she is grossly
negligent. He said if this section were repealed, the
inspectors would be subject to an inordinate amount of exposure
that could cause many people to cease to perform that function;
there may be a problem with having enough inspectors in Alaska,
particularly in rural communities.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, responding to Mr. Veal's question about
page 3, line 25, of Version F, said the position [on the board]
is [to be] either a real estate appraiser or a real estate
broker. He said he has a proposed amendment to expand it to a
real estate associate broker. He went on to say the real estate
industry has an interest in the issue and [the position] should
be on the board. He said the board has five members and an ex
officio member, including a representative from AHFC.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded to the question of who would
be developing the requirements. He referred to [Version F],
page 3, line 25, under the continued competency requirement. He
said:
The level of competency is to be determined by the
board created by this legislation. Publications and
so forth - seminars [would be determined] by the
board.
The pre-inspection document, I think, primarily ...
[addresses the] standards of practice and the existing
home market where there is a clarity as to what the
scope of work should be - in case there is an
assertion of an omission from an inspection report.
In other words, ... [the] level of your roof
inspection ... should be in the pre-inspection report
to make sure that you can't bring a subsequent cause
of action, to claim that you didn't do your job when
you should have, because you may have made a comment
about it. Like, you think the roof is leaking, you
put that on there, and if it wasn't [in] the scope of
work, then they should have a cause of action.
Number 1625
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that part of proposed F.1 repeals
AS 18.56.300(c) effective in 2003, when the transition is
complete. He said there is always a risk, when removing blanket
liability from the inspectors, to try and protect the public,
but those doing shoddy work will get out. He said due to the
rural nature of Alaska, minimizing the amount of ICBO inspectors
available in rural Alaska could be a problem. He said it's
difficult to gauge the effect of it prior to legislation. "We"
can just hope that the competency of individuals throughout the
state is such that the public will be better served.
Number 1472
MR. VEAL concurred with what Representative Rokeberg had said
about the pre-inspection document as far as an existing home
inspection. He wondered, on new construction where an ICBO
inspection is taking place, whether "they" would be required to
do the additional paperwork even though it's evidently not
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the current bill is drafted this
way. He said it might be good to review that particular area
and exempt it, if so.
Number 1414
FRANKO VENUTI, Homer resident, said he was concerned about a
statement made earlier by Representative Rokeberg in reference
to a letter from the Stanleys [family in Homer]. The case went
to court and the Stanleys argued with the builder over costs,
and were found liable.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI verified that the committee had received a
letter regarding the purchase of the Stanleys' home.
MR. VENUTI said he had not seen a copy of the letter addressed
to Bill Pellman of AHFC dated January 8, 200,1 but would like
to.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Venuti to clarify that the
Stanleys went to court and eventually lost; the court found
their claims had no merit.
MR. VENUTI said they were held liable for costs since no merit
was found, and he believed they paid the contractor.
Number 1257
AMY DAUGHERTY, Lobbyist, Alaska Professional Design Council
(APDC), said APDC reviewed the proposed committee substitute
(CS) and rewrote the letter to show their support.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the proposed amendment, which he
discussed with John Bitney, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation, repeals AS 18.56.300(c), which says:
A person may not bring an action for damages based on
a duty imposed by (b) of this section to inspect a
residential unit unless the action is for damages
caused by gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Bitney if he objected to
removing it from AHFC statute, effective July 1, 2003.
JOHN BITNEY said he had no objection and wasn't sure what the
thought was at the time the bill was drafted. He said it
appears that the gross-negligent standard, as written, is a very
high standard [in order] to protect the inspector.
MR. BITNEY said it doesn't seem to affect AHFC, so they don't
have any objection.
Number 1101
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said since it is such a high legal
standard, it would allow an inspector working under AHFC to meet
their requirements for lending; inspectors have almost unlimited
ability to do what they want unless they are grossly negligent.
He said it is a tough standard to prove in court.
Number 1054
MR. BITNEY said he believed he had reviewed the letter sent to
Bill Pellman at AHFC [from the Stanley family]. He said the
home was failing, but was hesitant to say much until he could
check the status.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is important for the reputations
of the Stanley family and Mr. Venuti that there is a clear
understanding on public record about what had occurred in the
case. He asked Mr. Bitney to add information to the public
record, as the bill moves along, to clarify what the position or
case was, and what Alaska Housing did. He said the committee
doesn't want the public record to unfairly shift the burden on
any party involved.
