Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/12/2002 09:57 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 12, 2002
9:57 AM
TAPES
SFC-02 # 7, Side A
SFC 02 # 7, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Pete Kelly convened the meeting at approximately 9:57 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Dave Donley, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Jerry Ward, Vice Chair
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donald Olson
Senator Alan Austerman
Also Attending:
SENATOR BEN STEVENS; HEATHER BRAKES, staff to Senator Therriault;
DEBBIE GRUNDMAN, staff to Senator Stevens; CATHERINE REARDON,
Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of
Community and Economic Development; PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative
Auditor, Legislative Budget and Audit Division, Legislative Affairs
Agency; ANNE HENRY, Chair: Board of Professional Counselors,
Special Projects Coordinator, Division of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities, Department of Health and Social
Services
Attending via Teleconference:
There were no teleconference participants.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 243-CHIROPRACTORS: SUNSET/LICENSING
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the Division of
Legislative Budget and Audit, and the Department of Community and
Economic Development. The bill was held in Committee.
SB 244-OPTOMETRISTS: SUNSET AND MISCELLANEOUS
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the Division of
Legislative Budget and Audit, and the Department of Community and
Economic Development. Two amendments were adopted and the bill
moved from Committee.
SB 257-EXTEND BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the Division of
Legislative Budget and Audit, and the Department of Community and
Economic Development. One amendment was adopted and the bill moved
from Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 243
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners; and relating to chiropractors."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
HEATHER BRAKES, staff to Senator Therriault, spoke to the details
of the bill. She informed there is an accompanying committee
substitute in the packet.
Senator Leman offered a motion to adopt CS SB 243, 22-LS1266\F
Lauterbach, as a working draft.
There being no objection, the document was ADOPTED as a working
draft.
Ms. Brakes spoke of the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit
report [copy on file] which supports restoring the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners to implement full licensure by credentials
as outlined in Section 2 of the bill. Ms. Brakes referenced page 5
of the Audit Report which stated the Board of Chiropractic
Examiners is "operating in an efficient and effective manner and
should continue to regulate and license chiropractors." She noted
the Report also states the Board Chiropractic Examiners "serves a
public purpose by promoting the competent and safe practice of
chiropractic therapy." She summarized this bill as being based on
the audit recommendations.
KATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development stated the
Division provides the administrative support for the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Ms. Reardon to explain the differences in
licensure requirements as presented in the committee substitute.
Ms. Reardon explained both the committee substitute and the
original bill include licensure by credentials which applies to
people applying for a license in the state of Alaska who have had a
previous license in another state. The committee substitute
establishes identical criteria; however the Board has the option of
permitting an applicant to pass two of the four sections of the
national exam or pass another special national exam that is
designed for people who have been in practice. She stated some
sections of the current test are geared for people who are coming
right out of medical school, and this committee substitute allows
for a different sort of test for those who have been out of school
for a while and have been in practice.
Ms. Reardon continued that the original bill specifically mentions
paying a licensing fee; however, licensing fees are not mentioned
in this committee substitute as fees are addressed in other
statutes.
Ms. Reardon stated the committee substitute specifies the applicant
must have graduated from a licensed chiropractic school; the
original bill does not. She continued that the committee substitute
states the applicant must have passed the national exam and must
have held a license in another state for five years; whereas the
"original bill gave you an option of one or the other." She
continued that the committee substitute states the applicant must
have been in active practice three of the past five years; recent
practice guidelines are not specified in the original bill. She
outlined other differences in the bills including the new provision
for a different test if the applicant has been practicing in
another state.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative Budget
and Audit, Legislative Affairs Agency, spoke to the audit review on
the sunset of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners and verified the
audit recommends the standard four-year extension with the
additional recommendation of licensure by credentials.
Senator Green, referring to page 2, line 26, Section 2(C)(3), of
the committee substitute, asked for clarification of what qualifies
as length of practice.
Ms. Reardon responded the section regarding prior length of
practice is "pretty common" and "within the typical range of other
programs." She noted the intent of this requirement is to address
that an applicant has practiced recently and "not twenty years
ago." She informed that the dental board has "even more strident
time requirements with no break in time" of active practice.
Senator Green asked what the requirement is for medical doctors.
At ease 10:08 AM /10:12 AM
Ms. Reardon responded there is no recent active practice
requirement for medical doctors, but reiterated there are such
requirements for dentists.
Senator Olson asked what constitutes active practice and how is the
time accounted for if a practitioner works, for example, only three
days a week.
Ms. Reardon replied that the Board would have to interpret what
constitutes active clinical practice. She surmised if a
practitioner were actively seeing patients for only nine months of
the year, the time would have to accumulate to 36 months within a
five-year span to qualify for the three-year active practice
requirement. She reiterated this would be a decision of the Board.
