03/19/2008 05:00 PM House RULES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB297 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 297 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2008
5:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 297
"An Act relating to the practice of veterinary medicine."
- MOVED CSHB 297(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 297
SHORT TITLE: PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) NEUMAN
01/11/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) L&C
02/08/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/08/08 (H) Moved CSHB 297(L&C) Out of Committee
02/08/08 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/13/08 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 6DP 1NR
02/13/08 (H) DP: GARDNER, BUCH, NEUMAN, GATTO,
RAMRAS, OLSON
02/13/08 (H) NR: LEDOUX
03/12/08 (H) RLS AT 5:00 PM BARNES 124
03/12/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/08 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
03/13/08 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR PENDING REPORT
03/13/08 (H) IN RULES
03/19/08 (H) RLS AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 297.
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered and explained proposed Amendment 1
to HB 327.
TIMOTHY BOWSER, D.V.M.
Soldotna Animal Hospital
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on HB 297 and proposed
Amendment 1.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 5:07:36 PM. Representatives Coghill,
Harris, Fairclough, Johnson, Guttenberg, and Kerttula were
present at the call to order. Representative Samuels arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 297-PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
5:07:53 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 297, "An Act relating to the practice of
veterinary medicine."
5:08:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved to adopt Version 25-LS0357\T,
Bullard, 3/17/08, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version T was before the committee.
5:09:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that due to the coming end of this legislative session and the
desire to address the concerns of the committee he has decided
to focus on the main issues desired by the Alaska Board of
Veterinary Examiners. Therefore, the legislation now focuses on
allowing fourth-year veterinary students to practice under the
supervision of an Alaska licensed veterinarian. He explained
that veterinary students attend four years of college and then
have four years of professional practice. He expressed the hope
that some of these fourth-year veterinary students would want to
stay in Alaska as the number of veterinarians in the state is
decreasing. The "for compensation" provision was deleted as was
the provisions related to the accreditation of the schools.
5:11:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN explained that Section 1 addresses the
student permit issues already addressed. Section 2 specifies
that the Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic
Development (DCCED) has the authority to mail out the license to
a student permittee. Section 3 addresses veterinarians that are
already licensed at the federal level and allows such
veterinarians to practice without obtaining an Alaska license.
Section 4 refers to the practice of telemedicine [by a student
under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian].
5:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1, labeled 25-LS0357\T.1, Bullard, 3/19/08, which read:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete the first occurrence of "and"
Page 1, line 3, following "persons":
Insert "; and relating to cruelty to animal
complaints reported by veterinarians, veterinary
technicians, veterinary school student permittees, and
veterinarians' employees"
Page 1, following line 4:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 03.55.110(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person licensed as or holding a temporary
permit to practice as a veterinarian under
AS 08.98.120 - 08.98.200, including a person who holds
a license as a veterinary technician, as authorized by
AS 08.98.167, or a veterinary school student permittee
under AS 08.98.188, and any employee of a person
licensed as or holding a temporary permit to practice
as a veterinarian, who is engaging in professional
activities authorized by that license or permit who
reasonably believes that cruelty to animals has taken
place or is taking place because the standards of care
for an animal under AS 03.55.100 have not been met or
because of commission of an act that constitutes the
offense of cruelty to animals under AS 11.61.140, and
any other person who believes that cruelty to animals
has taken place or is taking place may file a
complaint with a public or private animal control
agency or organization, the department, or a peace
officer. An agency or organization or the department
receiving a complaint under this subsection may refer
the complaint to a peace officer.
* Sec. 2. AS 03.55.110(b) is amended to read:
(b) Except when the complaint is received from a
veterinarian, veterinary technician, or veterinary
school student permittee concerning an animal that is,
at the time of the complaint, in the physical custody
of the person making the complaint, a [A] peace
officer who receives a complaint of animal cruelty may
apply for a search warrant under AS 12.35 to the
judicial officer in the judicial district in which the
alleged violation has taken place or is taking place.
