Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
04/18/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB162 | |
| HB226 | |
| SB93 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 18, 2007
3:26 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, mortgage
originators, state agents who collect program administration
fees, and other persons who engage in activities relating to
mortgage lending; relating to mortgage loan activities; relating
to an originator fund; relating to fees for mortgage loan
transactions; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 162(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 226
"An Act repealing the termination of the state training and
employment program; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 226(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to licensed professional counselors; and
relating to the unlicensed use of the title 'professional
counselor.'"
- MOVED SB 93 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE: MORTGAGE LENDING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
02/28/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/07 (H) L&C, FIN
03/23/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/23/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/11/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/11/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/18/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 226
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL TERMINATION OF STEP PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
03/27/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/07 (H) L&C, FIN
04/18/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 93
SHORT TITLE: PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
02/22/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/07 (S) L&C
03/06/07 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/06/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/06/07 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/08/07 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/08/07 (S) Moved SB 93 Out of Committee
03/08/07 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/09/07 (S) L&C RPT 3DP
03/09/07 (S) DP: ELLIS, BUNDE, DAVIS
03/21/07 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/21/07 (S) VERSION: SB 93
03/22/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/07 (H) L&C
04/18/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
MARK DAVIS, Director
Division of Banking & Securities
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the changes embodied in CSHB 162,
Version O.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 226.
CLARK "CLICK" BISHOP, Acting Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 226, highlighted the
need for a sustainable funding source for [STEP].
GUY BELL, Assistant Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 226, answered
questions.
HUGH GARRITY, Apprentice Coordinator
Alaska Laborers' Training School
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 226, testified in
support of STEP.
TIM SHARP, Union Trustee
Alaska Laborers' Training School
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 226.
JOHN BROWN, Member
Operating Engineers Local 302
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 226.
RON AXTELL, Business Agent
Laborers Local 341
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 226, testified as
to the importance of the continuation of STEP.
REBECCA LOGAN, President
Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC) Alaska Chapter
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns related to HB 226 and
stated support of STEP.
THOMAS OBERMEYER, Staff
to Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 93 on behalf of Senator Davis,
prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:26:44 PM. Representatives
Olson, Ramras, Buch, and Gardner were present at the call to
order. Representative LeDoux and Neuman arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 162-MORTGAGE LENDING
3:28:07 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act relating to mortgage lenders,
mortgage brokers, mortgage originators, state agents who collect
program administration fees, and other persons who engage in
activities relating to mortgage lending; relating to mortgage
loan activities; relating to an originator fund; relating to
fees for mortgage loan transactions; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS moved to adopt CSHB 162, Version 25-
LS0070\O, Bannister, 4/14/07, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version O was before the committee.
3:29:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS requested an explanation of the changes
made by Version O.
3:29:50 PM
MARK DAVIS, Director, Division of Banking & Securities,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), detailed the major changes embodied in Version O. He
pointed out that Version O exempts companies already licensed
under Alaska's Small Loan Act [on page 1, line 4]. Version O
also includes a modification of exemption language for federally
regulated financial institutions. Mr. Davis informed the
committee that yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case
Waters v. Wachovia Bank and determined that a subsidiary or
operating subsidiary of a national bank was exempt from state
examination powers. The language of Version O would allow a
national bank or national bank holding company to certify to the
Division of Banking & Securities that they are exempt, based
upon a letter or other documentation from the three federal
regulatory agencies. The aforementioned doesn't address the
matter of affiliates. Pages 14-15 of the U.S. Supreme Court
[decision] specify that affiliates of a national bank that
engage in "nonbanking" activities, such as securities or
insurance, would need state licensure. However, [the decision]
didn't address a situation in which an affiliate engages in bank
activities and nonbanking activities. For example, the state
currently has the right to examine Wachovia Securities, an
affiliate of Wachovia Bank.
MR. DAVIS then pointed out that Version O includes changes
[regarding the notification] where there's a change in control
of a corporation or limited liability corporation (LLC).
