04/19/2006 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB350 | |
| SB177 | |
| Confirmations || Board of Chiropractic Examiners || Board of Pharmacy || Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners || Board of Barbers and Hairdressers || Board of Examiners in Optometry || State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board || Board of Professional Counselors || Board of Social Work Examiners || Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission || Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2006
4:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 350
"An Act relating to enforcement of insurance unfair claim
settlement practices by a person affected by a violation;
permitting penalties for a single-act unfair claim settlement
practice; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 350(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 177
"An Act eliminating the requirement that persons using titles or
descriptions of services that incorporate the terms
'psychotherapy,' 'psychotherapeutic,' or 'psychotherapist' be
licensed by the Board of Psychologist and Psychological
Associate Examiners."
- HEARD AND HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS
Mr. Jeffrey Garness - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
BOARD OF PHARMACY
Mr. Richard Holm - North Pole
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGIST AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATE EXAMINERS
Ms. Lisa Turner - Kenai
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
BOARD OF BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS
Ms. Carol Hernley - Cordova
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS
Mr. David Mulholland - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY
Dr. James C. Graves - Fairbanks
Dr. Timothy Sullivan, Jr. - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
STATE PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY BOARD
Ms. Cheryl Abitz - Palmer
Ms. Joanne Boehme - Juneau
Ms. Mary Ann Paul - Eagle River
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS
Ms. Jennifer Burkholder - Anchorage
Ms. Emily Zimbrich - Haines
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
BOARD OF SOCIAL WORK EXAMINERS
Mr. Jason Floyd - Valdez
Ms. Sammye Pokryfki - Wasilla
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS COMMISSION
Mr. Jim Robison - Eagle River
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Mr. John Abshire - Wasilla
Mr. Richard Behrends - Juneau
Mr. Andrew (Bear) Piekarski - Eagle River
Ms. Patricia Vollendorf - Anchorage
Ms. Lori Wing - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 350
SHORT TITLE: UNFAIR CLAIM SETTLEMENT PRACTICES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT, GRUENBERG
01/09/06 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/6/06
01/09/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (H) L&C, JUD
03/24/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM LOCATION TBA
03/24/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/29/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/29/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/12/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/12/06 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/19/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 177
SHORT TITLE: PRACTICE OF PSYCHOLOGY
SPONSOR(s): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES BY REQUEST
04/15/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/05 (S) HES, L&C
04/20/05 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/25/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/25/06 (S) Heard & Held
01/25/06 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/01/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/01/06 (S) -- Rescheduled to 02/03/06 --
02/03/06 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/03/06 (S) -- Rescheduled from 02/01/06 --
02/06/06 (S) HES RPT CS 2DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/06/06 (S) DP: DYSON, ELTON
02/06/06 (S) NR: GREEN
02/14/06 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/14/06 (S) Moved CSSB 177(HES) Out of Committee
02/14/06 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/15/06 (S) L&C RPT CS(HES) 3DP 2NR
02/15/06 (S) DP: BUNDE, SEEKINS, STEVENS B
02/15/06 (S) NR: DAVIS, ELLIS
02/22/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/22/06 (S) VERSION: CSSB 177(HES)
02/24/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/06 (H) HES, L&C
03/28/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/28/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 04/04/06>
04/04/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/04/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 04/06/06>
04/06/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/06/06 (H) -- Rescheduled from 04/04/06 --
04/11/06 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/11/06 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/11/06 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/12/06 (H) HES RPT 2DP 2NR
04/12/06 (H) DP: ANDERSON, WILSON;
04/12/06 (H) NR: CISSNA, GARDNER
04/19/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
LALANYA SNYDER, Staff
to Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 350 on behalf of co-sponsor,
Representative Chenault.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the co-sponsor of HB 350.
JEFFREY TROUTT, Deputy Director
Juneau Office
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB
350.
BOB LOHR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 350.
JASON HOOLEY, Staff
to Senator Fred Dyson
Senate Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 177 on behalf of the Senate
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee,
sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 4:12:13 PM. Representatives
Guttenberg, Lynn, LeDoux, Kott, and Anderson were present at the
call to order. Representatives Crawford and Rokeberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
4:12:41 PM
HB 350-UNFAIR CLAIM SETTLEMENT PRACTICES
[Contains discussion of HB 480]
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 350, "An Act relating to enforcement of
insurance unfair claim settlement practices by a person affected
by a violation; permitting penalties for a single-act unfair
claim settlement practice; and providing for an effective date."
4:12:59 PM
LALANYA SNYDER, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska
State Legislature, co-sponsor, explained that the unfair claim
settlement practices act sets standards by which insurance
companies must abide. This act, she said, was enacted to
protect Alaskans from unfair insurance settlement practices, and
defines what is acceptable conduct in the insurance industry.