If the court finds that probable cause exists, the
court shall issue a search warrant directing a peace
officer to proceed immediately to the location of the
alleged violation, search the place designated in the
warrant, and, if warranted, take property, including
animals, specified in the warrant. The warrant shall
be executed by the peace officer and returned to the
court.
* Sec. 3. AS 03.55.110(c) is amended to read:
(c) Except when the complaint concerns an animal
that is, at the time of the complaint, in the physical
custody of a veterinarian, veterinary technician, or
veterinary school student permittee making the
complaint, before [BEFORE] a peace officer may take an
animal and place it into protective custody, the peace
officer shall request an immediate inspection and
decision by a veterinarian licensed under AS 08.98
that placement into protective custody is in the
immediate best interest of the animal. If a
veterinarian is not available to perform an
inspection, before a peace officer may take an animal,
the peace officer shall communicate with a
veterinarian who has, after hearing a description of
the condition of the animal and its environment,
decided it is in the immediate best interest of the
animal that it be placed into protective custody. If
the peace officer is not able to communicate with a
veterinarian, before the officer may take an animal,
the officer shall decide it is in the immediate best
interest of the animal that it be placed into
protective custody. [FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION,
"PEACE OFFICER" MEANS
(1) AN OFFICER OF THE STATE TROOPERS;
(2) A MEMBER OF THE POLICE FORCE OF A
MUNICIPALITY;
(3) A VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER; OR
(4) A REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER.]
* Sec. 4. AS 03.55.110 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(d) If the person making a complaint of animal
cruelty under (a) of this section is a veterinarian,
veterinary technician, or veterinary school student
permittee and, at the time of making the complaint,
has physical custody of the animal about which the
complaint is made, the provisions of AS 03.55.130
relating to the disposition of the animal apply.
(e) In this section, "peace officer" means
(1) an officer of the state troopers;
(2) a member of the police force of a
municipality;
(3) a village public safety officer; or
(4) a regional public safety officer.
* Sec. 5. AS 03.55.120(a) is amended to read:
(a) Unless the animal about which an animal
cruelty complaint has been filed by a veterinarian,
veterinary technician, or veterinary school student
permittee under AS 03.55.110(a) is, at the time the
complaint is filed, in the physical custody of the
person making the complaint, a [A] peace officer shall
place an animal in protective custody before removing
the animal from the location where it was found. If
the animal is removed, the peace officer shall place
the animal with a veterinarian licensed under AS 08.98
or, if a veterinarian is not readily available, with a
responsible public or private custodian to be
sheltered, cared for, and provided necessary medical
attention."
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 6"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 08.98.050 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) A standard for the practice of veterinary
medicine established in a regulation adopted by the
board under (a) of this section directing a licensee
to establish and maintain a confidential relationship
between the licensee and a person who seeks
professional service or to whom a professional service
is provided does not apply to prevent the licensee
from filing a complaint under AS 03.55.110. For
purposes of this subsection, "licensee" includes a
person who holds a permit issued under this chapter."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR COGHILL objected.
5:14:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding that an
existing regulation is misunderstood by veterinarians as some
believe that they have a duty of confidentiality to their
clients not to report, even cruelty. Representative Kerttula
said that she doesn't intend to change the practice of the
Alaska Board of Veterinary Examiners that cruelty is reported.
5:15:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature, said
that Amendment 1 addresses a policy call. She pointed out that
the Alaska Board of Veterinary Examiners has a regulation that
specifies that the veterinarians have to maintain
confidentiality with their clients. However, some veterinarians
believe that they don't have the option to decide whether to
report animal cruelty to law enforcement. Although Amendment 1
seems complex, it's conforming language. The intention of
Amendment 1 is simply to clarify that in Alaska, veterinarians
can use their own judgment and conscious determining when and
whether to report animal cruelty. Amendment 1 doesn't address
or change [animal] cruelty statutes, which exempts hunting,
fishing, and dog mushing from activities that are considered to
be cruel. Representative Gardner specified that cruelty is the
failure to meet the basic needs of an animal and intentionally
and knowingly causing prolonged pain and suffering to an animal.
