02/05/2001 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 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
SENATE BILL NO. 10
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Public
Accountancy."
- MOVED SB 10 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 73
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Veterinary Examiners."
- MOVED HB 73 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers."
- MOVED HB 74 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 10
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDED BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) THERRIAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0014 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 12/29/00
01/08/01 0014 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0014 (S) L&C
01/23/01 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/23/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
01/23/01 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
01/24/01 0158 (S) L&C RPT 5DP
01/24/01 0158 (S) DP: PHILLIPS, LEMAN,
TORGERSON,
01/24/01 0158 (S) AUSTERMAN, DAVIS
01/24/01 0159 (S) FN1: ZERO(CED)
01/25/01 (S) RLS AT 11:15 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
01/25/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
01/25/01 0171 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1/25/01
01/25/01 0174 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
01/25/01 0174 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
01/25/01 0174 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 10
01/25/01 0174 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
01/25/01 0177 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
01/26/01 0167 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/26/01 0167 (H) L&C
02/05/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 73
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING BOARD OF VETERINARY EXAMINERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HAYES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/17/01 0115 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/17/01 0115 (H) L&C, FIN
02/02/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/02/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/05/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 74
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING THE BD OF BARBERS/HAIRDRESSERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CRAWFORD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/17/01 0115 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/17/01 0115 (H) L&C, FIN
02/02/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/02/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/05/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of SB
10.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED)
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the continuation
of: the Board of Public Accountancy, SB 10; the Board of
Veterinary Examiners, HB 73; and the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers, HB 74, on behalf of the division and the
department.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-13, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.
Representatives Murkowski, Meyer, Crawford, and Hayes were
present at the call to order. Representatives Halcro, Kott, and
Rokeberg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 10 - EXTENDED BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 10, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Public Accountancy."
Number 0096
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of Senator Therriault, sponsor
of SB 10. Ms. Brakes informed the committee that the Board of
Public Accountancy consists of seven members appointed by the
governor. She said, "Each member shall be a resident of this
state for at least one year. There are five members that ...
shall be certified public accountants, or public accountants and
two members shall be ... members of the public."
MS. BRAKES informed the committee that the bill packet includes
SB 10 as well as a zero fiscal note. She stated, "The bill
simply extends the Board of Public Accountancy to ... June 30,
2005. If the legislature does not take action, the board will
terminate on June 30, 2001, and will have one year to
administratively conclude its affairs." The bill packet should
also include a copy of the audit from the Division of
Legislative Audit ["Legislative Audit"] that was released on
December 6, 2000. She said that the division found "the board
to be safeguarding the public interest by ensuring the
competence and integrity of those who hold themselves out ... to
the public as certified public accountants or public
accountants." The division also recommended that the board be
extended to June 30, 2005.
MS. BRAKES pointed out that there were three recommendations
made by Legislative Audit. The first two recommendations speak
to the regulations of the board. The third recommends that the
governor make more timely appointments to vacant seats on the
board. The audit includes the board's response to those
recommendations.
Number 0314
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED), concurred
with Ms. Brakes' testimony. Ms. Reardon testified in support of
the continuation of the Board of Public Accountancy by the
division and the department. She offered to answer questions.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the board is responsible for submitting
names to the governor when there is a vacancy on the board, and
how that appointment process is handled.
MS. REARDON answered that it is not a responsibility of the
board. She pointed out that people can, at any time, submit
applications to the governor's office to serve on any of the
licensing boards. She said when there is a vacancy, and there
aren't sufficient applications on file at the governor's office,
then the governor's staff solicits applications.
MS. REARDON informed the committee that people interested in
these positions merely need to send a letter saying who they are
and what qualifies them for the board, along with a contact name
and number. Generally, the governor's office wants more
applicants for these boards and wants to keep the process
[simple] for public members, in particular. It can be difficult
to find public members that are willing and able to serve.
Number 0484
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said in the division's response to
Recommendation 3 [from Legislative Audit], the board would
attempt to facilitate in any way possible, assisting the
governor's office in finding board members. She asked about the
nomination process and whether applications should be submitted
to the governor's office.
Number 0561
MS. REARDON clarified that she had received an e-mail from the
chair of the board suggesting how to respond. She said she
assumed the board chair might contact the [particular] society
and encourage people to submit their names.
