01/22/2018 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB273 | |
| HB274 | |
| HB275 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 274 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 275 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 22, 2018
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sam Kito, Chair
Representative Adam Wool, Vice Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Chris Birch
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Bryce Edgmon (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 273
"An Act extending the termination date of the Marijuana Control
Board; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 274
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 275
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Massage
Therapists; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 180
"An Act relating to money transmission and currency exchange
businesses; relating to transmitting value that substitutes for
money; relating to licensing requirements and registration
through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry;
relating to surety bonding requirements; authorizing certain
licensees to contract to use subdelegates for reloading funds on
certain stored-value cards; relating to record retention,
reporting requirements, and enforcement provisions; relating to
exemptions; relating to money services Internet activities;
relating to transmitting value and currency; and providing for
an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 273
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND: MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KITO
01/12/18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/18
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) L&C, FIN
01/22/18 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 274
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND: BD OF PSYCHOLOGISTS/PSYCH ASSOC.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KITO
01/12/18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/18
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) L&C, FIN
01/22/18 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 275
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND: BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KITO
01/12/18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/18
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) L&C, FIN
01/22/18 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
Representative Sam Kito
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 273 and HB 275 on behalf of
the bill sponsor, Representative Kito.
KRISTIN CURTIS
Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the audit requests.
ERIKA MCCONNELL, Director
Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office (AMCO)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of the
sunset review.
BRANDON EMMETT, Industry Seat Board Member
Marijuana Control Board
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 273.
JANA WELTZIN, Owner
JDW Counsel, LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 273.
LEAH LEVINTON
Enlighten Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 273.
BRUCE SCHULTE
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 273.
CAITLYN ELLIS, Staff
Representative Sam Kito
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 274 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, Representative Kito.
ALLEN LEVY, Chair
Board of Psychologists and Psychological Associate Examiners
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 274.
ROBERT LANE, PhD
Federal/State Advocacy Coordinator
Alaska Psychological Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 274
SARA CHAMBERS, Deputy Director
Juneau Office
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 275.
DAVID EDWARDS-SMITH, Chair
Board of Massage Therapists
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 275.
VOLKER HRUBY, President
American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) - Alaska Chapter
Girdwood, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 275.
KIM VERREYDT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 275.
JANE GNASS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 275.
JILL MOTZ
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 275.
YAEL HICKOK
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 275.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:21:13 PM
CHAIR SAM KITO called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m. Representatives Kito,
Josephson, Knopp, Birch, and Wool were present at the call to
order. Representative Stutes arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 273-EXTEND: MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD
3:22:40 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 273, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Marijuana Control Board; and providing for an effective
date."
3:22:51 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement [Included in
members' packets], which read:
House Bill 273 extends the termination date for the
Marijuana Control Board until June 30, 2024.
Per statute, this board is scheduled to sunset on June
30, 2018 with a one-year wind down if the legislature
does not pass legislation extending it. The licensing
function will remain after this date; however, the
administrative functions of the board would transfer
to the department.
Legislative Audit reviewed the board's operations and
determined that it is in the best interest of the
state to extend this board. The audit makes four
recommendations and recommends a six-year extension
with a new termination date of June 30, 2024. This is
shy of the full eight-year extension that Legislative
Audit is authorized to provide.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. The board members, Alcohol and Marijuana Control
Office (AMCO) director, and enforcement supervisor
should work together to formally establish an
enforcement plan to direct limited enforcement
resources.
2. The board and the AMCO director should implement a
process to monitor and track complaints to ensure they
are assessed for follow up action and investigated in
a timely manner.
3. The AMCO director should develop written procedures
for establishing the expiration dates of marijuana
handler permits and ensure staff receive the
appropriate training.
4. The AMCO director should develop and implement
procedures to segregate the duties for calculating and
remitting fees to local governments.
The Marijuana Control Board is a regulatory and quasi-
judicial board consisting of five members appointed by
the governor, created for controlling the cultivation,
manufacture, and sale of marijuana in the state. The
board consists of one member from the public safety
sector, one from the public health sector, one
residing in a rural area, one actively engaged in the
marijuana industry, and one who is either from the
general public or actively engaged in the marijuana
industry.
The continuation of the Marijuana Control Board is
important to the health and safety of Alaskans.
3:24:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked how the duties and responsibilities
of the board in terms of state law interacted with federal law.
CHAIR KITO offered his understanding that previously the
administration implemented a memo which stated that the federal
priorities were "not on enforcing the drug situation locally
except in the cases of significant crimes." He noted that, as
the memo had since been withdrawn, it would be best to hear
about implementation of state statute on the role between the
state and federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH related that he had served on various
boards and there was always a concern for board liability. He
expressed his concern for the protection of board members.
CHAIR KITO offered his belief that this could be brought up
later.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered his belief that the former chair of
the Alcohol and Beverage Control Board was a police chief, and
when the memo was revoked, the chief had felt it was his duty to
step aside.
3:28:17 PM
KRISTIN CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Alaska State Legislature, directed attention to the Sunset
Review [included in members' packets] and stated that the
purpose of the sunset review was to determine whether the
Marijuana Control Board was serving the public interest and
whether it should be extended. She explained that this was a
new board created as a result of the 2014 ballot measure, that
there was background information on page three, and report
conclusions on page five of the review. She paraphrased from
the Report Conclusions in the review, which read, in part:
Overall, the audit concludes the board is serving the
public's interest by effectively licensing marijuana
establishments and developing and adopting regulations
necessary to implement statutes that allow for the
cultivation, manufacture, and sale of marijuana in
Alaska. The audit makes four recommendations for
operational improvements.