Number 0943
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Representative Rokeberg if there was a
reason why "they" hadn't looked at having a residential
contractor [as a designated seat on the board of inspectors].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that there are three members
from the industry: one "realtor type", one "appraiser type", and
one public member. "They" had wanted to keep the board small
because of costs. He said residential contractors were
considered but were rejected. He said it is his belief that
home inspectors should have the largest role on the board, and a
public member could be a residential contractor. He said:
The people in the real estate industry ... have an
interest in it - and then we had an ex officio member
on the board, presumably from Alaska Housing, ... to
make sure that their interests are protected.
It's great, but I ... would counsel against extending
the board [in order] to keep the fee low.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI revisited the issue of the statutes allowing for
a home inspection to be either written or oral. She asked for
understanding of why a verbal home inspection would be allowed.
She said 99 percent of the statutes are only applicable to a
written home inspection. She asked why the committee is
allowing for a provision that would accommodate an oral home
inspection.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the provision was put in at the
request of the home inspectors because they like to lead clients
around the home to point out issues. He said there might be
some merit to having a written record. He said in almost all of
the cases there would be a written report; allowing for the oral
inspection seems problematic.
Number 0699
CHAIR MURKOWSKI reiterated that the report done in writing or
orally is required, and asked, if it is done orally, "Isn't it
just one person's word against another?" She said if the
committee is saying that the report must include certain things,
how do you know if there is compliance, if it was done orally.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated that he thought the
inspectors wanted to be able to lead people around, and talk to
them about it [issues with the house] too.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said if the intent of the board is to
protect the consumer, he doesn't see how allowing an oral report
would accomplish this. He explained that to protect the
consumer, they need something in writing.
Number 0462
TERRI LAUTERBACH, Legislative Council, Division of Legal and
Research Services, said the report referred to in Version F,
page 6, could be oral or written - referring to the review of
the condition of the systems. She clarified that there is a
requirement in Version F, page 5, line 25-30, which says that
defects noted will be in a written report. She explained that
if the committee is going to take up the issue of oral versus
written [reports], they should be aware of this provision too.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO echoed Chair Murkowski's concern about
consumer protection. He said if a report is in writing, the
buyer would have something concrete to refer back to, in order
to prove his or her point if something goes wrong with the
house.
MS. LAUTERBACH said based on what is written here [in Version
F], there would be no report that said there was a defect. She
said this gives some evidence that the inspector didn't point
out the defect. She emphasized that she is not saying it would
be bad to get rid of the oral report, only that they should keep
the provision in mind and keep it consistent. She said if the
committee decides to stick with oral [reports], that should go
on page 5 too; and if not, then all of them would wind up being
written. She said she didn't know if the committee wanted to
distinguish between defects and the condition of the house, as
to whether [the report] is written or oral, but wants them to be
treated together [throughout the bill].
Number 0413
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said even if there is an oral report,
there has to be a written pre-inspection report. He said the
committee could amend that portion, so it doesn't preclude oral
reports.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he noticed similarities between
real estate brokers and real estate appraisers. He advocated
for consistency when writing laws that deal with virtually the
same types of things - such as home buying and consumer
protection.
Number 0147
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), said 90
percent of her comments, submitted to the committee, were not
policy recommendations. She said her written comments related
to inconsistencies between bill language and the goals to be
achieved [through the legislation].
MS. REARDON said a policy issue, addressed under number 2 of her
comments, says that she recommended that the AHFC board member
be paid for by AHFC. She said she knew any increases in the
fiscal note would be of consternation - at least to the sponsor.
TAPE 01-12, SIDE A
MS. REARDON said she assumed in Version F, page 6, line 10, the
sponsor of the bill meant "conflict of interest" to be defined
as when the licensee has a financial relationship as well as
when the relatives have a financial relationship.
MS. REARDON asked why a private person shouldn't be able to sue
when a conflict of interest is not disclosed. She said she
wasn't sure why a potential consumer shouldn't have the right to
sue if it was deemed appropriate.
MS. REARDON said she agreed that the report should be written
because only the board, the courts, or others can examine the
written report if the board is to consider the competency. She
said she didn't think it would prohibit an inspector from
speaking with a consumer, while they walk through a house. She
said the only compelling report would be the one in writing.
Number 0157
MS. REARDON mentioned a point discussed at the last board
meeting: the 180-day limit to sue based on the home-inspection
report. She said thinking of an average home owner, six months
is not very much time; it is out of step with the litigation
limits that other contracts and professionals have. She said
there is a two- to ten-year limitation on when one can sue over
work. She said the processing time between when a new homeowner
buys the house, discovers a problem, and files a lawsuit takes
time; meanwhile, the 180-day limit is ticking away.