She opined that a veterinarian should make the call whether or
not to pursue animal cruelty. What's being proposed in
Amendment 1 is to allow veterinarians to make the decision with
regard to reporting animal cruelty.
5:17:46 PM
CHAIR COGHILL commented that although he generally wouldn't
allow one piece of legislation to overlay another, he felt it
best to vet the matter in committee. He then expressed fear
that activist groups would use [charges of cruelty] as a way to
stop people from using animals in situations in which the animal
physically exerts itself, such as ski-journing. He also
expressed concern that student veterinarians may place pressure
on veterinarians for problems that come forward as a complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER highlighted that a veterinarian is
focused on relieving animal pain and suffering. Furthermore,
the veterinarian is running a business and she said she couldn't
imagine a veterinarian with students or employees who would
undermine the business. Representative Gardner opined that
anyone who wants to make an issue of hunting or dog mushing can
do so at any time. She further opined that she didn't see how
allowing a veterinarian to file cruelty charges would enhance or
impede the aforementioned. She pointed out that Alaska statutes
are very clear that dog mushing isn't cruelty to animals.
5:19:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to why [the subject of
Amendment 1] isn't being addressed in regulation since the
matter is related to a regulation of the Alaska Board of
Veterinary Examiners.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related that there is at least one
veterinarian who says he has unsuccessfully tried to address
this matter through the board. She further related her belief
that the legislature can make a policy call about whether
veterinarians can be allowed to report [cruelty] if they see
fit, under the existing cruelty statutes.
5:20:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH opined that if Amendment 1 is really
legislation versus a change to HB 327, the public won't have the
opportunity to comment. She indicated that she supported the
clarification provided by Amendment 1, although she expressed
her support of doing so through the [committee] process.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted her agreement that the committee
process is appropriate. However, there is confusion among
veterinarians regarding whether they can report [cruelty to
animals]. She reiterated that she is interested in clarifying
that veterinarians can use their conscious as a guide with
regard to [reporting animal cruelty and client confidentiality].
5:22:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that Amendment
1 would merely specify that the veterinarians "may file" and
thus doesn't really seem to address the problem.
5:23:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that she's convinced there is a
problem as people have misunderstood their right to report.
While it might be preferable to address this in the regulations,
the statute has to be clear enough because the statute trumps
the regulations.
5:24:41 PM
CHAIR COGHILL inquired as to the deletion of the definition of
"peace officer means."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the definition [of peace
officer] was moved [to Section 4].
5:25:28 PM
CHAIR COGHILL surmised then that AS 03.44.110(c) and AS
03.44.110(e) "fall under the same operative."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted her agreement.
5:25:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to the legal opinions that
address statute, which are included in the committee packet. He
asked if there has been an analysis regarding whether there has
been a conflict between the regulations and the statutes.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee has been contacted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding that the
concern would be that regulations don't actually seem to cover
[the reporting of animal cruelty] but rather cover the
confidential relationship. She then related her agreement that
the legal opinions are correct in that the statute rules, but
because the regulations are silent on the matter there has been
some confusion.
5:27:27 PM
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that he isn't convinced that Amendment 1
doesn't continue the confusion.
5:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding the earlier remarks about
going through the committee process, noted that she wasn't aware
of this issue until after HB 297 left [the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee]. She added that she initially
worked with the chair of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee and ultimately decided to go the amendment route.
5:29:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN informed the committee that since the
concern addressed in Amendment 1 has been brought forth, the
matter is scheduled to be addressed by the Alaska Board of
Veterinary Examiners at its May 16, 2008, meeting.
Representative Neuman opined that this is a regulation issue
that should be reviewed in a public process and have oversight
by veterinarians. Furthermore, the statutes clearly state the
objectives of the profession and the regulations related to the
unethical conduct of a veterinary technician III preclude a
technician from reporting. He suggested that a veterinary
technician III and temporary permit holders may not have the
ability to identify what is abuse. He reiterated his concern
with regard to activists related to cruelty. He noted that he
discussed Amendment 1 with some members of the Iditarod who were
concerned about what's considered abuse.