Version O includes language in AS 06.60.065(3)(E) that clarifies
that the basis for denial of an originator license includes a
violation of a regulation adopted under the chapter or an order
of the department under the chapter. The work draft includes
proposed AS 06.60.157 and .159 in order to ensure that all
licensees perform origination services through an originator.
Version O also specifies that a licensee may not represent that
he/she has a professional certification that he/she doesn't
actually have.
MR. DAVIS noted that the change in proposed AS 06.60.370(b)-(d),
in order to ensure that all the misdemeanors are class A
misdemeanors, was requested by the Department of Law (DOL).
Version O also changes the definition of "escrow account" in
proposed AS 06.60.990(5)(D) in order to clarify that money
disbursed from an escrow account must be in accordance with a
written agreement. Mr. Davis mentioned that the remaining
changes in Version O were largely requested by DOL and were due
to drafting differences between DOL and Legislative Legal and
Research Services.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS expressed appreciation for the work done
by Mr. Davis.
3:34:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the division has had a chance to
respond to the statement by AARP.
MR. DAVIS replied that the division, through Version O, has
responded to some of the [concerns] stated by AARP, including a
provision that provides for restitution as a requirement for
relicensing. He pointed out that AARP is also concerned with
predatory lending practices, which he feels is best handled with
a predatory lending statute. The way such statutes work in most
states is that there is a series of licensing and the predatory
lending law applies to all who aren't licensed. Until Alaska
has more licensing it will be difficult to draft a predatory
lending law that makes sense, he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER drew attention to AARP's concern with the
"express private right of action".
MR. DAVIS said that he disagrees with AARP's legal analysis of
the aforementioned. He pointed out that the legislation
specifies that in addition to all of the remedies one may make a
claim on the surety fund. The aforementioned means that one
doesn't have to go to the surety fund. As a former practicing
attorney, Mr. Davis related his belief that a client with a
substantial loss will sue if the person making the loss has
money, but will go for the surety fund if that person doesn't
have many assets or the case is small.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER highlighted that AARP [expressed concern]
with the statute of limitations of two years since the standard
in most states is three years from discovery.
MR. DAVIS replied that [the statute of limitations] is two years
from discovery. He opined that two years will work, but
deferred to DOL, which hasn't suggested such a change.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER turned to AARP's desire for making
stronger the capping of claims against a single originator at
$50,000 irrespective of the actual damages to the borrower and
the apportionment among the borrowers.
MR. DAVIS clarified that is correct if one is going through the
surety fund. Again, if one has a major loss, he said he would
assume that individual wouldn't go through the surety fund. The
surety fund, he pointed out, has to have a cap so that it won't
run out of money.
3:38:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHB 162, Version 25-
LS0070\O, Bannister, 4/14/07, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 162(L&C) was reported from the House Labor
and Commerce Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:38:46 PM to 3:42:09 PM.
HB 226-REPEAL TERMINATION OF STEP PROGRAM
3:42:10 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 226, "An Act repealing the termination of the
state training and employment program; and providing for an
effective date."
3:42:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 226 would make the state training and
employment program (STEP) - currently a temporary program - a
permanent program. He highlighted that when the Baby Boomer
generation leaves the workforce there will be a large gap. He
opined that the state has some responsibility to encourage the
best training possible. This program has proven itself,
although he acknowledged that there has been some controversy,
including the union/nonunion debate. He specified that he is
neither for nor against the union, but opined that they should
be able to share fairly.
CHAIR OLSON asked if the sponsor had any ideas on how to address
those concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he has much confidence in
the commissioner-designee for Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD). He related that he's open to suggestions
regarding the grants, but emphasized that [the legislature] is
interested in what would provide the most "bang for the buck."
He opined that the entire program shouldn't be held under a
negative light due to concerns of the [Associated Builders and
Contractors (ABC) Alaska Chapter].
3:47:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN requested that Representative Coghill
expand on the difference between ABC's and DLWD's view on the
issues.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that there is some tension
regarding the integrity of the granting process and whether the
union or nonunion [shops] received more [in the way of grants].
He shared his belief that although the aforementioned is a
legitimate debate, he wasn't sure that it [should determine]
whether this [proposal] is authorized. He emphasized that the
program should move forward due to the training possibilities.