Number 0646
MS. REARDON said the difficulty in filling board seats is not
just a problem with the Board of Public Accountancy, but comes
up as a problem with different boards at various times. She
said one vacancy doesn't usually cause a problem but it is nice
to have everyone, designated to have a seat, at the table. She
said in a board where there are four licensees, and one public
member, it isn't such an issue, but [on the boards] that the
legislature has decided to describe three or four different
kinds of people that should be on the board, then [vacancies]
are felt. She said at some point, it becomes a quorum problem,
because the quorum is the majority of the seats. She said
meeting dates could be difficult [to schedule] if there are too
many vacancies on the board.
MS. REARDON said the governor's office takes the issue of
filling vacant seats seriously. She said there are roughly 125
board seats, just in her division, that are expiring at
different times during the year. She said there are either 400
or 700 appointed spots on boards or commissions governmentwide.
She acknowledged that it is a big challenge and sometimes "they"
get behind. However, she feels the boards can fulfill their
statutory responsibilities and are complying with the statutes
when they meet.
Number 0796
MS. REARDON noted that a person serving in a board position
continues to serve until he or she is replaced. She said there
are not vacancies unless a person has chosen to resign.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she is satisfied that the concerns raised
about the regulation [from the audit] are being addressed.
MS. REARDON explained that there is a difference of opinion
between Legislative Audit and the board as to whether the
regulation requiring specific continuing education for
supervising accountants is appropriate. She said the board has
addressed the second issue [from the audit] and added a question
to their application to ensure that supervisors are licensed.
However, she anticipates this difference in opinion to remain.
She said she doesn't expect the board to reverse its opinion in
regulation - as they feel strongly about it.
Number 0906
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move SB 10 from committee
with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SB 10 was moved from the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 73-EXTENDING BOARD OF VETERINARY EXAMINERS
Number 0940
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the committee would take up HOUSE BILL NO.
73, "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Veterinary Examiners."
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES, sponsor of HB 73, said the bill extends
the termination date of the Board of Veterinary Examiners to
June 30, 2005. He said the audit of the board was conducted
last year and the conclusion reached was that the board is
operating in an efficient and effective manner, and should
continue to regulate veterinarians.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES relayed that according to the audit, the
board is operating in the best interest of the public. He said
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, Division of
Legislative Audit ("Legislative Audit"), and the Division of
Occupational Licensing, Department of Community and Economic
Development (DCED), both recommend extending the board until
June 30, 2005.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said the board is composed of four
veterinarians and one public member, staggered in four-year
increments. He mentioned that there is a zero fiscal note. He
said he had a letter from Todd Palmatier, President, Alaska
State Veterinarian Medical Association, who is in support of HB
73.
Number 1093
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), said
the division concurs that the Board of Veterinary Examiners is
doing a good job and supports the extension of the board for
another four years.
MS. REARDON responded to a question about courtesy licenses.
She explained that there is a statute, which applies to all
boards, that establishes a system for courtesy licenses for
individuals who are licensed in other states and who come up [to
Alaska] for specific situations. She said this board chose to
write regulations, establishing courtesy licenses designed
primarily for dog-mushing races.
Number 1167
MS. REARDON said because there are both foreign and out-of-state
veterinarians coming for the Iditarod and the Yukon Quest, often
as volunteers, the courtesy licenses allow them to serve in that
capacity on the Iditarod or so forth, for a specific period of
time on their out-of-state license; participating veterinarians
don't have to go through the whole licensure process, but do pay
a fee. She explained that this has eased tensions previously
caused by the process. She said the board has done a good job
of acting timely and streamlining the process.
MS. REARDON said there was a special teleconference a few weeks
ago to approve the licenses so everyone would be set to go.
Number 1222
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there were any continuing education
requirements for veterinarians. She said veterinarians deal
with pharmaceuticals for animals and she would think there would
need to be some kind of "update" when dealing with drugs used on
animals.
Number 1243
MS. REARDON said she believed there was a continuing education
requirement for the renewal of a veterinarian license. She said
the continuing education is to be done in areas that directly
relate to the practice of veterinary medicine. She said it is
up to the professionals to decide which kind of continuing
education to take. She said this is generally the case for all
of "their" health care professions. Doctors are told that they
need to have American Medical Association (AMA) category 1
continuing education but can pick any topic. She said she
doesn't know if "they" are getting it in pharmaceutical areas or
not.
Number 1293
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked about animal chiropractors. She said a
member of the public suggested that the board should create a
new licensing category in Alaska for animal chiropractors.
