05/11/2002 09:47 AM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 11, 2002
9:47 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chair
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Gretchen Guess
Senator Robin Taylor
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 115
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Storage
Tank Assistance."
- MOVED HCS SB 115(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 235(STA)
"An Act relating to emergency and disaster relief forces as
state employees for purposes of workers' compensation benefits;
relating to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact and the
implementation of the compact; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSSB 235(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 345
"An Act relating to medical assistance for rehabilitative
services for certain children with disabilities; relating to
agreements to pay medical assistance for covered services paid
for or furnished to eligible children with disabilities by a
school district; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS SB 345(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 222(FIN)
"An Act relating to certain motor vehicles that are required to
yield to following traffic."
- MOVED HCS SB 222(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 191(JUD)
"An Act relating to insurance pooling by air carriers."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 191(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 270(L&C)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Dispensing Opticians; relating to the regulation of dispensing
opticians; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 270(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 115
SHORT TITLE:EXTEND BOARD OF STORAGE TANK ASSISTANCE
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET &
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/22/01 0474 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/22/01 0474 (S) RES, FIN
04/06/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/06/01 (S) Bills Previously
Heard/Scheduled -- Meeting
Canceled --
04/20/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/01 (S) Heard & Held
04/20/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/23/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/23/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/24/01 1234 (S) RES RPT 2DP 3NR
04/24/01 1234 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR;
04/24/01 1234 (S) NR: HALFORD, LINCOLN, ELTON
04/24/01 1234 (S) FN1: (DEC)
04/26/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/26/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/26/01 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/26/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/31/02 (S) FIN AT 9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
01/31/02 (S) Heard & Held
01/31/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/06/02 (S) FIN AT 9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
02/06/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/06/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/06/02 2121 (S) FIN RPT 8DP
02/06/02 2121 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, AUSTERMAN,
HOFFMAN,
02/06/02 2121 (S) OLSON, WILKEN, LEMAN, WARD
02/06/02 2121 (S) FN2: (DEC)
02/11/02 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/11/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/11/02 2154 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 2/11/02
02/11/02 2156 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/11/02 2156 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/11/02 2156 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 115
02/11/02 2156 (S) PASSED Y19 N- A1
02/11/02 2159 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/11/02 2159 (S) VERSION: SB 115
02/13/02 2219 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/02 2219 (H) RES, FIN
03/13/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/15/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/15/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(RES)
03/18/02 2579 (H) RES RPT 8DP 1NR
03/18/02 2579 (H) DP: STEVENS, GREEN, FATE,
KERTTULA,
03/18/02 2579 (H) KAPSNER, MCGUIRE, MASEK,
SCALZI;
03/18/02 2579 (H) NR: CHENAULT
03/18/02 2580 (H) FN2: (DEC)
05/01/02 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/01/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee --
Recessed to 9:00 AM 5/2/02 --
MINUTE(FIN)
05/02/02 3279 (H) FIN RPT 7DP
05/02/02 3279 (H) DP: HARRIS, CROFT, MOSES,
LANCASTER,
05/02/02 3279 (H) FOSTER, MULDER, WILLIAMS
05/02/02 3279 (H) FN2: (DEC)
05/11/02 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 235
SHORT TITLE:EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/02 1952 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/02 1952 (S) STA, L&C, JUD
01/16/02 1952 (S) FN1: ZERO(MVA)
01/16/02 1953 (S) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/24/02 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/24/02 (S) Heard & Held
01/24/02 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/31/02 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/31/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
01/31/02 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/02 2081 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
02/01/02 2081 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, PHILLIPS,
DAVIS,
02/01/02 2081 (S) STEVENS
02/01/02 2081 (S) FN1: ZERO(MVA)
02/21/02 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/21/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/21/02 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/22/02 2281 (S) L&C RPT CS(STA) 3DP
02/22/02 2281 (S) DP: STEVENS, LEMAN, DAVIS
02/22/02 2281 (S) FN1: ZERO(MVA)
05/08/02 (S) JUD AT 3:00 PM BELTZ 211
05/08/02 (S) Moved SCS(STA) Out of
Committee -- Time Change --
MINUTE(JUD)
05/09/02 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
05/09/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
05/09/02 3254 (S) JUD RPT CS(STA) 4DP
05/09/02 3254 (S) DP: TAYLOR, THERRIAULT,
ELLIS,
05/09/02 3254 (S) COWDERY
05/09/02 3254 (S) FN1: ZERO(MVA)
05/09/02 3262 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/9/02
05/09/02 3262 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/09/02 3263 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/09/02 3263 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
05/09/02 3263 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
235(STA)
05/09/02 3263 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
05/09/02 3263 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
05/09/02 3279 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/09/02 3279 (S) VERSION: CSSB 235(STA)
05/10/02 3481 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/10/02 3481 (H) RLS
05/11/02 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 345
SHORT TITLE:EDUC. FUNDING/DISABLED/CORRESPONDENCE
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/04/02 2365 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/04/02 2366 (S) HES, FIN
03/15/02 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/15/02 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/18/02 2449 (S) HES RPT 4DP
03/18/02 2449 (S) DP: GREEN, LEMAN, WILKEN,
WARD
03/18/02 2449 (S) FN1: (HSS)
03/26/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/26/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/02 2536 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 2NR
03/27/02 2536 (S) DP: KELLY, GREEN, AUSTERMAN,
WILKEN,
03/27/02 2536 (S) LEMAN, WARD; NR: DONLEY,
OLSON
03/27/02 2537 (S) FN1: (HSS); FN2: (HSS)
04/10/02 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/10/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/11/02 2732 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/11/02
04/11/02 2733 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/11/02 2733 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/11/02 2733 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 345
04/11/02 2734 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/11/02 2734 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/11/02 2734 (S) TAYLOR NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/12/02 2751 (S) RECONSIDERATION HELD TO
4/15/02
04/15/02 2776 (S) RECONSIDERATION HELD TO
4/16/02
04/16/02 2794 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/16/02 2795 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/16/02 2795 (S) VERSION: SB 345
04/17/02 2965 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/17/02 2965 (H) HES, FIN
04/23/02 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/23/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(HES)
04/24/02 3110 (H) HES RPT 4DP 3NR
04/24/02 3110 (H) DP: WILSON, CISSNA, JOULE,
DYSON;
04/24/02 3110 (H) NR: COGHILL, KOHRING, STEVENS
04/24/02 3110 (H) FN1: (HSS); FN2: (HSS)
05/02/02 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/02/02 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 4:00