3:49:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX highlighted that STEP was started in 1989.
She asked why it would take a program such as this so long to
become permanent.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that unfortunately this program gets
caught up in other labor/"nonlabor" issues. However, the
training provided by STEP is done well and the program shouldn't
have remained a pilot program.
CHAIR OLSON related his intent to move HB [226] from committee
today, but noted that he is trying to develop some sideboards,
such as a sunset date.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that he would rather not have a
sunset date, because once a program is placed in statute it's
the legislature's responsibility to "pay attention to it." He
shared his belief that a report back to the legislature is
probably the best way to [provide legislative oversight].
However, he acknowledged that between December and February he
receives 300-plus annual reports. He reiterated that STEP is a
tool that can be used well or poorly by a commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related his view that sunsets allow the
legislature to take a closer look at programs.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that as a pilot program STEP has
been highly scrutinized and has been authorized six times by the
legislature. He further opined that at this point, the areas of
controversy are known and the continued record of success is
more appropriate than a sunset.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX shared her understanding that sunset
provisions are typically for boards and commissions, and asked
if this is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that it's not unusual to sunset a
program.
3:56:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH mentioned that he attended all the House
Finance Subcommittee meetings on Labor & Commerce. When the
subcommittee addressed STEP, its track record was reviewed. He
opined that STEP had proven its success in every regard.
Furthermore, for the amount of money spent, the state received a
large return on its investment. The Department of Labor &
Workforce Development (DLWD), he recalled, testified that STEP
is one of its valued programs.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that Alaska's unemployment
insurance laws place many in tension as folks are expected to
move off the welfare rolls after 60 months. Therefore, [STEP]
provides an avenue offering some relief to that tension.
3:58:32 PM
CLARK "CLICK" BISHOP, Acting Commissioner, Department of Labor &
Workforce Development (DLWD), related that during a transition
team meeting he made the comment that for the state to move
forward with job training there needs to be a sustainable
funding source for training that all people can access. He
opined that at this time, STEP is the best vehicle to accomplish
the aforementioned. Acting Commissioner Bishop related that he
has charged the department with placing more STEP dollars on the
street than ever. He then shared his belief that 18 years is
long enough for this program to be considered a pilot program.
He shared a recent experience touring the STEP classroom and
viewing how the hands-on experience was applied.
4:02:03 PM
CHAIR OLSON reiterated his earlier suggestion for a six-year
sunset, and inquired as to the commissioner's thoughts on such.
ACTING COMMISSIONER BISHOP said he would be amenable to [a
sunset].
CHAIR OLSON commented that if the department could develop some
sideboards that accomplish the same thing as a sunset, he would
speak on its behalf in the House Finance Committee. He stated
his desire for HB 226 to move from committee today with some
sideboards.
4:03:45 PM
ACTING COMMISSIONER BISHOP reiterated that he could live with a
six-year extension.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL restated his preference for a report, but
left it to the will of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, referring to the fiscal note, asked if it
would need to be increased during the upcoming years of
declining revenues.
GUY BELL, Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), explained
that the fiscal note the department prepared reflects the
expected revenue that was received [from] this particular
funding stream. The source of revenue for STEP is an allocation
of the employee contribution to unemployment insurance.
Therefore, it's a set aside of employee contributions to
unemployment insurance. The only factor that might change the
amount of funding the department requests from the legislature
would be if the revenue generated is more than projected in the
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if applicants are allowed to go
through STEP more than once. He then inquired as to how the
commissioner will ensure that all training programs will have
equity.
ACTING COMMISSIONER BISHOP replied that currently, through the
Request for Grant Applications (RGA) process, the money is made
available for anyone who applies. He then related his
understanding that there's a $10,000 limit in the amount of
funds an individual can receive, but offered to confirm that
information. He mentioned that there may be an exception
allowing a waiver on a case-by-case basis.
4:08:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated support for STEP. He then inquired
as to what programs the department hopes to steward for
[nonunion workers].
