03/03/2008 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB357 | |
| HB319 | |
| HB357 | |
| HB319 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 357 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 2008
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 357
"An Act requiring errors and omissions insurance for real estate
licensees; renaming the real estate surety fund as the real
estate recovery fund and relating to that fund, and redefining
the procedures and criteria used by the Real Estate Commission
to make an award from the fund to a person suffering a loss
caused by certain misconduct of real estate licensees; requiring
a real estate licensee to maintain an office in the state; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 357(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 319
"An Act relating to the practice of dentistry and to dental
assistants."
- MOVED CSHB 319(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 357
SHORT TITLE: CLAIMS AGAINST REAL ESTATE LICENSEES
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) L&C, FIN
02/11/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/11/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/11/08 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/22/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/22/08 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/03/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 319
SHORT TITLE: DENTISTS & DENTAL ASSISTANTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) HES, L&C
02/07/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/07/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/12/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/12/08 (H) Moved CSHB 319(HES) Out of Committee
02/12/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/15/08 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 1DP 2NR 3AM
02/15/08 (H) DP: FAIRCLOUGH
02/15/08 (H) NR: KELLER, GARDNER
02/15/08 (H) AM: CISSNA, ROSES, WILSON
03/03/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVE FEEKAN, Legislative Chair
Alaska Association of Realtors (AAR)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions on HB 357.
MARK DAVIS, Director
Juneau Office
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions on HB 357.
CINDY RICE GRISSOM, CEO
Rice Insurance Services Company, LLC (RISC)
Louisville, Kentucky
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 357.
PATTY KRUEGER, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 319 on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Jay Ramras.
DAVID LOGAN, DDS, Legislative Chair
Alaska Dental Society
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 319.
DAVID EICHLER, DMD; President
Board of Dental Examiners
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 319.
PETER HIGGINS, President
Alaska Dental Society
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 319.
MELODY WHITLACK
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 319.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:06:40 PM. Representatives
LeDoux, Buch, Gardner, and Olson were present at the call to
order. Representatives Gatto, Ramras, and Neuman arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 357-CLAIMS AGAINST REAL ESTATE LICENSEES
3:07:04 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 357, "An Act requiring errors and omissions
insurance for real estate licensees; renaming the real estate
surety fund as the real estate recovery fund and relating to
that fund, and redefining the procedures and criteria used by
the Real Estate Commission to make an award from the fund to a
person suffering a loss caused by certain misconduct of real
estate licensees; requiring a real estate licensee to maintain
an office in the state; and providing for an effective date."
3:07:16 PM
DAVE FEEKAN, Legislative Chair, Alaska Association of Realtors
(AAR), stated that the AAR represents approximately 1,600
licensed real estate agents or realtors in Alaska. He explained
that HB 357 represents a joint effort between the AAR, the
Division of Insurance, and the Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing (DCBPL). The goal of HB
357 is to modernize the surety fund and ensure consumer
protection by requiring mandatory errors and omissions (E&O)
insurance for all real estate licensees. The surety fund was
started in 1974 as a substitute for corporate insurance. The
fund reimburses consumers for losses due to fraud,
misrepresentation, deceit, and conversion of trust funds. By
statute, the fund has a balance of $250,000 to $500,000 funded
by biennial licensee fees, currently set at $30. The surety
fund has experienced a shortfall due to the high number of
frivolous claims filed against the fund, which has resulted in
an increase in administrative fees, along with a drop in the
number of licensees whose fees support the fund. He reviewed
claims filed in the past two years, stating that in 2006, 15
claims were filed and all were denied, and in 2007, 13 claims
were filed and 2 were paid. This bill would change the surety
fund to a recovery fund and would implement mandatory E&O
insurance for all real estate licensees. This bill would also
change the process from a hearing law process to a judicial
process to file claims against the recovery fund due to an act
of fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. A person would need to
have a court judgment, arbitration, award judgment, or a
settlement agreement in order to file a claim. Currently,
almost all of the surety fund cases are unrepresented by legal
counsel, or are vexatious claimants, he stated. He contacted a
legal firm that performs work in the real estate industry and
that firm could not recall one instance of a case against the
surety fund in which the parties obtained legal counsel, he
offered.