PM --
05/06/02 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/06/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
05/07/02 3420 (H) FIN RPT 2DP 5NR
05/07/02 3420 (H) DP: FOSTER, WILLIAMS; NR:
BUNDE,
05/07/02 3420 (H) CROFT, DAVIES, LANCASTER,
HUDSON
05/07/02 3420 (H) FN1: (HSS); FN2: (HSS)
05/11/02 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 222
SHORT TITLE:REQUIRE SLOW DRIVERS TO PULL OVER
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
05/03/01 1465 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/03/01 1465 (S) TRA, FIN
02/12/02 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/12/02 (S) Moved CS(TRA) Out of
Committee
02/12/02 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/19/02 2220 (S) TRA RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/19/02 2221 (S) DP: COWDERY, WILKEN, TAYLOR,
WARD;
02/19/02 2221 (S) NR: ELTON
02/19/02 2221 (S) FN1: (DOT)
03/01/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/01/02 (S) Moved CS(FIN) Out of
Committee
03/01/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/01/02 2337 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, GREEN,
AUSTERMAN,
03/01/02 2337 (S) WARD; NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/01/02 2337 (S) FN2: ZERO(DPS)
03/01/02 2337 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/13/02 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/13/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/18/02 2449 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/18/02
03/18/02 2451 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/18/02 2451 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/18/02 2451 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/18/02 2451 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
222(FIN)
03/18/02 2452 (S) PASSED Y17 N1 E 2
03/18/02 2452 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
03/20/02 2476 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
03/20/02 2477 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/20/02 2477 (S) VERSION: CSSB 222(FIN)
03/22/02 2490 (S) FN1: (DOT)
03/22/02 2635 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/22/02 2635 (H) JUD, FIN
04/22/02 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
04/22/02 (H) <Bill Postponed to 4/24/02> -
- Time Change --
04/24/02 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/24/02 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 222(JUD) Out
of Committee
MINUTE(JUD)
04/25/02 3130 (H) JUD RPT HCS(JUD) 1DP 4NR
04/25/02 3130 (H) DP: ROKEBERG; NR: MEYER,
COGHILL,
04/25/02 3130 (H) JAMES, KOOKESH
04/25/02 3130 (H) FN1: (DOT)
04/25/02 3130 (H) FN2: ZERO(DPS)
05/08/02 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/08/02 (H) Moved HCSSB 222(FIN) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
05/09/02 3462 (H) FIN RPT HCS(FIN) NT 5DP 5NR
05/09/02 3462 (H) DP: BUNDE, LANCASTER, FOSTER,
MULDER,
05/09/02 3462 (H) WILLIAMS; NR: WHITAKER,
HARRIS, CROFT,
05/09/02 3462 (H) DAVIES, HUDSON
05/09/02 3462 (H) FN1: (DOT)
05/09/02 3462 (H) FN2: ZERO(DPS)
05/11/02 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 191
SHORT TITLE:INSURANCE POOLING BY AIR CARRIERS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/12/01 1094 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/12/01 1094 (S) L&C, JUD
04/17/01 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/17/01 (S) Heard & Held
04/17/01 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/19/01 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/19/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/24/01 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/24/01 (S) Heard & Held
04/24/01 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/28/01 (S) L&C AT 9:30 AM BELTZ 211
04/28/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Time Change --
05/01/01 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
05/01/01 (S) Moved CS(L&C) Out of
Committee
05/01/01 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
05/02/01 1431 (S) NR: PHILLIPS, AUSTERMAN,
DAVIS,
05/02/01 1431 (S) TORGERSON
05/02/01 1431 (S) FN1: ZERO(CED)
05/02/01 1431 (S) L&C RPT CS 4NR NEW TITLE
05/04/01 (S) JUD AT 4:45 PM BELTZ 211
05/04/01 (S) Heard & Held -- Time Change -
05/04/01 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/05/01 (S) JUD AT 8:45 PM BELTZ 211
05/05/01 (S) Moved SCS(JUD) Out of
Committee -- Time Change --
05/05/01 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
05/06/01 1574 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE
05/06/01 1574 (S) DP: TAYLOR, COWDERY;
05/06/01 1574 (S) NR: ELLIS, THERRIAULT, DONLEY
05/06/01 1574 (S) FN1: ZERO(CED)
05/02/02 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
05/02/02 (S) -- Time Change --
05/02/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
05/06/02 3182 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 5/6/02
05/06/02 3184 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/06/02 3184 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/06/02 3184 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
05/06/02 3184 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
191(JUD)
05/06/02 3184 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
05/06/02 3189 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/06/02 3189 (S) VERSION: CSSB 191(JUD)
05/07/02 3415 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/07/02 3415 (H) L&C
05/08/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/08/02 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 191(L&C) Out
of Committee
MINUTE(L&C)
05/10/02 3484 (H) L&C RPT HCS(L&C) 1DP 6NR
05/10/02 3484 (H) DP: ROKEBERG; NR: MEYER,
HAYES,
05/10/02 3484 (H) CRAWFORD, KOTT, HALCRO,
MURKOWSKI
05/10/02 3484 (H) FN2: ZERO(H.L&C)
05/11/02 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 270
SHORT TITLE:DISPENSING OPTICIANS:EXTEND BD/REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET &
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/01/02 2089 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/01/02 2089 (S) L&C, FIN
02/14/02 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/14/02 (S) Moved CS(L&C) Out of
Committee
02/14/02 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/19/02 2222 (S) L&C RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/19/02 2222 (S) DP: STEVENS, DAVIS,
TORGERSON;
02/19/02 2222 (S) NR: AUSTERMAN
02/19/02 2222 (S) FN1: (CED)
03/25/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/25/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/25/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/25/02 2517 (S) FIN RPT CS(L&C) 5DP 3NR
03/25/02 2518 (S) DP: KELLY, AUSTERMAN, OLSON,
WILKEN,
03/25/02 2518 (S) LEMAN; NR: DONLEY, GREEN,
WARD
03/25/02 2518 (S) FN1: (CED)
03/28/02 (S) RLS AT 8:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/28/02 (S) -- Time Change --
03/28/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/02/02 2589 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/02/02 2589 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
270(L&C)
04/02/02 2589 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
04/02/02 2589 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/02/02 2593 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/02/02 2593 (S) VERSION: CSSB 270(L&C)
04/02/02 2586 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/2/02
04/02/02 2588 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/02/02 2588 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/03/02 2770 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/03/02 2770 (H) L&C, FIN
04/12/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/12/02 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/02 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/17/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/17/02 (H) <Bill Postponed>
05/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(L&C)
05/03/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/03/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(L&C)
05/08/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/08/02 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 270(L&C) Out
of Committee
MINUTE(L&C)
05/09/02 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/09/02 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 270(FIN) Out
of Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
05/09/02 3462 (H) L&C RPT HCS(L&C) 2DP 4NR
05/09/02 3462 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, CRAWFORD; NR:
MEYER,
05/09/02 3462 (H) KOTT, HALCRO, MURKOWSKI
05/09/02 3463 (H) LETTER OF INTENT WITH L&C
REPORT
05/09/02 3463 (H) FN1: (CED)
05/10/02 3485 (H) FIN RPT HCS(FIN) 8DP
05/10/02 3485 (H) DP: BUNDE, WHITAKER, HARRIS,
DAVIES,
05/10/02 3485 (H) LANCASTER, HUDSON, FOSTER,
WILLIAMS
05/10/02 3486 (H) FN2: (H.FIN/CED)
05/11/02 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained additions to SB 115 relating to
the Board of Marital and Family Therapy.