The board met its statutory mandate to adopt
regulations necessary for implementing statutes.
Significant regulations (3 AAC 306) specify
requirements for the issuance, renewal, suspension,
and revocation of registrations to operate marijuana
establishments; qualifications for registration; and a
schedule of application, registration, and renewal
fees. The board operated in the public interest and
did not duplicate the efforts of other entities,
registration, and renewal fees. The board also amended
regulations to clarify submissions to the board and
conduct of board meetings. Regulatory additions and
changes during the audit period were public noticed
according to the Administrative Procedures Act.
To help evaluate board effectiveness, surveys were
conducted as part of the audit. A survey was sent to
101 licensees and 71 (70 percent) responded. A second
survey was sent to 16 local governments that had a
license issued in their jurisdiction and 14 (88
percent) responded. Licensee and local government
survey questions and responses are presented as
Appendices B and C of this report.
One hundred percent of local government survey
respondents and 75 percent of licensee survey
respondents rated the board's overall effectiveness in
serving the public interest as effective or very
effective. Eighty-six percent of local government
survey respondents believe the board does not
duplicate efforts.
3:30:15 PM
MS. CURTIS directed attention to page 8 of the review and
reported that the [Marijuana Control] Board had issued 122
licenses from July 2016 through April 2017, with 80 percent of
the licensee survey respondents rating the overall license
experience as good or excellent. She further paraphrased from
page 8, which read:
Additionally, as included in AMCO's FY 17 operating
budget,3 it is the intent of the legislature that
application and licensing fees cover the cost of
regulation and recover unrestricted general fund
appropriations made while the program was being
established. AMCO staff has implemented a process for
tracking both revenues and expenditures, but reported
it is too early in the development of the board to
determine whether the current fees are set at
sufficient levels to cover the cost of regulating the
marijuana industry. AMCO management expects to be
fully funded by application and licensing fees by FY
20. Exhibit 3 presents a schedule of fees established
by the board.
MS. CURTIS directed attention to page 11 of the review, which
listed the first of four recommendations made by the audit,
titled, "The board members, the Alcohol and Marijuana Control
Office (AMCO or control office) director, and enforcement
supervisor should work together to formally establish an
enforcement plan to direct limited enforcement resources," which
read:
The audit identified the enforcement section is
operating without a formally established enforcement
plan. Neither the Marijuana Control Board (board) nor
AMCO director had considered the need for or
importance of establishing enforcement goals or plans
to ensure the effective allocation of enforcement
resources. Per AS 17.38.121, the board is vested with
the powers necessary to enforce laws related to
marijuana and may employ enforcement agents and staff
it considers necessary to carry out its duties. The
board has tasked the enforcement section with the
responsibility of detecting violations and enforcing
marijuana laws. By not formally establishing an
enforcement plan, the enforcement section has no
guidance for prioritizing its limited resources and
runs the risk of not adequately protecting the public.
We recommend the board members, the AMCO director, and
enforcement supervisor work together to formally
establish an enforcement plan to direct AMCO's limited
enforcement resources.
MS. CURTIS paraphrased from the second recommendation, titled
"The board and the AMCO director should implement a process to
monitor and track complaints to ensure they are assessed for
follow up action and investigated in a timely manner," beginning
on page 11, which read:
The board and AMCO management have not maintained a
process to monitor and track all actions taken on
complaints to ensure they are resolved in a timely
manner. The board does have a process to receive
complaints from licensees, law enforcement agencies,
and the general public through their website,
telephone, or emails; however, complaints are only
tracked if they result in an inspection or
investigation. Furthermore, the basis for a decision
not to investigate is not documented and maintained.
According to AMCO staff, a process to log all
complaints received previously existed for the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; however, when the
Marijuana Control Board was created, staff
responsibilities were realigned, and the maintenance
of the complaint log took a lower priority compared to
new responsibilities associated with marijuana
regulation.
The efficiency with which complaints are investigated
is one of the sunset evaluation criteria used in the
legislative oversight process. Alaska Statute
44.66.050(c)(6) specifies the sunset review must
evaluate:
The efficiency with which public inquiries or
complaints regarding the activities of the board or
commission fi led with it, with the department to
which a board or commission is administratively
assigned, or with the office of victims' rights or the
office of the ombudsman have been processed and
resolved.
By not tracking complaints, there is an increased risk
that board staff may not investigate complaints and/or
not investigate complaints in a timely manner. Such
instances could reduce the board's ability to
effectively enforce marijuana laws. Additionally,
complaints received directly by board staff via
telephone or email may never be resolved in the event
of staff turnover.
We recommend the board and the AMCO director implement
a process to monitor and track complaints received to
ensure they are assessed for follow up action and
investigated in a timely manner.
3:32:57 PM
MS. CURTIS paraphrased from the third recommendation, titled
"The AMCO director should develop written procedures for
establishing the expiration dates of marijuana handler permits
and ensure staff receive the appropriate training," beginning on
page 12, which read:
Forty-seven of 53 marijuana handler permits tested
were issued by AMCO with incorrect expiration dates.
Of these, 45 were issued for a longer period than
allowed by regulation. Regulation at 3 AAC 306.700(c)
states that:
To obtain a marijuana handler permit, a person who has
completed the marijuana handler permit education
course described under (b) of this section shall
present the course completion certificate to the
director. Th e director shall issue a marijuana
handler permit card valid for three years from the
date of issue.
Management interprets the three-year validity period
to start on the date of the course completion. In most
instances, expiration dates of the handler permits
were established at three years from the date the
individual applied for the permit. The lack of written
procedures and sufficient training contributed to AMCO
staff's varying interpretations for calculating permit
expiration dates.