Number 1309
MS. REARDON replied that she thought there was a question,
during the past year, about whether a human chiropractor could
perform chiropractic [care] on animals, and whether it was
within the scope of the chiropractic license. She said she
thought the answer was that human chiropractors couldn't, but
veterinarians could do chiropractic [care] and didn't need any
type of certification.
Number 1354
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Reardon about typical
investigations with this group of practitioners.
MS. REARDON said there is generally an animal owner who is not
happy with the outcome of treatment, much like someone who
complains about a human physician. She said there was a big
complaint investigation and filing of disciplinary action that
related to "euthanizing" animals. She said community members,
not an animal owner, brought about the complaint because they
felt that the drugs being used for euthanasia were inhumane.
She said that was one of the bigger and more expensive cases
over the last five years to investigate. This situation was an
exception, but one that the veterinary community was quite aware
of.
MS. REARDON said there are complaints from other practitioners
and some from clients.
Number 1435
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said there is a dispute between the board
and the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) over the
issue of [vaccinating against] rabies, which has held up the
distribution of the annual veterinarian handbook until the
policy is promulgated by DHSS. He asked Ms. Reardon if she was
aware of the issue, based on the recommendations made by the
board.
Number 1460
MS. REARDON said she hadn't realized that it was still an issue.
She said she heard about the topic two years ago and hoped that
it was resolved. She said she thought he was referring to the
DHSS handbook. She said the board felt that the instructions
given in the DHSS handbook didn't match what was believed to be
current practice for administering rabies vaccines. She said
she believed the board wrote a letter explaining its concerns to
DHSS. She said she would check and see how it all came out.
Number 1511
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the [audit] report gives the impression
that it has not been resolved. She said the board held back
distributing its annual handbook until the Division of Public
Health, DHSS, revised state regulation to reflect the recent
policy at the national (indisc.).
Number 1533
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER referred to the fiscal note, page 2, and
said the revenue for 1999 was $111,000, and was $17,000 for
fiscal year 2000. He asked Ms. Reardon about the difference
[between the two years].
Number 1555
MS. REARDON said fiscal year 1999 was the renewal year, when the
vast majority of people paid money to cover the two-year cycle,
"so that is why there is the up and the down year." She
explained that the fiscal year 2000 [revenue] would have just
been from new people coming into the profession.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked Ms. Reardon where the board meets
because he had observed that the meeting [notices] are published
in Juneau, Fairbanks, and Anchorage. He wondered if costs could
be saved by publishing announcements in just one paper or on the
Internet. He said only a select group is interested in the
meetings but areawide coverage is being paid for.
MS. REARDON explained that the board always meets once a year in
Anchorage, and usually once in Fairbanks, but not necessarily
Juneau. She said the board moves around, but has at least one
meeting in Anchorage. She said reducing the number of papers
that run the ad could save some money, and has been done in
recent years. She said the details were discussed with
Legislative Audit, and said that a similar paragraph exists in
all of the audits.
Number 1641
MS. REARDON referred to page 10 [of the audit report],
"Location, date, and time of upcoming board meetings and notices
and proposed changes regulations are published in those three
papers." She said advertisements always appear in the Anchorage
Daily News because it is the paper of largest circulation in the
state. When a meeting is taking place in another spot, then an
advertisement shows up there as well. She said there are
different practices for proposed regulation changes that are
more widely advertised. She said the sentence [on page 10 of
the audit report] covers both things, which is why it looks that
way.
MS. REARDON said she could provide the actual policy and
procedure on advertising. She said the comment about
advertising on the Internet was helpful. It would take some
statutory changes to get rid of the requirement about the
advertisement in the paper, which appears in the legal section
of the classified ads. She said it is an expense without much
value other than complying with the law. She said most citizens
don't look in that section for meetings.
MS. REARDON said most people can't afford display ads on a
frequent basis, which would be the logical way to advertise.
She said it might be a more valuable legal requirement to post
public notices online, along with mailing to people on the
Interested Parties List. She said it might be different with
regulations because "they" may like to point to the fact that
regulations were publicly noticed. She said many payments are
made to the classified sections that probably aren't resulting
in value.
Number 1737
MS. REARDON said public notice of examinations is another
example of possible ineffective advertising, since people
needing to take an examination do not start at the paper. She
said prospective licensees call the division and ask them how to
do it. She said the division writes back to people about the
exam, if they qualify to take it. Anyone who sees it in the
paper, by definition, doesn't qualify to take the test. There
are probably some cost savings that could be done. She said it
is her responsibility to bring statutory changes to the
committee - those necessary to achieve the changes.