DENNY DeWITT, Staff
to Representative Eldon Mulder
House Finance Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 507
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained additions to SB 115 relating to
the extension of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
400 Willoughby Suite 500
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 235(STA) on behalf of the
administration, the sponsor of SB 235.
RANDY RUARO, Staff
to Representative William Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 515
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the portion of SB 345 that is
related to HB 312.
RICHARD SCHMITZ
Staff to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 214
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the portion of SB 345 relating to
HB 464.
SARA WRIGHT, Staff
to Senator Dave Donley
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 506
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 222 on behalf of the sponsor.
JULIA GRIMES, Lieutenant
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to SB 222.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to SB 222.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 271, which
is incorporated in HCS CSSB 191, Version S.
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the portion of CSSB 191(JUD)
relating to HB 319. Discussed the transitional provision of HCS
CSSB 270, Version U.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the Alaska Air Carrier's
Association position on HCS CSSB 191, Version S.
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Joint Committee on Legislative Budget & Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of SB
270.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the need for a 2004 sunset for
the Board of Dispensing Opticians.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PETE KOTT called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 9:47 a.m. Representatives Kott, Porter,
Kohring, Morgan, McGuire, Berkowitz, and Joule were present at
the call to order. Representatives James, Guess, Taylor, and
Kerttula were also in attendance.
SB 115-EXTEND BOARD OF STORAGE TANK ASSISTANCE
CHAIR KOTT announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 115, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Storage Tank Assistance."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt Version 22-LS0634\F,
Lauterbach, 5/10/02, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version F was before the committee.
Number 0096
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that Sections 1-7 bring Alaska Statutes for marital and family
therapy in line with laws regarding other professionals in the
state and nation. Furthermore, it adds the Board of Marital and
Family Therapy to the list of professionals with which the
department can contract. She informed the committee that these
changes were passed by the full House unanimously.
CHAIR KOTT clarified that the changes discussed by
Representative Wilson were seen and approved by the House [in
previous House legislation].
0154
DENNY DeWITT, Staff to Representative Eldon Mulder, House
Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, explained that
Sections 10, 11, and 16 relate to the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA). These sections would extend the RCA through 2006,
and would allow the RCA to approve settlements. Furthermore,
these sections would establish timelines negotiated with the RCA
and the industry. Mr. DeWitt noted that these changes are
supported by most of the industry and the RCA.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the language contained in
Sections 10, 11, and 16 is identical to that contained in the
bill [HB 333] that passed the House.
MR. DeWITT said that is his understanding.
CHAIR KOTT related his belief that the language is identical [to
that found in HB 333].
Number 0265
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER related his understanding that the
legislation dealing with the Council on Domestic Violence is
moving in the other body. Therefore, he moved that the
committee delete page 1, lines 3-5, and Sections 8, 9, and 13.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE objected.
CHAIR KOTT reiterated that this amendment is being made because
this measure is moving in the Senate on its own.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE withdrew her objection.
Therefore, the amendment was adopted.
Number 0381
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCS SB 115, Version 22-
LS0634\F, Lauterbach, 5/10/02, as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if the fiscal note for SB 115 remains
correct [with the changes encompassed in Version F].
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "I think ... the drafter would
exclude it since it's now irrelevant to the bill."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE amended her motion to include forthcoming
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS SB 115(RLS) was
reported from the House Rules Standing Committee.
SB 235-EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT
CHAIR KOTT announced that the next order of business would be CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 235(STA), "An Act relating to emergency and
disaster relief forces as state employees for purposes of
workers' compensation benefits; relating to the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact and the implementation of the
compact; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0469
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), presented
CSSB 235(STA) on behalf of the administration, the sponsor of SB
235. She explained that SB 235 allows Alaska to join the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which is a compact that
allows states to send resources [between each other] and to be
reimbursed for the use of those resources. Therefore, if Alaska
joined the compact and didn't have the resources to respond to a
disaster, Alaska could call another state that would send
resources. This legislation also clarifies that those
volunteers working for the state under DMVA are covered by the
state's workers' compensation. However, she specified that
those volunteers must be on an active roster working for
emergency services. Ms. Carroll informed the committee,
"Indications are that the first responder money, the $3.5
billion, coming from the feds may certainly be attached to
members ... of an assistance compact." Therefore, this compact
might be one which states are required to be a member of before
the first responder money could be received.
CHAIR KOTT, in response to Representative Berkowitz, explained
that SB 235 was referred to the House Rules Standing Committee
in order to meet the standing committee hearing [requirement].
There being no one else who wished to testify, Chair Kott
announced that public testimony was closed.
Number 0591
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report CSSB 235(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 235(STA) was
reported from the House Rules Standing Committee.
SB 345-EDUC. FUNDING/DISABLED/CORRESPONDENCE
CHAIR KOTT announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 345, "An Act relating to medical assistance for
rehabilitative services for certain children with disabilities;
relating to agreements to pay medical assistance for covered
services paid for or furnished to eligible children with
disabilities by a school district; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0645
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to adopt Version 22-LS1602\L,
Lauterbach, 5/10/02, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version L was before the committee.
Number 0671
RANDY RUARO, Staff to Representative William Williams, Alaska
State Legislature, explained the portion of SB 345 that relates
to HB 312. Section 9 of the legislation suspends the erosion of
the supplemental funding floor for fiscal year 2003, which was
created by SB 36. The suspension is for only one year because
the legislature should have a new study of school district cost
factors, which should provide a base of information on which to
make decisions relating to school funding. Section 10 removes
the Alyeska Central School from its previous manner of funding
and changes it to more of a foundation formula type of funding.