She went on to say that HB 350 strengthens this act by allowing
an individual who has been harmed by an unfair claims settlement
to seek a remedy in court. In conclusion, she stated that HB
350 raises the current standards and would be a benefit to
Alaskans.
4:14:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, co-
sponsor, said that HB 350 allows AS 21.36, the trade practices
and fraudulent practices of the insurance industry, to be
enforced by a private suit. This may be enforced by the
director of the [Division of Insurance] or an individual may
file a lawsuit against the offending insurance company. He
explained that Section 2 is a conforming amendment. Section 3,
he said, allows restitution and a penalty of $2,500-$25,000 for
each violation. He noted that while Section 3 allows for
compensatory or punitive damages, the section in Title 9 which
governs the awarding of punitive damages is not amended by HB
350. Section 4 is a conforming amendment, he said, and Section
5 repeals AS 21.36.320(h), which restricts the penalty for
single act violations. In regard to Section 6, he stated that
the bill does not require an immediate effective date, and asked
the committee to entertain an amendment to delete this, along
with a conforming title amendment.
4:16:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved conceptual Amendment 1, as follows:
Delete: Section 6
Conforming title amendment
[There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that [Jeffrey Troutt, Director,
Division of Insurance] expressed many concerns with HB 350.
4:16:56 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that the National Association of Mutual
Insurance Companies (NAMIC) sent a letter dated April 11, 2006,
which expressed opposition of HB 350. In addition, he said,
Alaska Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers, Inc., submitted a
position paper in opposition to HB 350.
4:17:57 PM
JEFFREY TROUTT, Deputy Director, Juneau Office, Division of
Insurance, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic
Development (DCCED), related that the division has concerns with
HB 350 that fall under three categories: practical issues,
structural, and the divisions responsibilities. In regard to
"practical issues," he pointed out that Section 1 applies to "a
person harmed by a violation of this section," which may include
individuals it was not intended to benefit. He said that the
potential to collect punitive damages may cause individuals to
litigate for small amounts of money, which is a concern of some
attorneys. In addition, he opined that the potential for
damages will cause every insurance action to have a claim under
the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.
4:22:26 PM
MR. TROUTT went on to say that [HB 350] "puts punitive damages
on the table in situations where it [shouldn't necessarily] be
on the table." He noted that there are times when the only way
to resolve the situation is to litigate.
4:23:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if, being subject to punitive
damages, the insurance company might be encouraged to settle a
claim.
4:23:20 PM
MR. TROUTT replied that this would be an incentive; however,
encouraging an insurance company to settle based on punitive
damages is a "wild card."
4:23:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, in regard to attorneys being "forced" to
sue because of possible punitive damages, opined that the
attorney would be able to decline the case, and refer the client
to another attorney. She said "As an attorney myself, I can't
imagine that ... I [would] sue just because of the theoretical
possibility of [receiving punitive damages]."
MR. TROUTT replied that an attorney would be able to "turn a
case down." He opined that this would be something to take
under consideration when bringing an action.
4:25:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed with this, but stated that unless
the possibility [for punitive damages] is substantial, the
attorney is under no obligation to take the case.
MR. TROUTT agreed.
4:25:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that according to the sponsor
statement, HB 350 sets higher standards than are currently in
place. He asked where these standards are in the bill, and
inquired as to the current standards.
MR. TROUTT said that he does not believe that new standards are
being adopted, rather HB 350 creates a "class of plaintiffs,"
and empowers the superior courts to make decisions that have
traditionally been made by the Division of Insurance. He opined
that this would "certainly get the attention" of the insurance
companies.
4:27:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what the current standards are
for determining an unfair claim.
MR. TROUTT replied that there are many types of violations, and
stated that he does not know that there are any set standards.
He said that these claims are fact-specific, and the division
looks for patterns and practices that indicate the act is being
violated.
4:28:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, referring to [HB 480], said that in a
self-audit, insurance companies evaluate how claims have been
paid. He said that HB 350 seems to "dovetail" into the
aforementioned legislation. He opined that if there is a claim
against an insurance company, [the division] would see how the
company had changed its practices from its original claims
handling procedures. He asked how far back into the claims
process [the division] would be able to go.
MR. TROUTT replied that [the division] would go back as far as
the statute of limitations. He said that he does not know if
there is a limit on how far back [the division] can go.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said that according to [HB 480],
certain portions of the self-audit information are confidential.
He expressed concern that it may not be possible to find out
what occurred if the information was made confidential.
MR. TROUTT replied that as he understands it, [HB 480], would
prevent [the division] from using certain documents created
during the audit in administrative proceedings. However, the
division would be able to take action based on the substance of
the audit. For example, if an audit shows the company is
intentionally non-responsive, the division would need to conduct
interviews and research the situation.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how many actions are currently
being taken under the Unfair Claims Settlement Act.