3:10:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether claimants would
require legal counsel in order to make a claim against the
proposed recovery fund.
MR. FEEKAN answered that most of the claimants that currently
use the surety fund could file a claim in the small claims
court. He surmised that legal representation would not be
necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed concern for consumers that have
been victims of fraud and stated her desire that consumers would
not incur additional expenses under the recovery fund proposed
in HB 357.
MR. FEEKAN surmised that it is less expensive to file a claim in
small claims court than it is to file a claim against the surety
fund, which currently costs $250.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed concern that if a person
thought an action was intentional by the real estate licensee,
the person might be more inclined to hire an attorney since
he/she may not be familiar with the process of filing in court.
3:13:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recalled that the Alaska constitution
limits small claims court to less than $250 and above that
amount the person could elect to have a jury trial.
MR. FEEKAN related his experience that real estate agents are
not charged with fraud. He opined that very few cases approach
the standard of fraud and the rest of the cases would fall under
E&O insurance coverage.
3:15:26 PM
CHAIR OLSON inquired as to whether the limit for small claims is
currently set at $10,000.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO surmised that even though the legislature
may have raised the limit to $10,000, that the constitution
still limits the amount of small claims actions. It is also up
to the defendant to decide and he/she may prefer civil rules and
a jury trial. If the claim is for a small amount such as from
$1,000-$5,000, most people would be reluctant to take a case to
court due to the costs involved.
3:16:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to any other reasons to
change to a recovery fund, other than a need to reduce frivolous
claims.
MR. FEEKAN answered that the change to the recovery fund would
also necessitate requiring mandatory E&O insurance, which also
enhances consumer protection.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether raising the filing
fee to file a claim with the surety fund from $250 to a higher
fee such as $500-$1,000 would have the same effect as replacing
the surety fund with the proposed recovery fund.
MR. FEEKAN said he was not certain of the reduced number of
claims when the filing fee was raised to $250 for filing a claim
against the surety fund.
3:18:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 357, labeled 25-LS1363\L, Bailey,
2/28/08, as the working document.
There being no objection, Version L was before the committee.
3:19:37 PM
MARK DAVIS, Director, Juneau Office, Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce,
Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), explained that HB 357
includes the legislative auditor's recommendation to revise the
surety fund, to require mandatory E&O insurance proposed by the
industry with the conversion of the surety fund to a recovery
fund. Currently, 13 states have either mandatory E&O or some
form of recovery fund combined with E&O insurance. He surmised
that the surety fund is limited to relatively small claims and
uses an administrative law process. He explained the process
which consists of filing a claim, appearing before an
administrative law judge, with the judge issuing a final
decision. The parties can further appeal the matter to superior
court which acts as an appellate court. Insurance is a normal
way to resolve disputes, he opined.
MR. DAVIS echoed earlier testimony with respect to the
administrative law process that clients would use for surety
fund claims if the real estate licensee did not have E&O
insurance. According to his staff, about 75 percent of real
estate licensees are currently covered by some form of E&O
insurance and the remaining 25 percent deem the E&O insurance as
too expensive, he noted. The Division of Insurance staff has
reviewed other states' E&O insurance rates, which range from $80
$258 per year, he stated. He noted that Rhode Island charges
licensees $80 per licensee annually, and Colorado charges
licensees $258. Alaska's fees would likely be closer to
Colorado, he opined. He pointed out that currently most E&O
insurance fees run about $1,000 annually for licensees. This
bill would change E&O insurance from individual policies for
licensees to a master group policy which the Division of
Insurance recommends. This bill includes a provision to allow
the division to use a competitive bid process to procure the E&O
insurance policy. This bill also includes a savings clause so
that the process would revert back to the current method in the
event than no company bid to offer E&O insurance.
MR. DAVIS, in response to Chair Olson, answered that his staff,
Linda Hall, Director, and Mr. Troutt, Deputy Director, Division
of Insurance, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic
Development (DCCED) support the proposed committee substitute.
3:23:45 PM
MR. DAVIS, in response to Representative Gardner, answered that
E&O policies are written by insurance companies, with exclusions
such that some things are covered and some are not. The E&O
insurance policy would cover licensees for up to $100,000 for
occurrences for which real estate licensees are responsible.