CHAIR KOTT recalled that this matter was before the House as [HB
312] and experienced unanimous consent.
MR. RUARO agreed with Chair Kott's recollection.
Number 0762
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that Version L incorporates HB 464,
which passed the House 37:0. In response to Representative
Joule, Mr. Schmitz specified that the language beginning on page
3, line 8, through page 4, line 13, relates to HB 464.
MR. SCHMITZ informed the committee that there was one technical
change on page 3, line 18. The language "review of" replaces
the original language in HB 464 which was "evaluation and
grading". This change was made in order to use the language
that the state uses in the related regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE inquired as to where "review" is defined.
MR. SCHMITZ said that he couldn't answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted her assumption that "review" would
include grading of materials in some standard [fashion]. She
expressed the need for there to be meaningful review.
CHAIR KOTT, determining there was no one else to testify, closed
public testimony.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to report HCS SB 345, Version 22-
LS1602\L, Lauterbach, 5/10/02, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, HCS SB 345(RLS) was reported from the House Rules
Standing Committee.
SB 222-REQUIRE SLOW DRIVERS TO PULL OVER
CHAIR KOTT announced that the next order of business would be CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 222(FIN), "An Act relating to certain motor
vehicles that are required to yield to following traffic."
The committee took a brief at-ease from 10:06 a.m. to 10:10 a.m.
Number 1002
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to adopt Version 22-LS0611\X as the
working document. There being no objection, Version X was
before the committee.
SARA WRIGHT, Staff to Senator Dave Donley, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 222 on behalf of the sponsor. Ms.
Wright explained that current Alaska regulations prohibit
traffic traveling slower than the posted speed limit with a line
of five or more vehicles [behind the slow driver]. Therefore,
SB 222 places this regulation in statute and raises the fine
from $30 to $100. With the cooperation of the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities it increases signage
informing motorists of the existing regulation.
MS. WRIGHT turned to Version X, and informed the committee that
Senator Donley doesn't support Section 2, which was added by the
House Finance Committee. She noted that the Department of
Public Safety is present to answer questions with regard to
Senator Donley's opposition.
Number 1076
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to the difference between
Version T and Version X.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER related his belief that the difference is
the reference to traveling at a speed five or more miles below
the speed limit.
CHAIR KOTT specified that the difference between the two
versions is encompassed in Section 1(b).
Number 1114
JULIA GRIMES, Lieutenant, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), testified via teleconference.
She turned to Section 2 and asked whether the sponsor's intent
is to merely eliminate the double fines if someone exceeds the
reduced work zone speed limit, or is the intention to
automatically restore the originally posted speed limit when no
workers are present in the work zone.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER answered with his understanding that it's
an attempt to eliminate double fines and return the zone to the
normal speed limit when no workers are present in the work zone.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised then that this exemption from
double fines would only apply to this violation.
Number 1231
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
related her belief that Section 2 doubles the fines for
violations in work zones. This amendment would limit the
violation to cases in which workers are present. Therefore,
there is concern with regard to long work zones. She posed an
example in which one is speeding at mile one - where there are
no workers - but there are workers at mile three; she asked
whether the [double fine] would apply. She expressed the need
for clarification on that matter.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that much of the road work is done in
the summer, which is a high traffic time. Furthermore, the
roads are often in bad shape and traveling the regularly posted
speed after the work zone may still place the driver and others
in danger.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that there is another law, the
basic speed law, that covers such situations. One may never go
faster than the conditions of the road or circumstances allow,
no matter the posted speed limit. This [section] merely refers
to the double fines and thus all [other] violations that may or
may not occur remain in effect. Representative Porter said that
clarification could be achieved by inserting the following
language: "workers present anywhere in the area that is
posted".
Number 1329
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that often work/construction
zones have posted speed limits for the zone itself. From his
experience, proving that workers were present invites another
component of proof for the prosecution. There is a wide
variation in regard to what "present" means. Therefore, he
suggested tying the double fine to something like the presence
of equipment.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN recalled his time working in road
construction, and noted his agreement with Section 2 [as
specified in Version X]. He stressed the need to drive slow and
pay attention in construction zones.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE mentioned that laws such [as double fines
in work zones] serve as a deterrent. Such laws caution people
that there will be increased penalties for violations in
construction zones.
Number 1506
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to how the public would know
when people are working in the construction zone. In order to
utilize this exemption, will it be necessary to post work hours,
he asked.
MS. WRIGHT said that according to the Alaska Traffic Manual
Supplement, signage won't be placed where conditions don't
warrant and thus are removed or covered when [unsafe] conditions
cease to exist.
CHAIR KOTT posed a situation in which one is driving a motor
home on a highway in rural Alaska with a posted speed limit of
55 miles per hour (mph). If the motor home is traveling at 55
mph and there are five vehicles behind the motor home, would the
motor home be required to pull over.
MS. WRIGHT replied no.
Number 1611
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING remarked that keeping Section 2 would
potentially result in a less safe situation because it makes
[the double fines] applicable when workers are present.
Therefore, he surmised that elimination of Section 2 would
result in a higher standard, and therefore safer conditions.
Representative Kohring moved the following conceptual amendment:
Page 1, line 2,
Delete "and to fines committed in highway work
zones"
Delete Section 2
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING highlighted that the deletion of Section
2 doesn't eliminate the double fines because that is currently
in law.
MS. WRIGHT, in response to Chair Kott, agreed that the
aforementioned conceptual amendment is consistent with the
sponsor's intent.
CHAIR KOTT asked if there was objection to the conceptual
amendment. There was no objection, and therefore the conceptual
amendment was adopted.
Number 1740
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ returned to Section 1, and noted that
he is a bit perplexed by the 5 or more miles per hour below the
posted speed limit. He posed a situation in which there was a
55 mph speed limit and there is someone driving at that speed.
He recalled that with radar guns there is a 10 percent buffer.
Therefore, if someone is pulled over for traveling 50 mph in a
55 mph zone, it would seem that the speed would be within that
10 percent buffer. Representative Berkowitz characterized that
as problematic from the proof perspective. He expressed the
need for a more discretionary way of phrasing [the violation].
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER remarked that he believes Representative
Berkowitz is confusing law enforcement tolerances with the law.
"The law enforcement tolerance has to be based on the law in the
first place," he said. Therefore, he suggested leaving the law
as it is.
Number 1810
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCS CSSB 222, Version 22-
LS0611\X, as amended out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, HCS CSSB 222(RLS) was reported from the House
Rules Standing Committee.