Number 1775
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER referred to the expenditures and asked for
an example of contractual services.
MS. REARDON said personnel services would be salaries of
division staff, such as the licensing examiner, a [pay] range 12
position who does the board's agenda, deals with the public,
reviews applications, and so forth. She said investigator time
would also be considered a personnel service.
MS. REARDON said contractual services are services purchased
from sources outside of the division including: telephone
services, postage, legal services, expert witness agreements,
and examination purchases. She said the national examination is
purchased and then people are charged to take it. She said the
portion of money paid to the department as a whole for the
personnel or fiscal division also shows up that way.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked Ms. Reardon what percentage of time a
range-12 position would be dedicated to the board.
Number 1861
MS. REARDON said half to three-fourths of the range-12's time
would be dedicated to this, depending on the time of year. She
said a range 12 [position], step A, costs about $42,000 a year
including benefits. She said this person is probably at a
higher step, which would be a little more than that. She said
the hearing officer's salary would fall under the personnel
cost.
MS. REARDON said half time would [probably] be more accurate
[referring to the range 12's time dedicated to the board]. She
said that person also works with the Board of Dispensing
Opticians and in licensing of underground storage-tank workers.
Number 1916
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon where the board is in
the licensing cycle. He said fiscal year 2000 was when license
revenue was received.
MS. REARDON responded by saying that "they" renewed December 31,
2000. She said there are no increments in the fiscal note;
there is a zero fiscal note because no additional expenditure
authority is needed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was referring to the increase
last year and asked if the board voted on a fee increase.
Number 1979
MS. REARDON said there was a fee increase, which required a
consultation with the board. The members of the board were not
happy that it was increasing but they understood. She said she
met with the veterinarian association in Seward to discuss the
fee situation back in November or December [2000].
MS. REARDON said there was a fee increase, related primarily to
a deficit because of the investigation, legal action, and
discipline related to the euthanasia topic, mentioned earlier.
She said it is a relatively small profession, one where people
are not highly compensated, so the fee [increase] affects them a
lot. She said she believed the association fee was around $45.
She mentioned that veterinarians are a fiscally conservative
group.
Number 2024
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Reardon about the budget and audit
report and said the same recommendation was made in 1996 to the
board members, to establish a hard-core minimum test score for
veterinarians. He asked if she'd had any discussions with the
board or heard any dialog "that's taken place on the board as to
why they haven't put that hard-core number into regulation yet."
Number 2047
MS. REARDON said she didn't know why the board hadn't but said
"we" will do it. She said she was pretty sure that last time,
as part of the sunset audit legislation, there were substantial
revisions regarding which test was required. She said she would
make sure that "we" do a regulation establishing a minimum test
score. She said there has always been a minimum test score but,
as was pointed out in the audit, the problem has been that
Alaska's definition of "passing" is different than other states.
MS. REARDON mentioned that she would check on the rabies issue,
mentioned earlier.
Number 2116
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move HB 73 from committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note,
and asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, HB
73 moved from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 74-EXTENDING THE BD OF BARBERS/HAIRDRESSERS
Number 2145
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would take up HOUSE
BILL NO. 74, "An Act extending the termination date of the Board
of Barbers and Hairdressers."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, sponsor of HB 74, said the bill is
designed to extend the sunset for the licensing Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers until 2005. He said there is broad support for
the measure, among all parties affected; it is a simple and
necessary bill and there are no known objections.
Number 2188
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Halcro if he had
spoken to anyone on the board about things happening in the
industry, either before or after the bill was introduced.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he spoke to Sheryl Sutton, Chair,
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers. He said "they" seemed to
think that this was a needed board and service, and should be
continued. He said he wasn't made aware of any problems within
the industry.
Number 2219
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it reminded him of a case that was
brought to him by a hairdresser/shop owner, which may be
germane. He said the [former] Department of Labor (DOL) was
investigating a shop owner to [determine] whether or not he or
she met the requirements of an independent shop versus an
employee shop. He explained that this meant whether the
operators in the shop were operating as independent contractors
under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (indisc.), or were
employees of the shop.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the [former] DOL "comes out looking
really bad because they are like harassing this small-business
person." He wondered if this was an ongoing problem and if the
legislature could have helped by defining standards of practice
of a shop and so forth. He said the board might want to address
this issue.