ACTING COMMISSIONER BISHOP emphasized that STEP is available to
everyone, union or nonunion. He recalled that 70 percent of the
STEP recipients were not union workers.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said that the information he has doesn't
seem to indicate that.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER interjected that she posed the same
question to DLWD. Of the 23 entities offering training, almost
half are union and the other half are nonunion. However, the
entities with the most participation seem to be the labor
unions. She related her understanding that to be trained in
STEP, one doesn't need to be a [union] member.
ACTING COMMISSIONER BISHOP emphasized that he doesn't want this
to be a union/nonunion debate. He noted that he visits those
entities offering STEP training, union and nonunion alike.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS expressed his desire for union and
nonunion shops to flourish in Alaska.
ACTING COMMISSIONER BISHOP informed the committee that STEP is a
competitive grant award that he is attempting to make more user
friendly and efficient for all entities, including those from a
one-man shop.
4:15:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS inquired as to how many grant applications
are made per year and the percentage of grants awarded. He also
inquired as to whether there is an active effort to solicit
nonunion shops.
MR. BELL offered to provide that information to the committee.
He estimated that roughly speaking, twice as many grant
applications are received than grants awarded. The [awarding of
grants] is managed by scrutinizing individual award amounts and
ranking applicants overall. Historically, the department has
engaged members of the Alaska Workforce Investment Board during
the review process, and thus there's a private person engaged in
the scoring of the applications. The solicitation is done by
the standard solicitation process, which includes public notice
in the form of a general announcement of the availability of
awards. The award period, he related, is usually open for about
30 days.
4:17:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if there is departmental staff
available to help with the grant application process. He
further asked where the department posts information.
MR. BELL replied that from time to time, the department has
offered technical assistance to grantees through technical
assistance sessions. The aforementioned affords potential
grantees the guidance and advice of the STEP administrator
through work sessions. After the request for proposals (RFP) is
issued, there will be the opportunity for anyone interested to
call in with questions and request technical assistance related
to preparing grant applications. Mr. Bell related that broad
advertising, such as over the radio, hasn't been utilized. He
then highlighted that the STEP dollars are available through the
job centers throughout the state. Those dollars allow
individuals to come directly to the job centers for additional
training in order to receive employment.
4:19:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to the percentage of entities
that have applied for grants in the past five years have
received grants.
MR. BELL replied that he would provide this information to the
committee.
4:20:36 PM
HUGH GARRITY, Apprentice Coordinator, Alaska Laborers' Training
School, related that he has been an instructor with the
aforementioned school since 1994. During that time the job
market has shifted to mining and now seems to be shifting to the
pipeline. All of the aforementioned requires compliance
training for federal and state agencies, on which the
organization has focused. Mr. Garrity commented on the
generational shift that's also occurring, such that employees of
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) are becoming younger.
He related that over the last few years, the Alaska Laborers'
Training School has provided considerable training for village
housing. In conclusion, Mr. Garrity related his support of the
continuation of STEP as it has provided the opportunity to
practice on the equipment that will be used and results in a
safe, well-trained workforce.
4:23:21 PM
TIM SHARP, Union Trustee, Alaska Laborers' Training School,
stated support for HB 226. Mr. Sharp characterized [STEP] as a
bridge to training in Fairbanks. He informed the committee that
the school provides pipeline training, home building training,
and hazardous waste training in the villages. In fact, last
week a tanker overturned in Prudhoe Bay and five people from
Tanacross with STEP training were sent in response. With regard
to union versus nonunion training, Mr. Sharp related his
understanding that the unions have received the majority of the
focus because the Knowles and the Murkowski Administrations
tended to reward success. The unions have been particularly
effective, in part, because they don't train for the sake of
training. Training is performed in order to move people to
employment in the areas with high unemployment and the unions
have done a great job. In fact with the recent BP pipeline
incident, about 100 people were mobilized and much of the
training occurred with STEP funds. In terms of the suggestion
of a sunset, Mr. Sharp opined that STEP has proven itself time
and again since 1989.