SB 191-INSURANCE POOLING BY AIR CARRIERS
CHAIR KOTT announced that the next order of business would be CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 191(JUD), "An Act relating to insurance
pooling by air carriers."
Number 1836
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to adopt Version 22-LS0590\S, Ford,
5/9/02, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He pointed out that tort
reform is [available] and the punitive caps are in place for the
most part. Therefore, he objected to incorporating punitive
caps with regard to aviation. Secondarily, Representative
Berkowitz said that it seems to be a stretch to shoehorn
commercial recreational activities that aren't aircraft related.
CHAIR KOTT related his understanding that those who testified on
insurance pooling with aircraft carriers testified that SB 191
was hollow since there was no funding mechanism.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Morgan, McGuire,
Joule, Porter, and Kott voted to adopt Version S.
Representatives Kohring and Berkowitz voted against the adoption
of Version S. Therefore, Version S was adopted by a vote of
4:2.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:30 a.m. to 10:34 a.m.
Number 1974
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO, Alaska State Legislature,
testified as the sponsor of HB 271, which is incorporated in SB
191. Representative Halcro explained that Version S is a
comprehensive approach to a number a growing industries in the
state. He characterized it as improving the exposure risk of
these industries, and their ability to calculate that exposure
risk while being able to obtain affordable insurance coverage.
Representative Halcro recalled the testimony heard in the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee on this issue. Most of
that testimony was from small Alaskan business owners, many of
which are in the tourism industry. The testimony highlighted
the threat of punitive damages, which drives up the cost of
business and creates an uncertain insurance market. Alaska is a
very geographically challenging and diverse state. For example,
in some communities one can only arrive by air. However, due to
the crippling cost of insurance, carriers have been [leaving].
He pointed out that two portions of Version S passed nearly
unanimously in the House. Furthermore, there has been
widespread support from the industry. Representative Halcro
explained that [Version S] puts in place a pooling structure.
Therefore, if the funds are obtained, rules and procedures of
the pool can be established to govern it. And, hopefully, such
actions would provide a stable insurance market for [the air
carriers] and those in the relevant tourism market.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to how the recreational
activity provisions assist in the goal of protecting air
carriers.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said the two industries, air carriers and
tourism, go hand-in-hand. Many of the recreational activities
are provided after the people are flown into an area. These two
particular industries are both incredibly important to the
growth of Alaska and its economy, he said.
Number 2128
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, announced that she would address Section 2 of HCS
CSSB 191. She explained that Section 2 establishes the doctrine
of inherent risk for participants in commercial recreational
activities. Participation in a commercial recreational activity
constitutes an acceptance of inherent risk. Therefore, the
participant is contributively negligent to the extent that
injuries result from the inherent risk, which is separate from
an operator's negligence. This isn't an absolute shield against
negligence and thus the parties can always go to court when a
risk falls in a gray area. This is based on the stipulation
that the parties have responsibilities that they must uphold,
and in certain situations some of the recreational operators
will have to increase the standards of notification to the
participants. Stipulating the responsibilities for both the
operators and the participants reduces the uncertainties
regarding the legal responsibility for resulting injuries. Ms.
Sylvester said, "This legislation is very important to encourage
the continued availability of the outdoor recreational
opportunities that are synonymous with Alaska."
MS. SYLVESTER read the following statement from an operator who
has been requesting this legislation for the last six or so
years. She read the statement as follows:
You probably don't notice many businesses going away
from specific injury suits; that's generally not how
this happens. What happens is the cost and time of
defending yourself from these claims as well as
drastically increasing insurance rates starts to
outweigh the advantages of owning your own business.
The bottom line gets eaten away enough so that the
risk is no longer worth it. At that point, the
business either tries to sell or they just go away.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if any of these companies have
approached the insurance companies and inquired as to how their
rates would change if this legislation were to pass.
MS. SYLVESTER pointed out that such information is proprietary
information that isn't available. She recalled that the
sponsor's staff suggested that it would take $1.5-$5 million to
capitalize the insurance pool for aircraft liability. However,
Representative Halcro's research revealed figures of between
$30-$50 million because one [incident] will potentially cost $10
million. Ms. Sylvester mentioned the hush money paid to avoid
suits, and noted that it does have an impact on insurance rates.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised that the answer to his
question is no. He then turned his focus to the commercial
recreational activity. He posed a situation in which there is a
bus accident and the bus is involved in a commercial
recreational activity such as rafting. The accident is the
result of negligence. Therefore, he interpreted this provision
to mean that the employee of the raft company would be entitled
to damages, whereas the client wouldn't be.
MS. SYLVESTER said that this provision of statute doesn't negate
anyone's ability to take their claim to court.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated agreement with that, but
pointed out that the provision says that a client is in a
different position than someone who is paid to engage in a
recreational activity. Therefore, he suspected that it invites
the specter of equal protection problems because there could be
one accident with two victims and two different avenues of
recourse.
TAPE 02-12, SIDE B
Number 2357
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that the purpose of this
legislation is to recognize the inherent risk not other acts of
negligence. Other acts of negligence are just that, and anyone
can file suit on anyone's negligence. For example, if one was
white water rafting and didn't hold onto the rope, that
individual should recognize that he/she may [fall into the
water]. Therefore, this individual shouldn't be able to [bring
a suit] because of the individual's own negligence. However, if
the rope broke because of improper maintenance that would be due
to negligence and the individual would be able to bring suit.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ continued with Representative Porter's
example of the rope breaking and specified that the guide and
the client are hanging on. Under the definitions of this bill,
the guide hasn't accepted the inherent risks because the only
person who accepts it are those engaged in the commercial
recreational activity. To engage in commercial recreational
activity means that the individual has paid compensation to
engage in the activity. However, the guide hasn't paid to
engage in the commercial recreation activity but rather the
guide is paid to engage in the commercial recreation activity.
Therefore, there could be one accident impacting two people but
they would have to pursue two different aspects of justice.
Representative Berkowitz said such a situation seems to raise
equal protection questions.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that Representative Berkowitz's
example presumes that the guide [of a commercial recreation
activity] will sue his/her employer.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 10:46 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.
CHAIR KOTT closed public testimony.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
Number 2241
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved a conceptual amendment to strike
the portions of Version S dealing [with the doctrine of inherent
risk related to commercial recreation activities].
CHAIR KOTT objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed the need maintain focus on
air carriers [since that is the subject of this bill].
Furthermore, the definition of recreational activity is very
broad.
CHAIR KOTT informed the committee that there has been testimony
that the air carriers support all components of this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING expressed concern that modification of
the bill could result in its death.