By not issuing permits in accordance with regulation,
AMCO is allowing permit holders to handle marijuana
and marijuana products beyond the period set in
regulation without obtaining updated training on
marijuana laws.
We recommend the AMCO director develop written
procedures for establishing the expiration dates of
marijuana handler permits and ensure staff receive the
appropriate training.
3:33:20 PM
MS. CURTIS paraphrased from the fourth recommendation, titled
"The AMCO director should develop and implement procedures to
segregate the duties for calculating and remitting fees to local
governments," beginning on page 13 of the review, which read:
AMCO management does not adequately segregate duties
over remittances of application fees to local
governments. The audit found one AMCO employee is
responsible for calculating and approving the amounts
to be remitted to local governments, and no separate
review is performed.
Upon receipt of a new or renewal application, AS
17.38.200(c) requires the board to immediately forward
a copy of each application and half of the
registration application fee to the local regulatory
authority for the local government in which the
applicant desires to operate. Management is
responsible for establishing internal controls to
ensure fees remitted are accurate and complete.
Segregation of duties is a key internal control for
appropriately receiving and distributing funds.
AMCO management did not consider the need for
segregating the duties for remitting fees to local
governments. The lack of adequate segregation of
duties increases the risks of error or fraud.
We recommend the AMCO director develop and implement
procedures to adequately segregate the duties for
calculating and remitting fees to local governments.
MS. CURTIS shared that the response from Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development was on page 33 and the response
from the Marijuana Control Board was on page 35. She added that
both expressed agreement to all four of the recommendations.
3:34:20 PM
CHAIR KITO offered his belief that there had not been withdrawal
of the aforementioned memo during the completion of the sunset
review. He asked if that decision by the federal government
would have any impact on the efficacy or the applicability of
the Alaska Marijuana Control Board.
MS. CURTIS replied that it was outside the scope of the review,
and it had not been considered during the audit.
3:35:24 PM
ERIKA MCCONNELL, Director, Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office
(AMCO), in response to Representative Birch, said that there was
a work project to develop regulations regarding on-site
consumption. This proposal had received more than 500 pages of
comment when it had been opened for public comment and that
several issues had been identified which needed work through the
regulations. These issues had been forwarded to a sub-committee
for work with a new proposal due at the April meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referenced a break-in in Anchorage
resulting in the loss of more than $100,000 in assets in less
than 65 seconds. He asked if it was necessary to show the
floorplan of the business on-line.
MS. MCCONNELL expressed concern for the security of the
licensees. She explained that the application forms had been
revised to no longer request that the applicant show any
security apparatus. She added that the AMCO was also trying to
find the balance between public access to information for the
board and the security concerns of the licensees. She
acknowledged that the licensed premise diagram would still be
required for review, but it would be removed from the website
once the facility began operation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that the Alaska State Legislature
had introduced many bills after the marijuana initiative had
been passed, although very few were passed. He asked if this
hands-off approach by the Legislature was working, or if there
was a need for "greater guidance."
MS. MCCONNELL shared her belief that the Marijuana Control Board
had been very responsive throughout the regulatory process, to
address issues that had been found in reviews by the AMCO. She
deferred to the board members for their comments.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about the investigations for
complaints.
MS. MCCONNELL replied that, in general, AMCO only investigated
submitted complaints and was not looking for problems.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if there were "stings" or operations
to intentionally get people to break the rules.
MS. MCCONNELL relayed that, with alcohol, there was the
compliance check and the shoulder tap program. She noted that
AMCO was working to resurrect those programs and would also
apply them for marijuana. She explained that the compliance
check was an attempt by underaged people to purchase the
regulated product, and the shoulder tap was an underaged person
waiting outside the facility and asking people to purchase for
them. She offered her belief that these were important ways to
enforce the laws for regulated substances.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if there was enough staff to enforce
both marijuana and alcohol.
MS. MCCONNELL offered her belief that it made sense to have
these two substances regulated through the same office, even as
the staff was extremely busy. She relayed that although they
could use more people, she was not going to ask for more staff
and that the office was managing.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referenced an infraction for inaccurate
labeling by a Fairbanks business, in which the business was
fined $500,000. He asked if there was a schedule of fines, or
if this was an arbitrary amount, as it appeared to be a very
high fine for a new business.
MS. MCCONNELL explained that the situation went far beyond a
labelling issue, that this was a product manufacturing facility
that was not testing the vast majority of its product, a major
health and safety issue. She shared that it was the result of a
tip that the business was not testing or tracking the product as
required. She explained that she then wrote an accusation with
a recommendation for the license to be revoked and submitted it
to the Board for consideration. She reported that the Board
decided that a fine was important, and although there was not a
table of fines, there was a proposal for certain amounts for
each subsequent violation or three times the profit of the
licensee. She noted that, as the business had a profit of more
than $1 million, the board decided that a high fine was
warranted.
3:46:14 PM
CHAIR KITO referenced the fiscal note [Include in members'
packets] which identified $532,000 from general funds and asked
about the necessity for this funding.
MS. MCCONNELL offered her understanding that when the program
was created there was a requirement that it be funded by the
fees. In FY16 and FY17, the office was funded by unrestricted
General Funds, with the understanding that there would be
subsequently less in the ensuing years and for it to be entirely
self-supported by FY2020. She explained that for FY19, the
general fund allocation request was for half of the FY18 amount.
She pointed out that the industry was still determining the
number of licenses to determine the income necessary to support
the needs of this regulated industry.