MR. TROUTT replied that the division has participated in multi-
state settlements; however, to his knowledge, there have not
been any individual actions taken. He explained that issues of
this nature may come up in the context of a market exam, and the
division must then decide whether to simply ask for corrections
to be made or to prosecute. He stated that these types of
issues are examined on a regular basis.
4:33:10 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that while he does not intend to hold HB
350, he does not support this legislation. He said, "I think it
causes an unnecessary cause of action civilly, it could increase
rates, ... it certainly usurps the power of the Division of
Insurance and the director from the regulatory prerogative they
would have. ... I fear some frivolous lawsuits."
MR. TROUTT, continuing his testimony, said that the division
would be required to file a cease and desist order if the
superior court finds a violation of statute. He stated that
this may be a situation in which the division would not find a
violation, which would usurp the division's authority.
Additionally, there may be cases that are heard in two courts,
which may result in the courts finding different violations.
Furthermore, if the division is forced to issue a cease and
desist order with which it disagrees, would it be applied to
just the company [in violation] or does it serve to be a
precedent for other companies, he questioned. Mr. Troutt
explained that if a particular issue was litigated 100 times
with only one superior court finding a violation, the division
would be forced to issue a cease and desist order. In such a
situation whatever precedential impact that created would be
felt by the rest of the industry. He then inquired as to what
happens with the cease and desist order when the supreme court
reverses a decision. The statute doesn't specify that the cease
and desist order doesn't apply in such a case, he pointed out.
4:37:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to what the division would
do with the cease and desist order otherwise. He questioned the
need to specify in the legislation.
MR. TROUTT opined that it should be addressed because staff will
look to these statute and read them fairly literally.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if it's unique to this
situation.
MR. TROUTT said he didn't know. He said he couldn't think of
any other situation in which a member of the executive branch is
required to issue this type of order based on an unpublished
lower court decision.
4:38:19 PM
MR. TROUTT, continuing his testimony, highlighted that if the
division issues a cease and desist order, the person/company
that's the target of that order has the right to make an appeal
to the director and request a hearing. Therefore, he questioned
whether the matter is being re-litigated or is it merely a
matter of whether there was a superior court decision. If there
is some substantive examination and the party against which the
cease and desist order is issued loses, the director's decision
goes to the superior court for review. In this case, the
superior court reviews the director's review of its order. The
aforementioned is a structural difficulty that should be taken
into consideration. In conclusion, he reminded the committee
that the division takes consumer protection very seriously.
4:40:43 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON surmised then that the division believes its
procedures are thorough enough that it doesn't see the need for
this legislation.
MR. TROUTT said, "We do our best." In fact, the division dealt
with 459 consumer complaints and obtained $500,000 of
restitution for consumers.
4:42:32 PM
BOB LOHR, recalling Representative Guttenberg's comments on the
substantive standards, noted that those standards were set in
2000. He highlighted that the standards established that a
single act could constitute a violation of unfair claims
settlement practices as compared to the [continuing] prevalent
pattern that multiple acts rising to a general business practice
are necessary to constitute a violation. He recalled that [in
2000] the industry feared that there would be a rouge regulator
going after the companies. However, that should be laid to rest
at this point. The provisions in .125 were established to
restrict the ability of the division to abuse this tool. If the
committee chooses to amend the legislation to provide a private
cause of action to claimants' insurance claims, then the door
would be wide open to abusive litigation. Under the current
practice, when a claimant files a lawsuit the Unfair Claims
Settlement Practices Act compliance are brought into the file.
Other than attorney-client privileged information, the entire
claim file for the individual is made part of the discovery of
the case and is examined closely by all sides, including the
courts. The aforementioned is one of the key elements in
determining whether bad faith has occurred. The private cause
of action would cause the entire ability to enforce single
insurance mishandling of claims to be cast into doubt.
4:46:27 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining there were no further questions
from the committee, closed public testimony.
4:46:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved to report HB 350 [as amended]
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIR ANDERSON objected and reiterated his belief that there
isn't merit to this legislation.
4:47:20 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Guttenberg,
Crawford, Lynn, LeDoux, and Anderson voted in favor of reporting
HB 350 [as amended] out of committee. Representative Rokeberg
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 350(L&C) was reported out of
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 6-
1.
4:48:21 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:49:05 PM
SB 177-PRACTICE OF PSYCHOLOGY
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(HES), "An Act eliminating the
prohibition on the use by certain licensed professionals of
titles or descriptions of services that incorporate the terms
'psychoanalysis,' 'psychoanalyst,' 'psychotherapy,'
'psychotherapeutic,' or 'psychotherapist.'"