5:31:42 PM
CHAIR COGHILL noted that dog mushing is exempt from [what's
considered animal cruelty].
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN acknowledged that exemption.
5:32:32 PM
TIMOTHY BOWSER, D.V.M., Soldotna Animal Hospital, recalled that
this issue hasn't been brought before the board over the past
five or so years he has been a member of the board. He related
his belief that this is something that should be addressed by
the Alaska Board of Veterinary Examiners, and therefore the
board is scheduled to hear the matter at its May 16, 2008,
meeting. As a private veterinarian, Dr. Bowser interpreted the
regulation regarding assisting in relieving animal suffering
such that he would report animal abuse. However, he said he is
sensitive to the issue and possible confusion of it and thus it
should be addressed in regulation. As a board member, Dr.
Bowser opined that it's important that veterinarians are
involved in the process and pointed out that HB 297 includes the
concerns of board. With regard to Amendment 1, Dr. Bowser said
he believes the Alaska Board of Veterinary Examiners is charged
with regulation and this matter should be addressed in
regulation. Dr. Bowser encouraged reporting animal abuse and
wouldn't discipline a veterinarian for doing so. If the
aforementioned isn't clear, it should be addressed in
regulation, he said.
5:35:35 PM
CHAIR COGHILL directed attention to Section 7 of Amendment 1,
which speaks to establishing and maintaining a confidential
relationship. He asked if Dr. Bowser currently considers his
relationship with the owner of an animal to be confidential and
thus would be compelled not to report.
DR. BOWSER responded that he believes there is a confidential
relationship, and thus he wouldn't share medical information.
However, he opined that an abuse situation is different and he
is charged in regulation to address abuse and thus he would
report it.
5:37:05 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked if Dr. Bowser has had to discipline a
veterinarian for harboring abused animals.
DR. BOWSER replied no. In further response to Chair Coghill,
Dr. Bowser confirmed that there has been disciplinary action
during his time on the board, but it wasn't related to animal
abuse. He related that if he were to encounter animal abuse in
his practice, he would notify the Alaska State Troopers and the
Animal Control Agency. He noted that usually the abuse is not
from the veterinarian and he has reported such abuse.
5:37:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered that perhaps some of the
confusion has arisen from the regulation of unethical conduct of
veterinarian technicians. That regulation specifies that it's
unethical and grounds for discipline for a veterinarian
technician to compromise the veterinarian client relationship.
However, the attorney general's letter clearly states that
veterinarian technicians can also file a report of animal abuse.
DR. BOWSER related his understanding of existing law that a
veterinarian technician shouldn't report, but should discuss it
with the veterinarian. The veterinarian is the one to judge the
situation and is obligated to report. If the aforementioned
needs to be addressed, then it should be addressed through
regulations, he reiterated.
5:39:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA opined that perhaps that's the heart of
the problem because she said she didn't read existing law or the
attorney general's letter as Dr. Bowser did. The attorney
general's letter clearly says that veterinarian technicians do
have the ability to report. Representative Kerttula said that
she doesn't believe the amendment will do any harm.
5:39:58 PM
CHAIR COGHILL maintained his objection, stating that [Amendment
1] includes substantive provisions and he doesn't know how they
work. He then related that he wanted to have this debate in
order to [encourage] those on the board [to address this
matter].
5:40:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to what it means that the
issue will be before the board in May.
DR. BOWSER explained that this matter is an agenda item on which
public testimony will be taken and the board will discuss it.
Usually, if the board identifies a problem, then it begins the
regulatory process, which takes some time.
5:42:06 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kerttula and
Guttenberg voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives
Harris, Fairclough, Johnson, Samuels, and Coghill voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2-5.
5:43:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report CSHB 297, Version 25-
LS0357\T, Bullard, 3/17/08, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 297(RLS) was reported from the House Rules
Standing Committee.
5:43:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Rules Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:43:34 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|