CHAIR KITO mused that this was in recognition for the transition
from start up to regular operations.
MS. MCCONNELL expressed her agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered his understanding that "there's a
lot of cash moving around." He asked if the annual license fees
were paid with "a fistful of cash."
MS. MCCONNELL relayed that most people paid with checks or
cashier's checks, and that they did not receive very much cash.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked how the shoulder tap program worked
and who was held accountable under the program.
MS. MCCONNELL explained that every store must have a security
person at the front entrance to make sure that no one under 21
[years of age] entered. She said that the shoulder tap program
was a bit challenging because someone had to notice that after
the purchaser went outside, they gave it to someone who appeared
to be underage. She said that they tried to address each
situation on a case by case basis for accountability.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared his observation that in
Anchorage there were "dozens of retail operations." He asked
about the determination for the number of licensees. He
questioned whether there was enough demand for them to all be
profitable.
MS. MCCONNELL replied that there was not a limit to the number
of state licenses; however, the local governments were able to
set a limit, even though the Municipality of Anchorage had not
done so.
3:52:21 PM
BRANDON EMMETT, Industry Seat Board Member, Marijuana Control
Board, stated his support for the proposed bill and offered his
belief that the Marijuana Control Board had done "quite a lot of
great work for the State of Alaska" and that he would like to
see that work continued. He opined that a functional regulated
marijuana industry was more in line with the needs of the state
than the previously unregulated system.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked if the board was seeking any
guidance from the legislature or would they prefer a hands-off
approach.
MR. EMMETT replied that the board currently "does not have any
specific asks of the legislature." He acknowledged that there
were some issues that he believed could be addressed by the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL drew attention to page 23 of the sunset
audit [APPENDIX B] depicting survey data for the overall
licensing experience, the overall renewal experience, and the
overall board effectiveness. He pointed out that the percentage
of responses for poor, creates an unnecessary barrier, or not at
all effective was at least 20 percent and asked if any of these
applicant responses concerned him as a board member.
MR. EMMETT offered his understanding that many of the complaints
had been made at the beginning of the process, as there had been
significant barriers at entry, mainly financial barriers which
made it "a pay-to-play system." He opined that although some
applicants found it difficult to enter the industry, as it
matured the number of complaints would diminish. He suggested
that the process was relatively smooth in comparison to that of
other states.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the merger of the alcohol and
marijuana boards had been effective or divergent.
MR. EMMETT stated that there were some subtle differences
between the alcohol and the marijuana industries and that the
greatest challenge was for total resources. He opined that the
staff has "been stretched to the limit," working very hard with
very limited resources. He acknowledged that, although the
State of Alaska was in trying economic times, an expansion of
resources would be applicable.
3:59:28 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 273.
3:59:57 PM
JANA WELTZIN, Owner, JDW Counsel, LLC, stated that her law firm
serviced about 40 percent of the marijuana licenses in Alaska,
as well as marijuana licensee holders in Washington, Oregon,
Arizona, and Nevada. She declared her support of the proposed
bill, pointing out that the Marijuana Control Board had worked
hard to create an evolving structure for the industry, and had
built an efficient office.
4:01:20 PM
LEAH LEVINTON, Enlighten Alaska, stated that she was one of the
first marijuana retail license holders in Alaska. She added
that the license process was very involved, and that she had
learned a lot alongside the Marijuana Control Board. She lauded
the hard work of Ms. McConnell and declared support for the
Marijuana Control Board in the progress and development of
responsible regulation to help keep the industry consistent.
She stated support for the proposed bill, noting that the AMCO
office could use additional staff.
4:03:46 PM
BRUCE SCHULTE, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana, shared that he
had served on the Marijuana Control Board and he praised the
office staff. He referenced an earlier recommendation to
establish enforcement priorities, which he declared to be
"imperative." He shared that although it was a new process,
there had been enforcement of subjective interpretation for what
the regulation should be. He stated that this was unfair and a
misapplication of law. He offered hope that the Legislature
would not have to become involved in this, unless the AMCO
office was not able to arrive at specific limitations on the
enforcement staff and protect the due process.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for an example.
MR. SCHULTE offered an example of an incident when the Marijuana
Control Board had met on a Thursday and Friday, and received
input from the staff, although nothing had been said about CBD
oil on the shelves of the retail stores. On the following
Monday, several stores around the state were raided and the CBD
oil was confiscated under an interpretation of regulation. He
reported that many of the products were identical to products
carried on other retailer shelves. He acknowledged that,
although the discussion about CBD oil was valid and appropriate,
this could have been handled differently. He opined that it
would have been appropriate for the staff to have discussed this
at the meeting of the Marijuana Control Board. It was not until
several months later that the head of enforcement asked the
board for guidance in areas that enforcement was unsure of how
to respond. He expressed his concern that, although there was
law enforcement authority, they were not bound by the same
levels of due process.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the dual enforcement
responsibilities for the two separate areas was a good thing.
MR. SCHULTE said that, given the economic environment, it made
sense to "keep things as lean as possible." He offered his
belief that, when affordable, it would be better to maintain
separation of the two offices. He acknowledged that there were
similarities in the two industries and that the staff was
stretched thin.
4:10:54 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that public testimony would remain open.
CHAIR KITO announced that HB 273 would be held over.
HB 274-EXTEND: BD OF PSYCHOLOGISTS/PSYCH ASSOC.
4:11:05 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 274, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners;
and providing for an effective date."
4:11:26 PM
CAITLYN ELLIS, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased the Sponsor Statement [Included in
members' packets], which read:
House Bill 274 extends the Board of Psychologist and
Psychological Associate Examiners to June 30, 2026 in
accordance with the recommendation of Legislative
Audit.