4:27:32 PM
JOHN BROWN, Member, Operating Engineers Local 302, said that he
would address the need for training. He informed the committee
that in January 2005, the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD) held a construction labor summit, and he
indicated that at that time, operating engineers ranked fifth
among occupations "for priority training." He stated that 45
percent of operating engineers are over the age of 45 and 26
percent of them are over 50. He emphasized the need to train
for the future and said STEP is a good way to do it. He related
that the training programs for operating engineers are primarily
funded through employer contributions. He offered further
details. He said STEP has allowed the Operating Engineers Local
302 to reach out further into rural Alaska, because it provides
transportation for people all over Alaska to get to the training
facility in Palmer. He explained that operating engineers
operate heavy equipment, and it would cost more to transport the
equipment to the rural areas for that training. He provided
numbers illustrating the increasing number of trainees over the
years, and emphasizing the high percentage of those trainees who
have found work. He encouraged the committee members to pass HB
226 out of committee.
4:31:30 PM
RON AXTELL, Business Agent, Laborers Local 341, said the union
represents over 2,100 in Southcentral Alaska. He emphasized the
importance of the continuation of STEP, calling it a "vital part
of training for all Alaskans that strive for a better way of
life." He said training is necessary in order to keep people in
Alaska and working.
CHAIR OLSON asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify. [There was no response.]
4:32:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said after hearing from all the testifiers
he is curious what percentage of the training done with STEP
dollars is done with union members and what percentage is done
with nonunion members. He expressed concern that there may be
an under-represented group. He also said he would like to see a
comparison of union dollars spent versus State of Alaska
dollars.
MR. BELL replied that the STEP dollars do not supplant other
dollars that are available, and he said, "We take steps through
the application and review process to [ensure] that this
supplanting does not occur."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded:
I appreciate that it's an augmentation; I'm just
wondering how ... many people were being trained and
what the scope of the augmentation is. ... [For
example], does it represent 25 percent of the ...
outcome, or is it 10 percent, is it 50 percent? ...
Ever since I read the book, Freakonomics, I question
everything that's statistically or numerically driven,
because numbers just consistently offer false
representation ....
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked, "When you're considering the
grants, do you consider the funds that are already going to a
program from outside the STEP program?"
4:36:37 PM
MR. BELL said the department tries to use state dollars to
leverage private funding for training. He said the federal
Office of Apprenticeship keeps statistics such as [whether or
not] "the number of people enrolled as [apprentices] were to
give an indication about the number of people engaged in that
type of apprenticeship activity, at least, at any one time." He
offered to provide that information.
CHAIR OLSON said the committee would like to receive it.
4:38:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX in regard to state dollars being used to
augment union training programs, inquired as to whether most
trainees are union members prior to training or are unemployed,
unskilled workers.
MR. BELL replied that one requirement for eligibility to STEP is
that the individual either be unemployed or be in danger of
losing his/her job due to lack of training. STEP gives people
an entry-level opportunity.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that STEP benefits the state and
employees much more than it benefits the unions.
MR. BELL responded, "That's the whole intention of the program."
He reported an earning growth of 23 percent in one year for
those who have completed STEP. Furthermore, he said in that
same period of time, there was a "reduction in 23 percent of
unemployment benefits paid to those that participated."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how unions benefit from the
existence of STEP.
MR. BELL replied that there is a need to fill the jobs, whether
union or non-union, and there is a significant nonresident
component to the workforce - about 20 percent in the
construction field. He mentioned recruitment and retention.
4:41:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH, in response to an earlier question by
Representative Ramras, indicated that of the STEP participants
in 2005, 11 were nonunion and 12 were union. In response to a
former question from Representative LeDoux, he stated:
One of the vehicles that this STEP program administers
to is the fact that there's no means to which to get
these people who need this training to where the
training is available. So, it's used for
transportation and housing in many instances, and
therefore, it becomes a vehicle for [whoever] wants to
train them. And that's why you can say that it is
used for both union and nonunion. The unions have no
means by which to transport people to get that
training, either. So, that is not a function of the
training that they provide.