MS. REARDON said her final concern is the grandfathering or
transitional license provision. She wanted to make sure the
committee was aware of how the current bill would play out. She
said because of all of the interrelations in effective dates and
transitional license provisions, it isn't always easy to see.
She said this isn't complete grandfathering; a current home
inspector can get a transitional license if he or she has taken
certain exams, but the licenses cannot be renewed. She said
usually with grandfathering, one meets certain qualifications,
and a license is renewed for the rest of one's career. She said
with other legislation, they decided there wouldn't be any
grandfathering. She said this was the case with the manicurist
licensing, taken up [by the legislature] last year.
MS. REARDON said [according to the bill], a person will be
grandfathered under certain conditions; those conditions will
expire six months later and can't be renewed. And upon renewal,
a person has to meet whatever basic licensure requirements the
board has established. She said she wanted to make sure the
committee was aware that after January 1, 2003, the same people
were going to have to meet the new requirement - whatever it
ends up being. She said it may be good public policy, but she
didn't want to take anyone by surprise when it was carried out.
MS. REARDON said if "they" require everyone to meet the basic
education and training requirements set forth by the board, it
might be best to spell out what will be required to get a
license by January 1, 2003. She said there might not be much
benefit to having a grandfathered license for [just] six months.
Number 0448
MS. REARDON said the biggest issue that would be heard after the
bill passes, besides the length of time for being able to sue,
would be the issue of who did and didn't get grandfathered. She
said people currently in business feel very strongly about this
issue. She said since the board has not established the
qualifications for licensure, she didn't know whether most of
the current home inspectors would be able to qualify in January
2001.
MS. REARDON said if everyone who is currently practicing
automatically gets a license, none of the bad actors would be
eliminated. She said it is worth thinking about what will
happen to the current inspectors, so there isn't an unintended
consequence.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he viewed the memorandum from Ms.
Reardon as the most insulting thing that he has had presented to
him in his six years in the legislature. He said she has had
two years to do this memorandum, and said:
There is possibly one section of this bill that is
different than the legislation ... [that was before]
her division previously. And that is the 180-day ...
liability issue. And you have the temerity to comment
on it. It is a matter of judicial or legal liability
- it has nothing to do with occupational licensing.
I find this wholly insulting. I feel appreciative
that there was a hearing, and you came up with a
memorandum on recommendations two days later. But to
do this ... just before the committee hearing, and you
had two years ... I really take exception to that.
... That is not how business should be done, as a
matter of courtesy, and not how it's done in this
legislature.
Number 0621
MS. REARDON said she understands that Representative Rokeberg is
very angry but there were a fair number of comments that she
believes she made last year when the bill came up - some of them
with a different staff person, and some of them in public
comment. She referred particularly to the issues of
grandfathering and required examinations.
MS. REARDON said her concern and comment about the 180-day
liability was an area which, in the earlier bill, had been
pointed out to her as an area of proper concern - she wasn't
sure it was inappropriate for her to comment on the potential
affect on the consumer.
MS. REARDON said she understood that it would have been more
helpful to Representative Rokeberg if she had brought them up
sooner. She emphasized that her comments were not things that
the division needs, but were generated from reading the bill
carefully.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said [Ms. Reardon] and her staff have
had meetings [with him], and the bill is now three years old.
He asked Ms. Reardon why she is introducing these suggestions
now.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she appreciates new information - that the
bill is still being worked on. She agreed with Representative
Rokeberg that this is an area where everyone cannot be pleased.
She said if the committee can make the bill a little better,
then the committee would have accomplished what "they" set out
to do.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she had heard that Ms. Reardon was not
entirely comfortable with the version [Version F]. She said Ms.
Reardon's comments on Wednesday, January 31, 2001, were very
general. She had asked her staff to call Ms. Reardon to make
sure she would be here today, so the committee members could
find out what her concerns were.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he has worked with Ms. Reardon for
six years and said, "I was really surprised by it and very
disappointed. I would be happy to work with her in clearing
this up."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said if the concerns [brought forth by Ms.
Reardon] have substance, then it is the committee's
responsibility to address them. He said he thought Ms. Reardon
had a good point about the 180-day limit, and the process people
go through in finding a problem with a recently purchased house.
[HB 27 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|