The board was established to regulate the practice of
psychology in Alaska and is composed of five members:
three licensed psychologists, one licensed
psychological associate, and one public member who
does not have a financial interest in the health care
industry. As of March 2017, the board regulated 285
licensees.
The board is responsible for establishing examination
and education requirements for licensees and issuing
licenses to qualified applications, establishing
continuing education requirements for license renewal,
establishing standards for the practice of psychology,
imposing disciplinary sanctions, reviewing the quality
and availability of psychological services in the
state when requested by DCCED, and compiling
information for submission to DCCED on the practice of
psychology by licensees in the state.
The Division of Legislative Audit conducted a review
of the board and determined that the board is serving
the public's interest by effectively licensing and
regulating psychologists and psychological associates.
The board monitors licensees and works to ensure only
qualified individuals practice in Alaska.
The board is currently scheduled to sunset on June 30,
2018 and will have one year to conclude its
administrative operations unless the legislature
extends the termination date. House Bill 274 reflects
the recommendations of the Division of Legislative
Audit, and extends the termination date for the Board
till June 30, 2026.
4:13:11 PM
KRISTIN CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Alaska State Legislature, directed attention to the sunset
review audit, dated October 2017, [Included in member's
packets], and paraphrased from the report conclusions, which
read:
Overall, the audit concludes the board served the
public's interest by effectively licensing and
regulating psychologists and psychological associates.
The board monitored licensees and worked to ensure
only qualified individuals practice in Alaska.
In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(18), the board is
scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend
that the legislature extend the board's termination to
June 30, 2026.
MS. CURTIS stated that page 5 of the report detailed the
licensing activity and reported that there 285 active licenses
as of March 2017, a 174 percent increase since the prior sunset
audit in 2009. She moved on to the Schedule of Revenues and
Expenditures on page 7 and reported that the Board had a surplus
of almost $400,000 at the end of FY17, noting that the Board, in
conjunction with the Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing (DCBPL), had increased fees for FY17
despite this surplus. She pointed out that the fee levels were
shown on page 6.
MS. CURTIS paraphrased the first recommendation, "DCBPL's
director, in consultation with the board, should reduce fees,"
on page 9, which read:
DCBPL management did not adequately set licensing fees
equal to the costs of regulating the profession.
Alaska Statute 08.01.065 requires the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development annually
review fees to determine whether regulatory costs of
each occupation approximately equal fees collected. If
fees and costs do not equal, fees should be adjusted.
At the end of FY 16, the board had a surplus of
$273,347. Rather than adjusting fees downward to
reduce the deficit, DCBPL management, at the request
of the board, increased the FY 17 application fee for
psychologists and psychological associates and the FY
17 licensure fees for psychological associates. Per
the board chair, fees were changed to ensure associate
and psychologist licensees paid the same fee. The
application fee was increased to cover the costs of
processing incoming applications. When analyzing the
fee levels, DCBPL management did not adequately
consider the surplus and make necessary adjustments.
The oversight resulted in licensees paying higher than
justified license fees.
We recommend DCBPL's director, in consultation with
the board, reduce fees.
MS. CURTIS paraphrased the second recommendation, "DCBPL's
director should develop and implement procedures to ensure
courtesy licensees comply with monthly reporting requirements,"
on page 10, which read:
The audit found four out of 13 courtesy licenses
issued during the audit period did not comply with the
monthly reporting requirements. According to 12 AAC
60.035(a), a courtesy licensee must submit a monthly
report to the board during the period of licensure
indicating the number of days practiced during the
month. Absent submitting the required reports, there
is no way to determine if the licensee was performing
services in excess of the 30 days allowed by the
license.
Failure to ensure compliance was due in part to high
turnover of licensing staff during the audit period
and lack of procedures to ensure DCBPL staff were
monitoring and reporting noncompliance to the board.
We recommend DCBPL's director develop and implement
procedures to ensure courtesy licensees comply with
monthly reporting requirements.
MS. CURTIS directed attention to the response from the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCEED)
on page 21, and the response from the Board of Psychologist and
Psychological Associate Examiners on page 23. She stated that
both the Board and the DCEED agreed with the recommendations.
4:15:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification on the justification
for the fee increase despite the surplus.
MS. CURTIS offered her belief that the intent was to have the
licensing fee for the psychologists and psychological associates
to be the same level, as it would take the same amount of
resources to process both the licenses. She pointed out that
instead of reducing one and increasing the other, they only
increased the one fee, and did not consider the surplus. She
said that this was a simple oversight for not considering the
surplus, which resulted in too high a fee.
4:17:08 PM
ALLEN LEVY, Chair, Board of Psychologists and Psychological
Associate Examiners, said that he was currently in his second
year of his second term on the board and had been serving since
2012. He expressed agreement with the sunset audit, that the
board was acting in the public interest, and doing a good job of
regulating the practice of psychology in Alaska, while
protecting the public and ensuring an adequate supply of
licensed professionals. He said that steps had already been
taken to implement the two recommendations from the sunset audit
for tracking the courtesy licenses, with an expectation to see a
significant fee decrease at the next renewal period for license
fees in 2019. He declared support for the continued existence
of the board, and opined that the audit was fair, effective, and
accurate in its conclusions.
4:19:24 PM
ROBERT LANE, PhD, Federal/State Advocacy Coordinator, Alaska
Psychological Association, shared that he was a professor at
Alaska Pacific University and, as a psychologist, worked on the
legislative committee for the Alaska Psychological Association.