The insurance company would defend licensees against such
claims. However, intentional actions or fraud are not covered
by E&O insurance. If the E&O insurance company determines that
the claim might not be covered, the company writes what is
called "reservation of rights" letter. He disclosed that he
once performed work related to this. He related that in the
reservations of right letter the E&O insurance company
essentially acknowledges that the person has coverage, has been
sued, and that the E&O insurance company will defend the
licensee, but the company also advises the licensee that the
claim is not likely going to be covered under the policy. Once
the licensee receives the letter, he/she has the right to seek
private counsel or to continue with the E&O insurance company's
counsel until the company issues a final determination whether
the action is covered under the E&O policy. If the E&O
insurance company wrongfully releases the policyholder, the E&O
insurance company can be held liable under bad faith provisions
of law. Insurance companies tend to settle meritorious claims,
he opined. He pointed out that if a policyholder pleads guilty
to fraud that the insurance won't cover the licensee, but if the
policyholder pleads that the action an honest mistake, the
insurance company will likely cover the claim.
3:26:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that if a claim
is filed and is not covered under E&O, it would be filed against
one of the funds, either the surety fund or the proposed
recovery fund. She inquired as to difference in the process
consumers would use to access the surety fund and the recovery
fund.
MR. DAVIS answered that once the action is determined to be
fraud, the surety fund or the proposed recovery fund would cover
the claim. If the claim were "true fraud" the person would
probably want to additionally sue to seek personal assets, he
opined.
3:27:07 PM
MR. DAVIS, in response to Representative LeDoux, answered that
the provision in HB 357 to require that real estate licensees
must maintain a place of business in the state is at the request
of the industry and the Real Estate Commission, who believe that
real estate licensees should maintain a place of business in
state. He said that he is not sure that he concurs with that
view. He referred to that provision as a "brick and mortar
clause." In further response to Representative LeDoux, Mr.
Davis offered that the legal drafters believe it is appropriate
and defensible to have such a requirement perhaps because it
pertains to real property in the state. He further surmised
that whether to require a "brick and mortar clause" is a policy
call.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether the "brick and
mortar" provision protects in-state realtors from out-of-state
realtors. She related that the provision is similar to one
formerly used by lawyers. However, most states have loosened
that requirement. Instead, the state uses a qualifying
examination to determine who can practice in the state, she
noted.
MR. DAVIS related his understanding that the provision is to
ensure that the real estate licensee understands Alaska law,
particularly since it relates to tangible real estate. He
opined that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down some provisions
of the legal community practices since the practice of law is
fungible, and is not subject to interstate commerce.
3:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether real estate
licensees submit to examinations.
MR. DAVIS opined that the real estate qualifying examination is
not as difficult as the one that attorneys take. He said he
believes in competition, while at the same time he also believes
in consumer protection. He related the importance for real
estate licensees to see the non-fungible property. He posed a
scenario in which agents have sold land that was actually
underwater. However, he pointed out that traditionally
requiring a physical presence in the state could also limit
interstate commerce.
3:31:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether it would be easier
to monitor real estate transactions with respect to fraud and
ensure that real estate licensees understand the details of the
property when the real estate agent has a physical location in
the state.
MR. DAVIS agreed that it is always easier to conduct an
examination of real estate transactions when the licensee has an
office in state. He related his own experiences as a former
banking commissioner in which he spent an inordinate amount of
time to investigate out of state companies doing business in
Alaska.
3:32:53 PM
CINDY RICE GRISSOM, CEO, Rice Insurance Services Company, LLC
(RISC), explained that RISC provides the mandatory group
programs in 11 of 13 states that currently have mandatory E&O
requirements. She related that her family has been issuing E&O
group insurance since 1989. She offered that a person does not
have to file a lawsuit to recover under the insurance. The
claimant typically is defined as a demand for money or service.
In response to Chair Olson, Ms. Grissom agreed that it is
similar to automobile insurance in which one person is obviously
responsible and the matter gets settled outside litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that costs for
E&O are based on the prior year's sales for an agent. She
inquired as to whether the quoted cost for a group E&O insurance
policy would be based on an average.