Number 2170
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO agreed with Chair Kott that the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee heard testimony that SB
191 in and of itself, without the funding mechanism, is useless.
He noted that the pooling can occur now. Representative Halcro
stressed that the air carriers are looking for real solutions.
Currently, the industry has attempted to create its own pool,
but has found that the risks and payments are no different than
current market conditions. In order to capitalize as a pool, at
least $30 million is necessary. Representative Halcro informed
the committee that the air carriers did support SB 191 and HB
271. Representative Halcro, in response to Representative
Joule, confirmed that the air carriers supported HB 319, which
is the other component of the bill [relating to the inherent
risk of commercial recreational activities]. All three
components of [Version S] are supported by the Alaska Air
Carrier's Association because they feel it's a comprehensive
approach, although, in response to Representative Kohring, he
specified that all three components have never been before the
association in one bill.
Number 2035
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, informed the
committee that the director of the association has asked if the
three bills could be consolidated. Therefore, he said he felt
comfortable [in their support of Version S].
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that one of the differences
between [the coverage for] employees and clients is that
employees are covered by workers' compensation and clients are
not. Representative Porter related his belief that there is an
appropriate balance of coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reminded the committee that there is an
amendment before the committee.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz, Joule,
and Kohring voted for the adoption of the amendment.
Representatives Morgan, McGuire, Porter, and Kott voted against
adoption of the amendment. Therefore, the adoption of the
amendment failed by a vote of 3:4.
Number 1959
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee "delete the
sections of [Chair Kott's] bill [included in Version S of SB
191] that are not directly related to aircraft." He offered the
amendment conceptually.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that this amendment is tantamount to
the previous amendment.
CHAIR KOTT objected to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that the intent of this
amendment is to focus the bill solely on aircraft and air
carriers and thus would remove references to other recreational
activities.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz, Joule,
and Kohring voted for the adoption of the amendment.
Representatives McGuire, Porter, Morgan, and Kott voted against
the adoption of the amendment. Therefore, the adoption of the
amendment failed by a vote of 3:4.
Number 1887
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to report HCS CSSB 191, Version 22-
LS0590\S, Ford, 5/9/02, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, HCS CSSB 191(RLS) was reported from the House
Rules Standing Committee.
SB 270-DISPENSING OPTICIANS:EXTEND BD/REGULATION
CHAIR KOTT announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 270(L&C), "An Act extending the
termination date of the Board of Dispensing Opticians; relating
to the regulation of dispensing opticians; and providing for an
effective date." Chair Kott noted that there is an HCS, Version
22-LS1382\U, Laurterbach, 5/10/02.
Number 1845
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Joint
Committee on Legislative Budget & Audit, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor, the Joint
Committee on Legislative Budget & Audit. She explained that SB
270 was drafted per the audit recommendations with regard to
dispensing opticians. The legislation makes changes to
licensing requirements that would remove barriers to entry into
the profession. These changes are reflected in Sections 1-11 of
[Version U]. Furthermore, intent language stating the need for
the Board of Dispensing Opticians to address its deficit was
inserted. The intent language also specifies that the next
legislative audit review the board's progress in that area.
MS. BRAKES turned attention to Section 2, page 2, line 1. She
recalled her testimony before the House Finance Committee when
she stated that the sponsor wouldn't have any problem with a
one-year extension. She explained that the one-year extension
was seen as a way to send a message to the board. However, a
one-year extension would mean that the legislative auditor would
have to begin the review now and thus the board wouldn't have
the opportunity to address the deficit situation. Therefore,
she suggested changing the extension to 2004.
CHAIR KOTT recalled that the 2004 extension was the date
specified when the bill left the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee. Although he understood that the House
Finance Committee wanted to send the board a message via a one-
year extension, Chair Kott said he understood that many boards
operate in the red. The division sets the fees, he noted.
Number 1748
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED), agreed
that the division sets the fees and is ultimately responsible
for any failure to be financially self-sufficient. She also
agreed that various boards fall into deficit at various times
while other boards have a surplus. For those in surplus
situations, the division adjusts their fees so that deficits are
repaid. Therefore, it isn't unusual for a board to be in a
deficit and have its fees adjusted in order to repay the
deficit. Ms. Reardon said that she would appreciate a 2004
sunset in order that the auditors can see that the fees are
increased and the result of the increased fees. It seems that
the process would be more valuable if the sunset is 2004, she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to what would happen if
there is no extension.
MS. REARDON explained that next year would be the wind-down year
and the board would disappear if there is no intervening
legislative action. However, there would be a question
regarding whether the division is to continue to license in the
absence of the board. Therefore, in such a situation the
legislature would need to make conforming amendments changing
references to the board to the department.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the wind-down status would
adversely impact the health of Alaskans seeking optician
services.
MS. REARDON answered that business would continue as usual if it
seems that the legislature is likely to continue the board.
"There isn't a lot to do to wind down," she said.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out the reduction in the
training equivalent from 6,000 hours to 1,800 hours. He
inquired as to the reason for that reduction. He also inquired
as to the national standard.
MS. REARDON informed the committee that approximately half of
all states regulate and issue licenses for dispensing opticians.
For those states that do, all but two have licensing boards and
a 2-3 year apprenticeship requirement. She noted that 1,000
hours equals about six months. The current requirement is about
three years and this would reduce it to about one year, and
therefore she didn't view the reduction as out of line.
Although the board would've preferred 3,000 hours, the
legislative auditors felt 3,000 [training] hours was too much.
On the other hand, this legislation adds that a board approved
course, such as the Career Progression Program, be passed before
licensure. Therefore, she viewed that requirement as sort of
offsetting the reduction in training.
Number 1549
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE posed a situation in which the board is
gone, and inquired as to how the part of the bill related to the
expansion of the use of pharmaceutical agents by optometrists is
tied to the portion of the bill related to the extension of the
[board].
MS. REARDON explained that if the Board of Dispensing Opticians
and the regulations for the dispensing opticians are eliminated,
the Board of Optometry will still exist and regulate
optometrists. The second half of the bill addresses
optometrists. Ms. Reardon didn't see that the two sections of
the bill impacted each other.
CHAIR KOTT closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE announced that she doesn't like HB 215,
which relates to the to the use of pharmaceutical agents in the
practice of optometry. Therefore, she also announced that she
would vote against [HCS CSSB 270] on the House floor. Similar
measures have been rejected in five other states this year
alone, she pointed out. She remarked that this is a dangerous
course to take. She specified that it's more than medical
school, it's the residency requirements that provide
ophthalmologists extra experience with regard to how drugs
interact with other drugs and diseases. Furthermore, she
expressed concern with the impact to rural Alaska.