He testified in support of HB 274 as it provided regulations for
guiding the practice and provided safety for the public. He
added that it provided regulations to help guide the educational
programs, and it kept Alaska "on par with all the other states
in the union who have licensed psychologists."
4:20:41 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony.
CHAIR KITO announced that HB 274 would be held over.
HB 275-EXTEND: BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
4:21:01 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 275, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Massage Therapists; and providing for an effective
date."
4:21:20 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement [Included in
members' packets], which read:
House Bill 275 extends the termination date for the
Board of Massage Therapists until June 30, 2022.
Per statute, this board is scheduled to sunset on June
30, 2018 with a one-year wind down if the legislature
does not pass legislation extending it. The licensing
function will remain after this date; however, the
administrative functions of the board would transfer
to the department.
Legislative Audit reviewed the board's operations and
determined that it is in the best interest of the
state to extend this board. The audit makes three
recommendations and recommends a four-year extension
with a new termination date of June 30, 2022. This is
half of the full eight-year extension that Legislative
Audit is authorized to provide.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. The Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing's (DCBPL) director, in
consultation with the board, should take action to
improve procedures to ensure licensure requirements
are met.
2. DCBPL's director should address the Federal Bureau
of Investigations audit findings and concerns.
3. The director of the Office of the Governor, Boards
and Commissions should work to fill the public member
position.
The board currently oversees over 1,400 active
licensees and is made up of five members. State law
requires four board positions be filled by licensed
massage therapists actively engaged in the practice of
massage therapy for a period of three years
immediately preceding the appointment. The remaining
position is to be filled by an individual from the
general public. Statute prohibits the public member
from being a licensed health care provider, an
employee of the State, or a current or former member
of another occupational licensing board.
The continuation of the Board of Massage Therapists is
important to the health and safety of Alaskans.
4:23:15 PM
KRISTIN CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Alaska State Legislature, directed attention to the sunset
review audit, also dated October 2017, [Included in member's
packets], and paraphrased from the report conclusions, which
read:
In all areas except licensing, the audit found the
board was operating in the public's interest. In
general, meetings were conducted effectively,
investigations were appropriately processed, and the
board actively issued or changed regulations to
improve the industry and better protect the public.
The audit concluded the board and DCBPL staff should
improve its licensing procedures. Testing found that
applicants were not consistently issued licenses in
accordance with statutes, regulations, and/or
procedures. Additionally, improvements are needed to
comply with the federal standards over criminal
history record information obtained as part of the
licensing process.
In accordance with AS 08.03.010(c)(12), the board is
scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2018. We recommend
that the legislature extend the board's termination
date to June 30, 2022.
MS. CURTIS directed attention to page 11 of the sunset review,
which listed the schedule of licensing activity, and reported
that from FY16 through August 2017, the board had issued 1,186
licenses, which was double the expected number. She moved on to
page 14, the Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures, noting that,
as the board had a surplus of $265,000 at the end of FY17, the
license fees were lowered in FY18 to address the surplus. She
pointed out that the license fees were listed on page 15.
MS. CURTIS reported that there were three recommendations, and
she paraphrased from the first recommendation, "Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing's (DCBPL)
director, in consultation with the Board of Massage Therapists
(board), should take action to improve procedures to ensure
licensure requirements are met," which read:
Three of 31 license applications tested as part of the
audit were licensed without adequate supporting
documentation and/or review. Deficiencies included:
A background check report for one initial applicant
was not completed. The licensee operated without a
background check report from licensure date of
September 2015 through receipt of the background check
report July 2017 during the license renewal process.
Regulation6 requires applicants submit their
fingerprints for a background check report in order to
obtain a license to practice massage therapy. Per
regulation, licenses can be issued to applicants even
though a background check report has not been
received. However, DCBPL staff must ensure the
background check is completed timely. The applicant's
fingerprint card was sent back multiple times due to
incomplete information. DCBPL staff did not perform
additional follow-up to obtain a completed fingerprint
card because staff failed to list the applicant on the
DCBPL spreadsheet used for tracking background
reports.
One applicant answered "yes" to a professional
fitness question, however no evidence could be located
to demonstrate that the applicant provided an
explanation. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the
board considered an explanation prior to licensing.
One applicant answered "yes" to a professional fi
question and provided an explanation which included
evidence of a permanent revocation of a national board
certification for violating the respective code of
ethics and standards of practice. DCBPL staff and the
board did not forward the application to the
investigative section for review. A license was
granted with the requirement that the individual take
a two credit ethics course. The background check did
not show any convictions, and according to the board
chair, the board believed that a license could not be
denied based on the revocation of a national
certificate. However, DCBPL procedures called for the
application to be forwarded to investigations for
further review. It is unclear why DCBPL staff did not
forward the application.
Alaska Statute 08.61.030(9) states that:
The board may issue a license to a person who has not
been convicted of, or pled guilty or no contest to, a
crime involving moral turpitude, or who has been
convicted of, or pled guilty or no contest to, a crime
involving moral turpitude if the board finds that the
conviction does not affect the person's ability to
practice competently and safely.
The lack of a thorough and timely evaluation of the
above applicants' professional fitness increased the
risk to public safety.
We recommend DCBPL's director, in consultation with
the board, take action to improve procedures to ensure
licensure requirements are met.
MS. CURTIS paraphrased from the second recommendation, "DCBPL's
director should address the Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI) audit findings and concerns," which read:
DCBPL did not comply with federal standards over
criminal history record information. The FBI audit
conducted in April 2017 found DCBPL did not have
secure channels of communication. Additionally,
applicants were not notified in writing that their
fingerprints were to be used for an FBI background
check and were not advised of the procedures for
obtaining, changing, correcting, or updating an FBI
identification record. Additionally, the federal audit
found inadequate chain of custody for fingerprint
cards. A chain of custody ensures the integrity of the
applicant/fingerprint process.