MS. GRISSOM answered that her company initially base the premium
on the group premium for other states. Typically, the actuaries
would review the amount of claims, and the amount paid out in
claims to determine the amount the company would need to collect
from licensees in order to cover expected costs. In the case of
a new program in Alaska, she would not anticipate that the
premium would be set higher than Colorado's premium, which is
currently set at $243. However, she did note that Colorado has
more licensees. She opined that Wyoming's property values due
to resorts are probably high, yet their fees are currently set
at $150. The actuaries will not provide a set figure until the
bid is let, she noted. She pointed out that it is a good idea
to include the provision that if a reasonable policy cannot be
had that the mandatory E&O insurance not be required. In the
history of mandatory E&O that has never happened thus far, she
opined.
3:38:23 PM
MS. GRISSOM, in response to Chair Olson, explained that the rate
would probably be a combination between the Alaska rate and a
national rate. She stated that insurance companies cannot
expect to profit in each state each year. However, the company
would anticipate that smaller states would have some years that
are more extreme. Thus, their company would review the number
of claims and average cost to develop a premium.
CHAIR OLSON inquired as to whether the company would put this
out on admitted paper or surplus lines.
MS. GRISSOM answered that RISC always uses admitted paper. In
further response to Chair Olson, she advised that RISC uses
Continental Casualty and that company would not likely reinsure
it since the limit is set at $100,000. She surmised that they
may reinsure on excess policies that RISC writes, but she said
she felt certain the company would retain the policies limited
to $100,000 claim limits.
3:40:20 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 357.
3:40:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed a concern with the recovery
fund and maintained that by increasing the filing fee for the
surety fund that it would not be necessary to switch to a
recovery fund. She noted that the fee is non-refundable unless
the party prevails so it would eliminate nuisance claims, yet
the people who have a genuine case would not be dissuaded.
CHAIR OLSON offered that the industry, the division and the
board recommend the changes to a recovery fund. He suggested
that the committee support their efforts since the legislature
could come back to make changes. He noted that the program
seems to have intertwined provisions and that to make changes to
HB 357 may result in unintended consequences.
3:42:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related that she spoke to many licensees
who generally supported the mandatory E&O insurance. However,
some had expressed concern with the recovery fund.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed with Chair Olson that the industry
has reviewed this to protect the public buying real estate. He
stated that he was also inclined to take the Division of
Insurance Director's recommendation on HB 357.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that it is important to take
industry comments seriously. However, she said she also
supports the committee's obligation to consider all comments and
independently analyze the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed that independent bill analysis is
appropriate. He offered he has done so with respect to HB 357.
CHAIR OLSON pointed out that HB 357 represents a collective
effort and a consensus on the issues. He noted that the real
estate licensees have addressed a number of issues since the
bill was introduced. Ultimately, the industry will learn if the
program is not working and consumers will be vocal, too.
3:46:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX maintained her concern with the
requirement for a real estate licensee to have a physical office
in the state. She related some scenarios in which the real
estate licensee lives in an urban area, but sells property in a
rural area such as Nome.
CHAIR OLSON surmised that it is likely to be much easier to
address issues with licensees who are in state rather than in
Puerto Rico, Texas, or Florida. He opined that the real estate
profession is not the only one that requires a physical presence
in state.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH recalled that last year the legislature
considered a bill that required mortgage lenders to have a brick
and mortar presence. He further recalled that the reason for
the physical presence was that out of state mortgage lenders who
were not knowledgeable or reputable were conducting business in
Alaska without a physical presence. He offered his support for
HB 357, including the brick and mortar clause to ensure that
businesses doing business in Alaska are legitimate.
3:49:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired whether the provision that if
E&O coverage is not cost effective that it would not be required
is currently in the bill. She further inquired as to whether
there is a statue of limitations in the bill.
MR. FEEKAN referred to page 6, line 15, to subsection (e) of HB
357 which read:
(e) If the commission is unable to obtain a master
errors and omissions insurance policy to insure
licensees that meets the terms and conditions
established under (b) of this section, the requirement
that a real estate licensee carry and maintain errors
and omissions insurance under AS 08.88.172 is void
during the period that the commission is unable to
obtain the insurance.