Number 2279
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it would probably help to have
legislation, but he wasn't sure if HB 74 was the appropriate
bill. He said the committee should be aware of the controversy,
and the board might be able to set a method in regulation so the
shop owners could declare or register with the board to
distinguish between an independent and a mixed shop.
Number 2346
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he agreed that there should be a
differentiation between the two.
Number 2365
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for clarification [about the
difference] between a barber and a hairdresser, and asked what
the qualifications are for both. He said the committee last
year passed legislation that put the board over regulating body
piercing and tattooing. He asked about the status of the
legislation and whether the regulations were ready for
promulgation.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED),
indicated a yes answer [by nodding] and also indicated that
there are no vacancies on the board.
Number 2439
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he thought the difference between a
barber and a hairdresser was that a barber is just licensed to
cut hair and a hairdresser can do everything from permanents to
coloring and highlighting.
Number 2452
MS. REARDON said her division staffs this board and the division
and department support continuing the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers.
TAPE 01-13, SIDE B
MS. REARDON said barbers can shave, and hairdressers can't. She
said the definition of barbering includes: coloring, bleaching,
chemically straightening hair, doing permanents, and so forth.
She said in order to get a license to practice barbering, one
has to complete all of the chemical training, not just learn how
to do the simple cuts.
MS. REARDON said this topic had come up in the course of her
work. A person wanted to do traditional barbering activities
and had a license in another state. He had worked under a
federal exemption on a military base for years, and wanted to go
into private practice. She said he had to go back and get
training in doing permanents, colorings, and so forth because
although he didn't want to do those activities, his license
would permit him to, and the regulations require training in
those areas.
MS. REARDON said shaving is one difference [between barbers and
hairdressers]. The other difference is that hairdressers can do
manicures under the power of their hairdresser license, and
barbers can't; a barber's license doesn't require training in
manicuring. She said "esthetics" means facials and skin care in
this particular context [of the legislation]. She said the
division also licenses manicurists, body piercers, and
tatooists.
MS. REARDON said she went to the board meeting in Anchorage,
during the first week of January, and "we" wrote the first
regulations for body piercing and tattooing. She said the board
took the task very seriously, and she was impressed with how
they proceeded since it is a topic that is new to a lot of the
members. She said there is a designated seat for a tattooist or
body piercer on the board, which was filled by Larry Allen
Ungerecht, owner of a large and long-standing tattoo shop in
Anchorage.
Number 2384
MS. REARDON said a body piercer attended [the meeting] and gave
a lot of expert advice. The Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) was also represented. She said the board is
prepared to publicly notice its regulations but is waiting,
because "we" want to send them out in the same packet as the DEC
regulations; the law requires DEC to establish the minimum
requirements for the equipment and sanitation of the facility.
The board is responsible for licensing requirements; they want
to send both things out to the public at once so the public can
see DEC's and the division's requirements together, and know
what will be required.
MS. REARDON said they would be ready in about a month and the
division would send them out. She said public notice of
regulations for transitional or grandfather licenses was already
done, because those people need to apply by June 30th to qualify
for the grandfather licenses. She said the requirement that one
has a license in order to engage in these practices doesn't kick
in for another year. She said the time has not come yet where
people have to have the license.
Number 2322
MS. REARDON said it has been predicted that about 25 people will
get licensed, which is reflected in the fiscal note. She
further told the committee that if they have constituents that
they would like to have on the Interested Parties Public Notice
List, they could forward them to her office. She said
otherwise, their only [other] source is the Yellow Pages. She
said when there is a new occupation, there is always concern
that people might be missed - people who need to know that there
is a deadline to submit applications for grandfathering.
Number 2297
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER referred to the fiscal note and asked Ms.
Reardon if it was safe to say that there is one person dedicated
to the board.
MS. REARDON said, "Yes, there is; there are approximately 3,300
license holders and one range-12 person who handles all of
that."
Number 2277
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for clarification about the
discrepancy on the amount from the last board. "There is like a
$20,000 [dollar increase from last year]," he noted.
Number 2254
CATHERINE REARDON said the jump [in the budget report] was in
contractual and direct personnel services. She said much of the
increase in 2000 versus 1999 was in investigative activity. She
said for many years "we" did almost no enforcement in the
program. She said unlicensed activity is the primary issue;
"we" don't get a lot of consumer complaints. She said it's
mostly people without the proper license, which is a
misdemeanor. They didn't feel that investigations would
necessarily result in actual enforcement action. She said, as
the amount of investigative staff grew, "we" did start
proactively going and doing inspections and identifying those
who didn't have licenses, trying that method of telling them
that they have to get one.