DCBPL addressed one of the findings by including
verbiage in the application that submitted
fingerprints will be sent to the FBI for a federal
background check. However, as of October 2017, the
other issues remain outstanding.
According to 28 CFR 20.21(f)(1), (2), and (3),
whichever State agency collects, stores, and
disseminates criminal history record information must
prevent unauthorized access to information; ensure
that the information is restricted to authorized
users; and that the information cannot be modified,
destroyed, accessed, changed, purged, or overlaid by
other entities. Additionally, per 28 CFR 50.12(b),
applicants must be advised of procedures for obtaining
a change, correction, or updating FBI identification
records.
Per DCBPL management, staff was unaware the
communications and fingerprint cards did not meet
federal standards. Ensuring data is secure protects
individual privacy and promotes public safety.
We recommend DCBPL's director address the FBI audit
findings and concerns.
Auditor's Note: Details regarding the unsecure
channels of communication are being withheld from this
report to prevent the weakness from being exploited.
Pertinent details have been communicated to agency
management in a separate confidential document.
MS. CURTIS paraphrased from recommendation 3, "The director of
the Office of the Governor, Boards and Commissions should work
to fill the public member position," which read:
The public member position on the board became vacant
March 2017 and remained vacant as of October 2017.
Per AS 08.61.010, the board is statutorily required to
consist of five members appointed by the governor, one
of which is a public member who is not a licensed
health care provider, employee of the State, or a
current or former member of another occupation
licensing board. According to Boards and Commissions
staff, stringent requirements make it difficult to
find interested applicants. The Office of the
Governor, Boards and Commissions section is
responsible for actively recruiting, interviewing, and
vetting board applicants.
The lack of a public board member prevents the board
from conducting business with appropriate public input
and perspective.
We recommend the director of the Office of the
Governor, Boards and Commissions work to fill the
public member position.
MS. CURTIS added that the public member to the board may not be
a licensed health care provider, an employee of the state, and
may not be a current or former member of another occupational
licensing board. She pointed out that these restrictive
requirements could make it difficult to find interested
applicants.
4:28:59 PM
MS. CURTIS directed attention to the response from the Office of
the Governor on page 29, which agreed to work to help fill the
public member position, with a recommendation for the board to
pursue a legislative fix to those restrictive requirements. She
noted that the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development response was on page 31, and that the department
agreed that additional checks were necessary to ensure the
administrative record was complete. The department added that
additional supervisory resources were necessary to help meet the
standards. She addressed the response from the Board of Massage
Therapists on page 33, recounting an agreement with the
conclusions and recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON questioned where the documentation and
applications were housed as the board did not have an office.
MS. CURTIS explained that, for this audit, the applicant was
going to a certified person for fingerprinting, and then the
fingerprint card was given back to the applicant for mailing.
She declared that this problematic, as it allowed for tampering.
She added that she was not aware of the final destination for
these cards. She said that Representative Josephson would need
to direct his question to the department.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for verification that prior to the
formation of the Board, a massage therapist was not able to bill
an insurance company, but that the Board now enabled that
billing.
MS. CURTIS offered her understanding that previously the massage
therapists had to work through another health care professional
to bill insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked why there was a recurring requirement
for the submission of fingerprints.
MS. CURTIS reported that this requirement was helpful for
combatting human trafficking and the problems from the sex trade
industry and she offered her belief that this was not unusual.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mused that anyone operating illegally would
not register or submit their fingerprints and pointed out that
there was not a requirement for fingerprints when purchasing a
gun.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if massage establishments were
licensed and if it was necessary to be a licensed massage
therapist to own a massage establishment.
MS. CURTIS replied that there was interest in the law
enforcement community for licensing massage establishments to
help combat human trafficking, although, she opined, it was not
a current requirement. She pointed out that this would require
a statutory change.
4:35:54 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Deputy Director, Juneau Office, Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, in response to
the question regarding licensing of massage establishments, said
that these establishments were not licensed, although it was of
keen interest to law enforcement. She offered her belief that a
bill was to be introduced to address this.
CHAIR KITO noted that she was referencing proposed HB 110.
MS. CHAMBERS reported that all the documents were kept in the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
offices, and on a secure data base. She said that any necessary
files were transferred electronically to the board. She noted
that, as a review by the FBI suggested that the system was not
secure, a new system had been put in place which met all the
standards. She acknowledged that a primary reason for the board
had been to allow for billing to insurance when working
independently. She stated that this was the only licensing
program which required fingerprinting upon every renewal, a
higher standard than any of the other licensing boards.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL questioned having the burden on the board
members for illicit activity associated with the profession.
MS. CHAMBERS relayed that this was the determination by the
legislature when authorizing the board.
4:40:27 PM
DAVID EDWARDS-SMITH, Chair, Board of Massage Therapists, said
that a lot had been accomplished with the partnership of the
division since the first board meeting in January 2015. He
noted that this was the first sunset audit, that it was very
positive, and the board was in support of it. He added that the
board was moving from its "start-up version of the board" toward
board operations. He posed whether it was necessary or
important to have a board and then stated that the real question
was: "How can we not have a Board of Massage Therapists?" He
pointed to the diversity of techniques in the profession and
stated that it took a board of professionals with experience in
the field to "be able to navigate this diversity because we need
to be able to put those techniques into context of the standards
and practice and code of ethics that massage therapists are held
to." He said that these standards assured the public that there
was a process in place. He stated the board also put into
context these standards in a variety of settings, including spa
settings, chiropractic clinics, physical therapy clinics, and
airports. He reported that a look at the science of radiology,
cardiology, and others revealed a lot of funding for the
practice of these sciences, whereas, massage therapy was still
an emerging science with different education and career
opportunities as the profession changed. He reported that the
board had reviewed 1,400 licenses, and that about 30 percent of
those licenses had yes answers to professional fitness
questions. He pointed out that, during the tenure of the board,
there had been four different licensing examiners.