4:43:17 PM
REBECCA LOGAN, President, Associated Builders and Contractors,
Inc. (ABC) Alaska Chapter, expressed support of STEP. She
encouraged the increase of the contribution rate to two-tenths
of a percent, explaining that in the future, general fund money
will not be available for workforce development and STEP will
"truly be the one creative way to fund workforce development."
She said ABC Alaska also supports Governor Sarah Palin's
intention, stated during her October 2006 campaign press
release, to "take the STEP program, correct the deficiencies in
it, and return it to its original intent." She said she does
not think the issue needs to be divided between union and
nonunion. She said the legislature has not yet seen the data
for FY 06 or [the beginning of FY 07]. She continued:
1,336 people were to be trained, according to the RFPs
awarded; 1,120 of those people were union members.
And in that round, the majority of those union members
were already apprentices or journeymen. In fact, one
of the ... applicants stated that 250 of the people to
be trained were union journeyman.
... And in regard to Mr. Bell's testimony about an
increase in wages: that is one of the questions that
we think the Department of Labor [& Workforce
Development] needs to explain a little more clearly.
I think you have a sheet that shows a percentage
increase in wages. And when you are speaking about an
apprenticeship program or a journeyman who's covered
by a collective bargaining agreement, the application
of the STEP grant to that person's training program
does not increase their wages. That happens on their
own. An apprenticeship program is a program that has
staggered increases, so, regardless of having the STEP
grant, if you are training apprentices using STEP
dollars, those people are going to receive an increase
in their wages. So, I think that there's some
clarification the department needs to make there.
The same is true with journeymen who are covered by a
collective bargain agreement. The application of the
STEP grant to their training doesn't naturally
increase their wages.
Now, to the side bar issue: Again, we would like to
see this ... be a permanent program, increased, but we
think there are some things that need to be fixed. We
filed the complaint against the Department of Labor [&
Workforce Development]. I have 30 of these that I
have had the privilege of reviewing, so I'm very
familiar with the data.
Here are things that we see: The supplanting issue
that Mr. Bell brought up. In 2005, the actual RFP
itself had an assurance point where the grantees had
to assure the Department of Labor [& Workforce
Development] that they were not supplanting funds.
And it lists off about six different things that they
couldn't supplant. One of those was training trusts.
Most of the applicants left that piece on there, and
several of the applicants took out the word "training
trust" and then signed off on the applications.
That's an issue. That's been an issue since 2000. It
was an issue brought up by the Legislative Budget &
Audit Committee in 2002 about what "supplant" means.
I think the department needs direction on exactly what
that means.
Another issue is the people to be served. In statute,
very, very strict regulations about what people are
STEP eligible. In the material that we reviewed, when
the department did an audit of the 2006 award
recipients on pulled, random files, to see if there
was information there that showed somebody was STEP
eligible, every file they pulled was missing that
information. There was not information to show that
somebody was STEP eligible .... That has to be taken
care of.
One of the more interesting things: In the title, it
says that grantees must dispose of grant proceeds in
accordance with intended use of the program. So, two
kind[s] of more interesting things that we've found
were that somebody used STEP funds to buy an athletic
club membership and hire personal trainers for people
in their program, and I think that people would find
that questionable. And somebody also used STEP grant
funds to fly a trustee and his wife to Las Vegas. And
so, those are the more extreme issues; things like
that do exist.
... The administrative costs: the statute clearly
states that 20 percent is the cap, and in almost
[every] grant that we looked at, the administrative
costs were higher than 20 percent. And the final
thing the commissioner mentioned - the competitive
process for the RFP: kind of true. The RFPs are put
out in the street. People who are applying are told
that there's a committee that reviews those, and that
the committee ... actually grades those and attaches a
score to them and makes a recommendation on who should
receive awards.
What actually happens is that that happens, and then
the Department of Labor [& Workforce Development]
staff takes that and they kind of mess around with it.
So, if you look at what happened this year - and this
shows you that this is ... not a union/nonunion issue
- people who scored very highly did not receive
grants, and people who scored ... terribly - and some
of those were nonunion programs - got grants. So,
there's no method to the madness. ... That really
needs to be corrected.
In regard to applications that are denied: There are
people who show on the performance reports that they
have some of the best performance, and yet they are
not receiving grants now ....