MS. REARDON said there was a fair amount of that done in the
[year] 2000. She said "we swung" through Fairbanks and other
communities, looking for licenses; she thought this is where one
would see most of the personnel services increased. She said it
was worthwhile and the message is out on the street that one
needs to have a license.
MS. REARDON said "we" also started negotiating Memorandums Of
Agreement (MOAs), fining people who employed unlicensed
individuals. One aspect of the manicuring law is that the board
now has the power to fine unlicensed people. She said it is
another tool to persuade people to enter into an agreement. The
delayed effective date took place at the beginning of the fiscal
year and was a legal improvement that gave "us" a tool to
encourage people to come into compliance with the law.
MS. REARDON said the difference in personnel services [between
1999 and 2000] is because some investigator time is now being
dedicated to this profession.
Number 2160
MS. REARDON mentioned workers' compensation and said that it is
pretty common, in this industry, to have a system called "chair
rental" where "you'll see something that looks like just one
shop to the customer coming in, but individuals are actually
renting chairs." She said questions have come up as to whether
a person is considered an employee or not. She said she doesn't
think the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers could do anything to
resolve that because, at least with regard to workers'
compensation, the criteria for what made a person an employee or
not was set in both [former] DOL and federal law, so telling the
board that this person wasn't one's employee wouldn't make them
"not your employee." She said, "What would make them not your
employee is if you weren't setting their hours, you weren't
overseeing how they deliver services, some other things that
were in the labor law."
MS. REARDON said she didn't think there was anything that the
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers would do that could change the
reality of whether one is considered a true, independent
contractor, or an employee, calling himself or herself an
independent contractor. She said she believed it had to do with
hour setting, work quality, and condition issues. When one
starts controlling those things, the person is considered an
employer. She said this is her memory of the topic.
Number 2082
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is an ongoing problem throughout
the industry, and chairs are rented in some instances. He
stated:
If the board were to meet and draft regulations ... if
there was a question, they could even register the
contracts of individuals with the board, ... so they
would have to meet the criteria of federal and state
law, there's no question about that.
They couldn't change those laws, but ... at least "we"
could be a repository, ... to refute the
investigation, one way or the other, ... [for the]
Department of Labor, and also help the Department of
Labor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to a situation brought to his
office. He said it entailed 20 hours of administrative hearings
and the costs were horrendous. He said a licensee wouldn't put
up with it, but the [former] DOL is out there, "wasting all
kinds of state money on it, in my opinion."
Number 2021
MS. REARDON said she thought "we" could serve as a place to file
it with some sort of system, but said it might be a better idea
if the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
serves that function. She said she would be a little worried
that people might think that by filing it with her, and her
putting it into the file folder, that somehow the state was
saying that it was all right "that you don't consider them your
employee." She said she wouldn't want people to think that
filing it with her would make them "safe." She said they could
carry out this function if people think it's a good idea.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked who is liable when a shop owner is
renting a chair to someone who may not have a current license.
Number 1964
MS. REARDON said when the person is an employee, the shop owner
is liable; she was not sure whether the shop owner would be
liable if the person was an independent contractor.
Number 1948
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if it was safe to assume that if a
person is doing body piercing and tattooing, he or she has some
sort of license.
MS. REARDON answered by saying "not today." She said the law
that passed last year had a delayed [effective] date by which
one had to have a license. She said she thought a person had to
have a license by June 30, 2002, over one year from now, to have
time to phase in [the requirement]. She said some things took
effect immediately, such as prohibiting the tattooing of minors;
a person has to have parental consent to body pierce a minor.
She said she would check.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER verified with Ms. Reardon that people over
the age of 18 don't need to have parental consent [for body
piercing].
MS. REARDON said she thought that was correct: it referred to a
minor. She said a minor could go in and get his or her ears
pierced from someone without a license, since the definition of
body piercing specifically exempted ear piercing. The law
required DEC to establish sanitary regulations for ear piercing.
She said the DEC regulations haven't been publicly noticed or
adopted yet, to establish rules for ear piercing. She said she
didn't believe that there were minimum guidelines for sanitation
as it relates to ear piercing, at this time.
Number 1873
MS. REARDON said she doesn't know a lot about the topic but in
listening to the DEC staff person talk to the body piercing
person at the board meeting, it sounded like there were
variations in sanitary conditions.