4:44:58 PM
VOLKER HRUBY, President, American Massage Therapy Association
(AMTA) - Alaska Chapter, said that he had been a massage
therapist for 13 years, working in the spa industry, medical
massage, and private practice. He noted that the recent audit
pointed out that having a regulatory board allowed massage
therapists to establish themselves as health care professionals,
bill health insurance, create a legal way for the public to file
a complaint, give voice to the public over the practice of
massage therapy, and hold massage therapists accountable through
licensure. He offered his belief that the board should be
extended for these same reasons. He pointed out that Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED) provided
administrative support for the board. He offered his
understanding that failure to pass HB 275 would necessitate the
duties of the board revert to the Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing in DCCED. He opined that
the division did not possess the capacity or specific expertise
that the the massage therapists serving on the board brought for
oversight in the industry. He offered his belief that the board
had done "an excellent job of enacting regulations to implement
statutes in a short time period." He reported that the board
had issued 1,186 new licenses, almost double the number
projected. He lauded the board members, pointing out that each
of them was committed to improvement for any shortcomings
outlined in the [sunset] audit. He stated support for the
proposed bill and declared his firm belief that to fulfill the
mission of the board to provide public safety for massage
consumers and to regulate the profession by setting and
maintaining industry standards, the Board of Massage Therapists
must be extended.
CHAIR KITO stated that HB 180 would be postponed.
4:48:27 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 275.
4:48:52 PM
KIM VERREYDT shared her experience as a health care provider for
almost 30 years, as a massage therapist and a flight paramedic.
She declared her support of HB 275. She stated her belief that
all health care professionals should be regulated.
4:49:58 PM
JANE GNASS stated that she had been licensed massage therapist
for 20 years and that she was both state and nationally board
certified. She declared her support for the extension of the
termination date of the Board of Massage Therapists. She
emphasized that the Board ensured "consistent and professional
standards," and that it helped to "elevate our profession."
4:51:13 PM
JILL MOTZ reported that she currently held positions on both the
state Board of Massage Therapists and the Alaska American
Massage Therapy Association boards and that she had been
practicing massage therapy since 2003. She shared her
background working as a massage therapist. She declared her
support for HB 275, stating that it was "excellent for small
businesses, communities, therapists, and most importantly,
consumers."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the fingerprint requirement was
burdensome.
MS. MOTZ replied that this requirement was often discussed at
board meetings and that there had been attempts to change this
requirement to once every three cycles.
4:53:59 PM
YAEL HICKOK stated that she had been a massage therapist since
1999. She declared that she was against HB 275. Although she
supported the licensing for massage therapists, she opposed
extending the board. She added that the licensing was helpful,
especially for the ability to bill insurance and allow massage
therapists to be independent. She noted that, although the
licensing was supposed to reduce crime and sex trafficking, that
had not been proven to happen. She declared that the licensing
fees were ridiculous, and she listed the various fees. She
stated that it did not make sense to have to repeatedly be
fingerprinted. She expressed her support for the licensing,
even as there was not a need for the board. She shared the
results of a Facebook survey of massage therapists, in which 44
percent of the 121 respondents said they wanted to eliminate the
board and continue licensing, while 24 percent said they wanted
to continue licensing as it was, 14 percent said they wanted to
eliminate licensing, and 18 percent said they did not know. She
added that she had not shared her own opinion during the survey.
She declared that the survey and responses on Facebook indicated
that many of the massage therapists were unhappy with the board,
with many complaints for the amount of time necessary to receive
a license. She shared that communication with the board had
been problematic, reporting that she had never been notified for
the scheduling of a meeting. She emphasized that the board had
a responsibility to represent the licensees. She offered that
it was a possibility to have a board at some future date if the
massage therapists were more involved in the creation of the
board, noting that the idea for licensing without a board had
not been discussed. She reported that her fees cost her more
than a month's wages, which she deemed to be inexcusable.
5:00:45 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that HB 275 would be held over.
5:01:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB274 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 274 |
| HB274A.PDF |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 274 |
| HB274 Legislative Audit 10.5.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 274 |
| HB273 Sponsor Statement 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 273 |
| HB273 Ver D 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 273 |
| HB273 Legislative Audit 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 273 |
| HB275 Version D 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB275 Sponsor Statement 01.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB275 Legislative Audit 10.11.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB180 Fiscal note DCCED-DBS 5.8.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 HLC Follow Up 5.15.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 Support Document Money Services Act Powerpoint 5.8.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 Sectional Analysis 5.2.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 ver. A 5.2.17.PDF |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 Sponsor Statement 5.2.17.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB275 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 1.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB274 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 1.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 274 |
| HB273 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 1.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 273 |
| HB180 Fiscal note DCCED-DBS 1.19.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| PrepaidAccountsFinalRule CFPB 2016-24503.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB180 Money Services Business 1.22.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 180 |
| HB275 Opposition Letters 01.22.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |
| HB275 Support Letters 1.24.18.pdf |
HL&C 1/22/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 275 |