4:49:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked why the bill is so brief if there
are so many problems of which people have been made aware.
MS. LOGAN reiterated that ABC Alaska supports the bill but
thinks it is premature to award the department before some of
the changes have been made. She added, "But I could see that
with some side bars that kind of hold them to that commitment,
that could be done." She said ABC Alaska met just last Friday
with the department to discuss the possibility of settling a
lawsuit and working out some issues.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS opined that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee is the appropriate place to address these
issues; therefore, he questioned why the bill would be moved out
of committee before the aforementioned sidebars are decided
upon.
CHAIR OLSON explained that there is a shortage of time and the
sponsor is considering the sidebars. Nevertheless, he said he
would follow the will of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said if there is a retort to the message the
committee just heard [from Ms. Logan], he would like to hear it.
[No one responded.]
4:51:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN observed that the committee had not heard
any of the complaints regarding HB 266 before the bill hearing,
and he noted that Ms. Logan is usually good about being
proactive in these matters. Now, he said, questions have come
up that are casting doubt on the movement of HB 226, and they
are good questions.
MS. LOGAN responded that she had not been aware of the
department's intentions; ABC Alaska was not given notification.
In response to a question from Representative Gardner, she
offered her understanding that the 2002 audit is the most
current audit.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated her desire to see the bill "get
moving."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated his wish to see the bill held until
the aforementioned concerns are addressed.
4:52:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH called for the question.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL respectfully requested that the bill be
moved out of committee, and he stated that he is amenable to the
six year sunset. He expressed his commitment to answering the
concerns of the committee as the bill moves forward.
4:54:46 PM
CHAIR OLSON, in response to a question from Representative
Neuman, said if the bill is heard and held, it would be doubtful
it could be heard again by the committee for another week and a
half.
4:55:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked the sponsor what other sideboards he
would consider apart from the six-year sunset.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL clarified that his preference is not a
sunset date, but rather to have some kind of evaluation report.
He indicated that most of the issues will be found in hindsight.
He said the success or failure of a program is not always due to
the program itself, but often has to do with the people running
it. He posited that it is important to stay alert to that.
4:58:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS expressed his trust in Representative
Coghill, and he asked that an amendment be proposed regarding
the six-year sunset. He related his concern that the
legislation is "loose" rather than "tight."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he fears that if the bill is not
passed this year, then there will be other issues related to the
running of the program. He stated, "I think, at this point, ...
the overriding interest of ... getting those who are either
unemployable, unemployed, or needing retraining is worthy of the
effort ... under this program." He questioned putting in the
language about dividing 50/50; he said he thinks that would
create problems beyond the intent of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to Representative Gardner,
suggested that the aforementioned report be designed to show all
statistics related to grant recipients, the competitive process
used, and the breakdown between union and nonunion.
5:03:58 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after discussion with Representative Coghill,
offered his understanding that the question is whether to move
HB 226 out of committee. He requested the roll be called.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Buch, and
Gardner voted in favor of moving HB 226 from committee.
Representatives Ramras, Neuman, and Olson voted against it.
Therefore, HB 226 failed to be reported out of the House Labor
and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 3-3.
CHAIR OLSON said, "At this point I'd entertain an amendment on
the sunset provision."
5:06:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN [moved to adopt] Conceptual Amendment 1,
to place a 6-year sunset date on STEP.
5:06:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated his support of STEP. However, he
reiterated that legitimate questions and concerns have been
brought up which the members have not had a chance to discuss
with the sponsor or with the acting commissioner. He offered
his understanding that Ms. Logan was not aware that the bill was
scheduled for a hearing, thus her concerns were not previously
made known. In regard to Amendment 1, he opined that the
concerns brought up today will most likely be concerns when the
6-year sunset date is reached.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL informed the committee that Ms. Logan was
aware that he was moving forward with HB 226. He stated that
her concerns were not made known to him. These concerns were
made known to his staff, although to a lesser degree, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she does not think Conceptual
Amendment 1 is necessary, nor does she support it; however, she
related that she would vote in favor of it, because she said,
"It's apparent that that's the only way this bill is getting out
of committee."