Number 1357
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved to adopt HCS CSSB 270, Version 22-
LS1382\U, Lauterbach, 5/10/02, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Porter, Kohring,
Morgan, and Kott voted to adopt Version U. Representatives
McGuire, Berkowitz, and Joule voted against adopting Version U.
Therefore, Version U was adopted by a vote of 4:3.
Number 1298
CHAIR KOTT moved that the committee adopt the following
conceptual amendment:
Page 2, line 2,
Delete "2003"
Insert "2004"
There being no objection, the conceptual amendment was adopted.
Number 1275
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE moved the following amendment:
Page 3, lines 16 and 18,
Delete "1,800"
Insert "3,000"
MS. BRAKES explained that the training hours were reduced to
1,800 due to testimony from opticians and its board.
Originally, SB 270 specified 3,000 [apprenticeship] training
hours. The board testified that under the 6,000 apprenticeship
training hours requirement, people weren't passing the practical
exam. The board felt that this was happening due to the lack of
training received by the opticians. Therefore, the board
expressed the need to add the educational piece, which averages
between a 12-36 month course. Upon adding the educational
piece, the apprenticeship training hours were reduced to 1,800.
Ms. Brakes informed the committee that those states that
regulate opticians have a 6,000 hour requirement but don't have
an educational piece.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE withdrew the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned to the optometrist section on
page 7 and inquired as to why it's in the uncodified section of
the law.
Number 1060
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that the transitional provision addresses
the transition in which the opticians would be able to prescribe
medication. This provision deals with the licensees. She said
that the intention is to eliminate the ability to grandfather
and thus clarify that those graduating from an optometry school
prior to a specified point wouldn't be able to prescribe. This
provision isn't appropriate in statute because it discusses a
transitional period that will go away at a particular point in
time.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he interpreted the provision
to say that one couldn't obtain this license unless that person
received their initial license after 1999.
MS. SYLVESTER said she has seen that referred to as 2000 and
later.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "So only the young optometrists
or the new optometrists are going to have this license."
MS. SYLVESTER pointed to the Transitional Section paragraph (2)
and said that the optometrists would need to have "passed a
course covering systemic administration of pharmaceutical agents
that was offered by an accredited college of optometry".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ highlighted that the Transitional
Section is written in the disjunctive due to the use of "or."
MS. SYLVESTER informed the committee that there are four
optometrists practicing in Alaska who graduated from optometry
school prior to 1968, which was before the medical model was
instituted in schools of optometry. The intent was to
specifically not qualify those optometrists. She recalled that
this requirement was mentioned in the governor's veto letter.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that under this language one could
have conceivably received their license to practice after 1999
and not have taken one of those courses, while still being
authorized to prescribe a pharmaceutical agent.
MS. SYLVESTER recalled testimony indicating that those
graduating after 1999/2000 are fully trained with a four-year
degree in optometry, which includes 3,000 hours of clinical and
laboratory training.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that this [language] speaks
to the initial license not graduation. Therefore, one could
have graduated in 1960 and not obtain the initial license until
2000.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted her agreement with Representative
Berkowitz's reading.
Number 0843
MS. REARDON related her belief that although Section 16 was
described as a transitional provision, she read it as a
permanent part of law and thus, perhaps, not most appropriate as
part of the uncodified law. She interpreted [Section 16] to say
that no one can be issued an endorsement to their optometry
license that allows prescription of systemic drugs unless they
obtain an initial license after 1999 or have the specified
courses. She read those two qualifications as being in addition
to the requirements in AS 08.72.175 on page 5. If the language
is to mean one's initial Alaskan license, then individuals could
be [coming on per their] credentials.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether one could [practice in
Alaska] with an initial license obtained from another country.
MS. REARDON answered that the term isn't defined, and therefore
[the initial license] could be obtained in another country, she
imagined. If the objective is to require a training course
either within the regular degree course or afterwards, then she
assumed that those graduating after 1999 would have the course
and could provide [proof] of taking the course in their
transcripts in order to meet qualification (2). Therefore, it's
conceivable that qualification (1) isn't necessary because those
graduating after 1999 with the training could provide proof of
that course in systemic administration.
MS. REARDON turned to Section 17, which addresses existing
endorsements. She informed the committee that currently
optometrists can have endorsements on their license that allows
them to prescribe. This law expands the type of things that
optometrists can prescribe. Currently, [optometrists] are
carrying endorsements that allow them to prescribe topical
drugs, not systemic drugs. Therefore, [Section 17] addresses
what to do with those [with an endorsement to prescribe topical
drugs]. As mentioned earlier, the governor had the same concern
with legislation introduced last year.
Number 0574
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if [Section 17] paragraph (2), which
refers to the course covering systemic administration of
pharmaceutical agents, is presumed to have occurred for those
who have graduated after 1999.
MS. REARDON replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether the confusion could be
reduced with the elimination of [Section 17] paragraph (1).
MS. SYLVESTER related her belief that this [Section 17 paragraph
(2)] was important in increasing a comfort level.
MS. REARDON recalled concern that there was a course training
people in [systemic administration]. [Section 17] paragraph (2)
is very specific, while [Section 17] paragraph (1) is a bit
vague. Therefore, [Section 17] paragraph (2) is preferable.
MS. SYLVESTER recalled testimony from Linda Kasser, Dean,
University of the Pacific, where most Alaskan optometrists are
trained. Ms. Kasser testified that there are 17 optometric
colleges. Although Ms. Kasser said that she has never done a
side-by-side analysis of the curriculum, she believes they're
the same.
CHAIR KOTT related his confusion with regard to the necessity of
[Section 17] paragraph (1).
MS. SYLVESTER returned to Representative Berkowitz's earlier
question regarding reciprocity. She explained that reciprocity
[statutes] specify that an individual has to have a current
license by examination in another state or province of Canada.
MS. REARDON highlighted that what Ms. Sylvester is referring to
is the qualification for obtaining a license by reciprocity,
while [the language in the bill] refers to obtaining an
endorsement.
Number 0355
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to whether there is a
standard [for the content] of the courses.
MS. REARDON replied no, but pointed out that the bill specifies
that the course must be approved by the Board of Examiners in
Optometry. In further response to Representative Berkowitz, Ms.
Reardon explained that generally the board would write
regulations specifying that the board approves courses meeting
specified parameters.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE expressed her concern that the Board of
Examiners in Optometry is not made up of medical doctors who
don't have training in systemic drugs and their interactions
with the body and other diseases. That board is now going to
establish qualifications for the group that will prescribe
systemic drugs. Therefore, why wouldn't the medical board be
more logical to oversee this area, she asked.