MR. FEEKAN, in response to Representative Gardner, explained
that the division would establish the terms and conditions of
the E&O insurance policies in regulation rather than to set them
in statute. He referred to page 5, line 25-31 of HB 357 which
read:
(b) The department shall establish by regulation the
terms and conditions of the errors and omissions
insurance required by this section, including
(1) coverage requirements;
(2) limits of coverage;
(3) the maximum amount of premium to be charged
licensees under a master errors and omissions policy
under (d) of this section; and
(4) the method for adjusting these amounts based
on the Consumer Price Index.
3:52:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 357, labeled 25-LS1363\L, Bailey, 2/28/08, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected for the purpose of determining
if the bill has a further referral.
CHAIR OLSON announced that the bill has a further referral to
the House Finance Committee.
There being no further objection, CSHB 357(L&C) was reported
from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
3:53:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:53 p.m. to 3:57 p.m.
HB 319-DENTISTS & DENTAL ASSISTANTS
3:57:47 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to the practice of
dentistry and to dental assistants." [Before the committee was
CSHB 319(HES).]
3:58:02 PM
PATTY KRUEGER, Staff, to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that not all Alaskans enjoy good dental
health due to geographical barriers, cost of dental care, and
limitations on dental personnel. She explained provisions in HB
36 are already in place in 36 states, and stated that allowing
expanded duties for dental assistants improves access to dental
care and reduce the cost of dental care. With expanded duties,
dental assistants can help community health centers and
traveling dental teams provide greater access to care and more
cost effective care. This bill specifically laid framework for
expanding dental assistant's duties for two specific procedures.
It would allow a certified dental assistant, under a dentist's
direct supervision, to place "fillings" into a cavity prepared
by a licensed dentist and to polish teeth that are already clean
of tartar. Dental assistants are not currently regulated by the
state. Under HB 319, dental assistants who perform duties of
packing cavities or polishing teeth would need to pass a
training program and exam to become certified by the state's
Board of Dental Examiners. The supervising dentist must
personally authorize the procedures and examine the quality of
work performed by the dental assistant. This bill would
authorize the board to set minimum standards. The Alaska Dental
Society, the Alaska Board of Dental Examiners, the Alaska Dental
Outreach Consortium, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium all support HB 319. This bill also fits within the
recommendations in the preliminary report by the governor's
Health Care Strategy Planning Council such that it provides
increased access to health care. The committee substitute
incorporates changes detailed in a memorandum from Kathryn L.
Kurtz, Assistant Revisor, Division of Legal and Research
Services, dated February 13, 2008.
4:01:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 319, labeled 25-LS1281\V, Bullard, 2/19/08, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version V was
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to page 1, line 13, which read:
"(c) The board may by regulation establish fees, renewal, and
continuing education requirements for a certificate issued under
this section." He inquired as to the level of fees being
considered.
DAVID LOGAN, DDS, Legislative Chair, Alaska Dental Society,
stated that the provision for fees would probably not cover all
the costs. He related that similar to the hygienist, the fees
are set at approximately $50, which covers most of the
administrative costs to issue their certificate. However, any
additional costs would be passed on to the licensees. In
further response to Representative Neuman, Dr. Logan explained
that the Board of Dental Examiners would have the discretion to
set the fees and standards.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that he appreciates that the
Alaska Dental Society supports the concept of allowing dental
assistants do more procedures. He related his own experiences
that dentists in many clinics held in rural areas are
overwhelmed by the community needs just to provide basic care.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER characterized HB 319 as a great bill.
4:06:26 PM
DAVID EICHLER, DMD; President, Board of Dental Examiners,
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED) stated that Board of Dental examiners unanimously
approved and supported the concepts. The fee structure is set
by the department to generally cover administrative functions of
the board. He urged the committee to support HB 319.
PETER HIGGINS, President, Alaska Dental Society, stated that he
is glad to see HB 319 moving forward.
MELODY WHITLACK said that she has worked as a dental assistant
with expanded functions. Currently, she is a dental hygienist
and is looking forward to HB 319 moving forward. She
characterized HB 319 as "great for the dental community."
4:08:30 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 319.
4:08:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report the proposed CS for HB
319, labeled 25-LS1281\V, Bullard, 2/19/08, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, the CSHB 319(L&C) was reported
out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
4:09:07 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|