CHAIR OLSON commented that he was present when STEP was
previously considered by the legislature. He opined that while
not all problems have been addressed, progress is being made.
He stated his intention to support Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS maintained his objection. He explained
that he would prefer a reporting requirement over a 6-year
sunset date. He stated that it is not his intention to keep the
bill from moving forward. He said "I think a report is a more
constructive way to manage this. I fear that sunsets often are
the equivalent of egg-timers. And egg-timers and unwatched pots
of water don't work well."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her understanding that
Representative Ramras would support an amendment to add
reporting requirements, and that he would vote in favor of
passing the bill from committee, were such an amendment adopted
in place of Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS shared his understanding that the sponsor
feels the reporting requirement is a better mechanism to address
concerns. He stated that he is in support of STEP; however,
there is concern that money is not being spent appropriately.
He stated his intention to vote against the amendment and
subsequently vote in favor of passing the bill from committee.
He shared his hope that the sponsor would then have the
opportunity to address concerns. He reiterated that he has
"great trust" in Acting Commissioner Bishop and Representative
Coghill.
CHAIR OLSON reiterated that his intent regarding the 6-year
sunset date was to allow the bill to move forward in the
legislative process. He then said that it is his intention to
move the bill from committee, thus allowing the sponsor to
develop an alternative approach before the bill is heard by the
House Finance Committee. He stated that he would support any
changes made by the sponsor, and would be willing to voice his
support of the changes before the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS indicated that based on Chair Olson's
comments, he would be willing to withdraw his objection.
CHAIR OLSON reiterated that he does not see any other way to
move the bill from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he would have an appropriate
amendment prepared prior to the aforementioned hearing in the
House Finance Committee, and would distribute the amendment to
members when it becomes available.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
5:11:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report HB 226, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 226(L&C) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 5:12:05 to 5:14:10.
SB 93-PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 93, "An Act relating to licensed professional
counselors; and relating to the unlicensed use of the title
'professional counselor.'"
5:14:13 PM
THOMAS OBERMEYER, Staff to Senator Bettye Davis, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 93 on behalf of Senator Davis, prime
sponsor. He offered paraphrased excerpts from the sponsor
statement, which read in entirety as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
SB 93 amends two sections of the Alaska Statutes
concerning professional licenses and insurance as
regards Licensed Professional Counselors.
Section 1 of the bill amends AS 08.29.0100(a)
regarding unlicensed use of the title, "professional
counselor" and clarifies words, letters, or
abbreviations reasonably confused with the titles of
"licensed professional counselor," professional
counselor," and "licensed counselor." SB 93 better
protects the public from unlicensed individuals
misusing these titles and misrepresenting themselves
as having the same qualifications of licensed
professional counselors who must complete formal
educational requirements with a master's degree or
higher in this area; pass a license qualifying exam;
and complete lengthy supervised practice for not less
than two years.
Section 2 amends AS 21.36.090(d), the insurance
provision that prohibits discrimination against
licensed service providers under a group health
insurance policy if that service is within the scope
of the provider's occupational license. SB 93 adds
Licensed professional Counselors to the long list of
"providers" in this category. SB 93 will also increase
access to needed services for some who formerly were
excluded because Licensed Professional Counselors were
not included with other health care professionals in
the non-discrimination clause of insurance statute,
AS21.36.090(d).
Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs) make up about
1/3 of all mental health professionals in the State of
Alaska and represent the same proportion of all
counselors working in state funded mental health and
substance abuse treatment facilities. Officially
established ten years ago, last year the Legislature
approved a statutory change to allow LPCs to practice
"psychotherapy" and make Title 47 civil commitment
evaluations.
SB 93 helps ensure third party billing parity for LPCs
while it allows them to be included with other health
care professionals in this area. SB 93 will better
protect and better serve the public and has a zero
($0.00) fiscal note.
5:16:14 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after ascertaining that there was no one to
testify, closed public testimony.
5:16:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report SB 93 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SB 93 was reported 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
5:17:05 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|