MS. SYLVESTER said that the testimony hasn't been that these
people aren't trained. She informed the committee that in 1968
optometrists were basically opticians, then a revolution of
training occurred and colleges adopted the medical model.
Therefore, optometrists today have four years of optometry
school and have the medical training. Ms. Sylvester also
informed the committee that all 50 states allow optometrists to
prescribe topical drugs and 38 states allow optometrists to
prescribe systemic drugs. She mentioned that systemic drugs are
mainly antibiotics for the treatment of ocular disease.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE interjected that systemic drugs are more
than [antibiotics for the treatment of ocular disease]. "There
is the potential for it to be a lot more than that," she pointed
out. She indicated that she might not have that much of a
problem with this if the language was narrowly crafted such that
it referred to the prescription of [antibiotics for the
treatment of ocular disease]. However, the language is broad
and this same group returns to the legislature every couple of
years requesting more. She expressed concern with the "slippery
slope" effect. She questioned why one would go to medical
school [if this avenue exists].
TAPE 02-13, SIDE A
MS. SYLVESTER stressed that not everyone wants to be a medical
doctor; some people want to be dentists. Dentists, who don't
attend medical school, are able to provide systemic medications
to their patients for dental. Furthermore, podiatrists aren't
medical doctors yet are authorized in statute to prescribe
medications. The concept is that the medical field is expanded
to include a number of different fields.
Number 0061
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to the process by which the
other professions mentioned by Ms. Sylvester prescribe drugs and
are licensed to do so.
MS. REARDON explained that generally professions such as
dentists, advanced nurse practitioners, physician assistants,
and osteopaths, don't have a separate endorsement allowing them
to prescribe. The training received in dental school, which is
about the same length as optometry school, has been viewed such
that it's safe for a dentist to prescribe [drugs].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether any of the aforementioned
professions have the authority to prescribe pharmaceutical
agents by systemic administration.
MS. REARDON replied yes, they all do.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to how those professions
are licensed. Is that licensure process consistent with the
proposal in this bill, he asked.
MS. REARDON pointed out that each licensing system is slightly
different. For dentists, when the dentist receives his/her
license, he/she can prescribe systemic drugs; there's no extra
qualification process to do so. Advanced nurse practitioners
who want to prescribe controlled substances have to show that
they have specific training in addition to their basic
qualifications.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether [those two professions]
are required to have any affiliation with a physician.
MS. REARDON specified that dentists and advanced nurse
practitioners are not required to have any affiliation with a
physician.
MS. SYLVESTER interjected:
Today in Alaska you have a situation where an
optometrist who is fully trained to do this must go to
someone who is lesser trained to prescribe the
medication because Alaska statute doesn't allow these
people to practice at the full level of their
training. The question isn't: Are ophthalmologists
more qualified. They are. The question is: Are
optometrists qualified? And yes they are.
Number 0319
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment, Amendment 1:
Page 7, lines 10 and 23,
Delete "that was"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0466
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment, Amendment 2:
Page 7
Delete lines 7-8 and 20-21
Page 7, line 19,
Delete "either"
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that Amendment 2 would require
conforming numbering changes.
Number 0509
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ questioned whether the course
requirement without guidance as to the content of the course is
problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that the Board of Examiners of
Optometry decides the content of the course.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that there could be a
situation in which someone could take a course in systemic
administration of pharmaceutical agents but want to prescribe
different pharmaceutical agents.
MS. REARDON remarked on the difficulty in having a law that
requires an individual to take a course in prescribing a
particular systemic agent because new drugs are developed daily.
She pointed out that there is a continuing education requirement
for optometrists who have endorsements to prescribe.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that wasn't what he was
suggesting. He specified that there are different systemic
administrations.
MS. SYLVESTER informed the committee that these are established
courses by schools of optometry. Optometrists, including those
in Alaska, are already taking these courses. If this bill were
to become law, optometrists in Alaska would take the course
again.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "There's a piece of me that wants
to say, 'and approved by the Boards of Examiners in Optometry
and Ophthalmology meeting in joint session'."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE concurred, and mentioned inclusion of the
medical board as well.
Number 0693
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE inquired as to the inclusion of
anaphylaxis.
MS. SYLVESTER explained that the current law prevents
optometrists from injecting, which is how anaphylaxis is
administered. Therefore, the inclusion allows this particular
injection for first aid.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked why a law is necessary for this and
why it's included in a licensing requirements. She viewed this
as opening up an entire area of practice.
MS. REARDON recalled that there is concern that the law would
prevent an optometrist from administering an anaphylactic
injection because their prescriptive authority wouldn't allow it
in a medical emergency.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE characterized it as a liability issue,
and asked if it is.
MS. REARDON said that she didn't know.
MS. SYLVESTER noted that the liability issue was never
discussed. From discussions with optometrists, the concern was
that they are the one group that aren't allowed to perform
injections per statute. Therefore, one could argue that the
liability is skewed in the other direction.
Number 0892
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned to the requirements for
ophthalmologists and referred to page 3 of the bill. He
highlighted the requirement of passing the examination with an
acceptable score versus merely passing a course. [The
optometrist requirements that are being established] don't
specify a requirement for an acceptable score. Furthermore,
there is no experience requirement [for optometrists].
MS. REARDON said that the assumption is that "passing the
course" means that the individual successfully completed the
course. She mentioned that this would be based on what the
school requires for passing its courses. She pointed out that
this is the case with other professions.
Number 1035
CHAIR KOTT asked whether there is a problem with removing
paragraph (1) from Sections 16 and 17.
MS. REARDON replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE inquired as to what would happen if this
bill doesn't pass.
MS. REARDON said that the opticians would go into a wind-down
year and would return to the legislature and request
introduction of legislation continuing the board.
CHAIR KOTT mentioned the concern that a wind-down year would
have some negative effect.
MS. REARDON specified that it depends upon the board. In terms
of occupational licensing boards, there isn't much disturbance
created. However, for those boards involved with the regulation
of an industry, such as with the RCA, there could be different
implications. Ms. Reardon said the closer to adjournment, the
more of a problem it may become because of scheduling, anxiety
of applicants, and concern as to whether the profession will be
left unregulated.
Number 1215
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved to report HCS CSSB 270, Version U,
as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS
CSSB 270(RLS) was reported from the House Rules Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The committee was recessed to the call of the chair at 12:00
p.m. [The committee didn't reconvene.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|