MS. REARDON corrected a previous statement she had made,
referring to the statute on tattooing and body piercing: "A
person may not practice tattooing - we call it tattooing ...
permanent cosmetic coloring; that is the official term - on a
minor. And that appears to have taken effect September 1,
2000."
MS. REARDON said body piercing requires prior written permission
from the minor's parent or legal guardian, and the presence [of
the parent or guardian] during the procedure. She reiterated
that ear piercing is exempted from this law.
Number 1781
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if someone who is licensed to do body
piercing would also have adequate insurance, and what would the
ramifications be if this person used an unclean needle and the
client worst case [scenario], got Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV).
Number 1753
MS. REARDON said there isn't a requirement for liability
insurance; most of "our" professions don't have any requirement
for liability insurance, as a general rule. She said even
health care professions assume that there are no requirements
for malpractice or liability insurance.
MS. REARDON said she thought the remedy would be sought through
the courts and/or filing a complaint with the board to try to
get the person's license revoked, and to try to prompt a
misdemeanor prosecution if the person was not licensed. She
said the tattooing statute, regarding a minor, goes on to say,
"A person who with criminal negligence violates the prohibition
against tattooing minors is guilty of a class B misdemeanor."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked what the requirements would be if he
wanted to get a license and do body piercing.
Number 1705
MS. REARDON said there are some requirements for people who are
eligible for grandfather licenses, and other [requirements] for
new applicants. She said an examination is required for both.
She said the board is in the process of trying to find an
examination. This is the last thing to be completed in the
proposed regulations, and "we" have been looking hard around the
country to try to buy an examination.
MS. REARDON said new entrants into the profession are required
to do an apprenticeship. The regulations will describe what
subjects have to be covered in the apprenticeship, and the
number of hours in each subject. She said there aren't any
schools for this in Alaska, and the bill doesn't provide for
school education. The profession is generally passed on as a
formal or informal apprenticeship. The people that already
practice [the profession] don't need to do the apprenticeship
but need to prove that they were practicing for 12 of the last
24 months prior to application, and then pass the exam.
Number 1630
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he thought it was odd that a person
could open a tattooing or body piercing shop in one of the rooms
of his or her house and there is not a consequence if the person
doesn't use a sanitary needle.
Number 1609
MS. REARDON said a good thing about the statute is that it does
require a person to have a shop license; the location has to be
approved, as well as the practitioner. She said DEC's
regulations are going to establish oversight, to ensure that
people have sinks, things for cleaning equipment, and so forth.
She said some people will ignore the law and still have their
"back room things" going on, without licenses, and then it will
be up to misdemeanor prosecution to try and take care of that.
She said on the positive [side], prior to passing this law there
were no requirements at all and "you" weren't breaking the law.
At least now, if someone feels that it should be regulated, it
is a step towards that. For many members in the industry, it
will be a shock to go to that degree of change.
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon when the manicurist
[law] took effect.
MS. REARDON said the manicurist [law] that required a
practitioner to have a license, took effect either September 1,
2001, or September 30 [2001]. She said the law doesn't have a
grandfather provision; everyone who does manicures, except
hairdressers who are already covered by their licenses, needs to
have a 12-hour course that covers health and safety topics, for
the manicurist and for the patron. She said the board wrote
[out] what should be covered in the 12 hours. There is no state
exam required, but the 12-hour course needs to be completed.
MS. REARDON said "we" need to get some people offering the 12-
hour course for the system to work. The private sector doesn't
appear to be offering the 12-hour course. She said a mailing
was sent inviting the private sector to offer the 12-hour
course; if that doesn't happen, then the committee will be
hearing from her next year, since people won't have their
licenses and would be out of compliance with the law. She said
the manicurist statute gives people the option of taking a 250-
hour course, to call themselves an advanced manicurist.
MS. REARDON said she is concerned about the approaching date for
licensure deadline. She said she would think that someone would
want to travel around the state and offer the course, but she
hasn't found that person yet.
Number 1452
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the fiscal note for the year
2000 and asked when the one for 2001 would be drafted.
MS. REARDON said the last two complete fiscal years were done.
She said 2001 was not included [in the bill packet] because it
is the middle of 2001, but said she could easily tell the
committee what has been spent to date.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why 2001 is not reflected in the
fiscal note and whether the 2002 budgets have been submitted.
MS. REARDON said fiscal notes generally show new costs. She
said she doesn't need any new expenditure authority to continue
the board. She said some people feel fiscal notes should be
"positive fiscal notes" because if the bill didn't pass and the
board and licensing were eliminated, there would be a [budget]
reduction. In order to make people with that philosophy happy,
"we" like to acknowledge that there is a cost and that if the
activity was stopped, "this" is the amount that would go away.