4:49:12 PM
JASON HOOLEY, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson, Senate Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee, sponsor,
explained that AS 08.86.180 prohibits all professionals, with
the exception of licensed psychologists and clinical social
workers, from using terms such as "psychology," "psychological,"
"psychologist," and "psychoanalysis" to describe their services
or titles. He said that this statute was written prior to the
licensure of professional counselors (LPCs) and marital and
family therapists (LMFTs), and clinical social workers' (CSWs)
who also receive the training required to provide these types of
psychological services. He stated that SB 177 updates the
aforementioned statute to allow LMFTs, LPCs, and CSWs to use
these terms. He noted that the bill has a zero fiscal note. In
addition, he said, the language of the bill was agreed upon by
several professional groups. These groups are: The Alaska
Board of Licensed Professional Counselors; The Alaska
Psychological Association; The Alaska Board of Psychologists and
Psychological Associate Examiners; The Alaska Chapter of the
National Association of Social Workers'; The Alaska Board of
Marital and Family Therapists; and The Alaska Board of Social
Work Examiners.
4:51:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to situations in which an
individual who is not trained in the appropriate area offers
[psychology or psychoanalysis, etc.] and the client then sues
the board.
MR. HOOLEY stated his belief that all of the professionals who
are affected by the bill are licensed and currently have board
standards and enforcement. He said that, to his knowledge, SB
177 does not change this, and added that he would follow up on
this question.
4:53:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, in regard to titles, asked if LMFT includes
psychoanalysis.
MR. HOOLEY replied that LMFTs would be allowed to advertise and
bill for psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, or any of the other
terms listed.
4:53:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if an LMFT receives training in
psychoanalysis or psychotherapy. She said that she understands
psychoanalysis to be a "discreet area of practice," and
expressed concern with the level of education expected or
required.
4:54:42 PM
MR. HOOLEY replied that boards were created to protect consumers
from this concern. He said that there are strict requirements
for training, including a college degree and apprenticeship.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification that an internship
in psychoanalysis is required to be a CSW.
4:55:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted a conflict of interest, as his
wife is a licensed CSW. He explained that to be a CSW requires
a masters degree, along with a [three-year] apprenticeship. He
stated that a social worker with a [bachelors degree] would not
be a licensed CSW.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, in response to further questions,
clarified that in order to use the terms included in the bill,
an individual would have to fulfill the education requirements
of a licensed CSW. He said that he does not know what the
educational requirements are for a LMFT. He surmised that
"psychotherapy" is a term currently used; however he said that
the term "psychoanalysis" is new. He said that he would like to
have an expert in the field explain this.
4:57:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to the difference between a
psychologist and psychiatrist.
MR. HOOLEY replied that the terms are not titles, they are a
description of techniques. He said that the bill would not
allow individuals to practice who were previously unable, as the
same licensure requirements apply.
4:58:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that if a person were to see a
professional counselor, he/she would not expect to be
"psychoanalyzed," and opined that there is a "big difference."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her understanding that
"psychoanalyst" is a person who does psychoanalysis, therefore
it is a title.
MR. HOOLEY agreed, adding that in general, a practitioner is
known by his or her title. He said that SB 298 would allow the
use of certain terms that would enable the practitioner to offer
certain techniques.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if, under the bill, a practitioner
would be able to advertise as a "psychoanalyst."
CHAIR ANDERSON clarified with an example of a social worker who
advertises "psychoanalyst services." He opined that a person
may think that this is a psychologist or a psychiatrist, adding
that a person may decide to utilize the services, although he or
she may not know what these terms mean. After a number of
months, he said, the client may discover that the "psychologist
or psychiatrist" is actually a social worker, which is not what
the client wanted.
5:01:10 PM
MR. HOOLEY replied that he understands the question and will
have an expert address this issue [at the next bill hearing].
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that SB 177 was introduced by the request
of the industry.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related a personal experience with a
social worker that was unsatisfactory, and opined that the
members may need to "get comfortable" with the terms.
CHAIR ANDERSON added that there is a counselor/client privilege,
and asked if this also applies to social workers.
5:02:36 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that there are many questions, therefore SB
177 would be held over until the next committee hearing to allow
members of the industry to testify.
5:02:58 PM
[SB 177 was held over.]
^CONFIRMATIONS
^Board of Chiropractic Examiners
^Board of Pharmacy
^Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners
^Board of Barbers and Hairdressers
^Board of Examiners in Optometry
^State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board
^Board of Professional Counselors
^Board of Social Work Examiners
^Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission
^Alaska Workers' Compensation Board
5:03:17 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be the confirmation hearings for the governor's appointees to
various boards and commissions. He noted that each committee
member was provided with the names and resumes for each of the
appointments, noting that there was no objection regarding the
appointees. He reminded the committee members that a member's
signature on the committee report does not reflect the member's
vote during the joint session.
5:03:56 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON moved to advance the names of the appointees to
the boards and commissions, as specified above in the committee
calendar. There being no objection, the confirmations were
advanced.
5:05:10 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:05:27 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|