Number 1282
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented on the 2001 fiscal year and
the manicuring board.
Number 1276
MS. REARDON said she believed a positive fiscal note was put in
for tattooing and body piercing, and manicuring licensing,
because there was an increase in expenditure authority when
those passed. Referring to the attachment to the fiscal note,
she said it shows that "we" didn't actually spend the increase
in expenditure authority that "we" got in the fiscal notes.
MS. REARDON said one shouldn't necessarily conclude that the
difference between the two years [1999 and 2000] refers to
programs being added, because in terms of investigator activity,
there wasn't more investigator [time] for either of the two
programs. She said she would have to check to see if she got a
one-fourth-time investigator for manicurists. She said "this"
[referring to the sheet attached to the fiscal note] is actual
time spent, whereas a fiscal note is a prediction.
MS. REARDON explained that indirect costs are distinguished from
direct costs [referring to the attachment to the fiscal note].
She said all of the indirect costs are in a pot and divided
equally among licensees in the professions. She said the
indirect costs are [roughly] $95 for a two-year license. She
said because of the financial self-sufficiency mandate, where
each profession is charged its own regulatory cost, "we" have to
parcel out all costs in the division. She said costs are broken
into three levels: costs that are reasonably attributable to a
profession; costs that pertain to the board; and costs that
aren't efficiently tracked at the other two levels, which go
into the indirect pool and are spread per capita among the
38,000 licensees.
MS. REARDON said those [costs] are anything from a
receptionist's salary to the copy machine. She said copies are
billed out, but the purchase and repair of the machine [are
billed] to the indirect pool and spread per capita.
MS. REARDON said an indirect cost is not necessarily overhead.
It could be a very tangible thing, such as the cost of having
the phone system. She said although long-distance calls are
billed to each profession, the cost of having a phone on each
desk is an indirect cost. She said "we" go through that
assessment for each cost.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how much of the $95 is going to
the commissioner's office.
MS. REARDON said she would distinguish between the
commissioner's office and the Division of Administrative
Services, which is the administrative support for the
department. She said "we" probably pay other agencies of the
department $500,000 per year, with the changes.
Number 1070
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said one of the responsibilities of the
committee has always been "to ensure that the commissioner and
the bureaucracy wasn't stealing from the licensees." He said
the committee has done a pretty good job and there have been
several audits, which is the reason he brought it up.
Number 1044
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it seems like the makeup of the board has
grown and expanded into areas that weren't anticipated, such as
the barbers and hairdressers being lumped in with those that do
body tattoos. She asked if it is an all right melding of the
occupations, and if the board is going to work out.
Number 1013
MS. REARDON said she believes it will work out. She said she
went to the board meeting where they were going to deal with
tattooing and body piercing because she wanted to see whether
the board was going to be able to work together with this new
profession. She said there was some ambivalence among some
board members and some members of the industry about whether
they wanted to move into the body piercing and tattooing area,
but now that the board has it, they are taking it seriously and
trying to do a good job.
MS. REARDON said there was also some ambivalence on the part of
the body piercers and tatooists. She said there was the
financial reality that the profession needed to be a part of
some board. Even with 25 - and one day possibly 50 licensees -
the financial self-sufficiency mandate was going to make the
licenses extremely expensive. She said joining a board with
3,000 licensees to spread costs among lowered [the cost] down to
an acceptable level.
Number 0927
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the barbers and hairdressers were
concerned about going into an area that is potentially more
risky.
MS. REARDON said she didn't think the cost concern has been
articulated much, but she has heard concern over lack of
knowledge about a profession that they are regulating. She said
she thought they compensated by trying to have a [body piercing
and tattooing designated seat] board member and by encouraging
other people with experience to come and talk to the board. She
said the board was very open about having people who weren't
even on the board sitting at the table and "putting in their two
cents." She said she hadn't heard concern about the cost, but
if it ends up being expensive, then "we'll" hear about it.
MS. REARDON said it overlaps with concerns brought to the board
about permanent cosmetics. She said some beauty practitioners
do lip liner, eyeliner, or permanent cosmetics - which are
tattoos. She said the board had been concerned about this
activity but wasn't able to regulate it because it didn't fall
under the definitions of the professions that the board
regulates.
Number 0768
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HB 74 from
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 74 was moved from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|