Senator Green voiced she is not comfortable supporting this
committee substitute without this active practice requirement being
further clarified.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Senator Green to work with Ms. Davidson and
the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit to work on appropriate
language.
Senator Olson stated there are many circumstances to consider, and
he supports holding the bill pending further clarification.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Senator Green to form a subcommittee to
address this concern and to report back to the Committee by
February 18.
The bill was held in Committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 244(L&C)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Examiners in Optometry; and relating to optometrists."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Ms. Brakes explained this committee substitute provides for a new
termination date for the Board of Optometrists and allows for
statutory changes to enable the Board to "more effectively license
by credential, update continuing education requirements" and bring
the requirements in line with current practice and regulations. She
detailed some of the changes such as the replacement of the state
tactical exam with the National Board of Examiners and Optometry
examination.
Ms. Brakes referred to the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit
report on the issue [copy on file] which supports the extension
date proposed for the Board. She referenced page seven of the
report which details the findings and recommendations of the audit.
Ms. Brakes noted that page 15 of the audit report contains the
Department of Community and Economic Development' response to the
audit recommendations. She informed that SB 244 was drafted based
on the findings and recommendations of the audit.
Senator Green noted that the original bill included a requirement
that the applicants submit a photograph with their application;
however that requirement was omitted from the committee substitute.
She asked for clarification about this change.
Ms. Brakes responded on page seven of the audit report,
Recommendation No. 1 recommends the Board rescind the application
requirement of requiring a photograph of the applicant. She stated
the drafters attempted to draft the legislation based on the audit
recommendations, and, as the sponsor, "we wanted to put those out
on the table for discussion and to let that work through the
Committee process." She noted the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee reinstates the photograph requirement; however, it
specifies photographs are not permitted to be forwarded to the
Board at time of licensure.
Senator Green asked if the photograph requirement is typical of all
licenses.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development responded that the
Department "looked through all of the programs, as a result of this
issue coming up. Approximately two-thirds of the 38 licensing
programs do require photographs with the application; however, in
most of those instances, it is not because of a statute or a
regulation that requires it, but a board policy." She continued the
requirement is on the application form which was approved by a
Board. She continued that this particular wording stating a
photograph should be submitted, but would not be "forwarded to the
Board during the application process, is unique to this bill."
Senator Green inquired as to the purpose of the photograph.
Ms. Reardon responded the photograph is included in the file and is
used for identification purposes. She qualified that the
application is signed and notarized; however there are instances in
which "people do try to pass themselves off as other people." She
continued that some boards view having the photograph as "useful."
She noted that photo identification is useful at exam check-in, to
make sure that a "ringer" is not taking the test for the "correct
person."
Senator Green asked if the photograph is used for the issuance of a
state of Alaska photo identification card when a person is
licensed.
Ms. Reardon responded that the Department only issues paper
licenses printed on a laser printer that do not contain
photographs.
Senator Ward inquired as to "how many ringers have been used to
take tests."
Ms. Reardon responded she "is not aware of that happening" during
the seven years she has been with the Department. She continued
that "very rarely, if at all" can that Department prove that this
has occurred. She continued that on the national level, there is "a
lot of concern about that, particularly with the big professional
exams," such as engineering. She noted there has been "an instance
in Alaska in the last two years where a nurse applicant tried to
pass herself off as an entirely different person." She detailed how
this person "was caught" during the application process. She
informed that "strange things" do happen.
Senator Green asked if "we expect this language to start appearing
in all licensure and renewals" for these various licenses or would
this be better addressed in a separate statute.
Ms. Reardon responded the photograph requirement is addressed in
this particular bill because of the audit recommendation to remove
"the board's ability to require photographs." She stated this is
"not an effort to add photographs to the process, it is a reaction
to the recommendation that the ability to require photographs be
removed." She stated "there was discussion in the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee about whether that was a good idea."
Ms. Reardon summarized the language in the committee substitute is
perhaps, "a compromise." She continued, "the recommendation to not
require a photograph was to eliminate a potential opportunity for
discrimination based on the photograph." She continued "there was
some debate about whether it was necessary, whether that really was
a significant risk," and this language is "a way of coming up with
protecting against discrimination while retaining the ability to
ask for photographs."
Senator Olson asked if the Division is in favor of having
photographs.
Ms. Reardon responded that the Division supports the position of
the Boards and "if a board feels this is important," then the
Division would support "obtaining the photographs" for them." She
voiced support for not submitting the photograph to the Board
during the application review process as the current bill describes
"to eliminate anyone's concern that that might be influential."
Senator Olson asked if "there have been any complaints by minority
groups that they have been discriminated against through the
application period."
Ms. Reardon responded she was not aware of any complaints.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that one of the reasons not to include a
photograph is just a "general sense" that the Board may make a
decision based on a photograph.
Senator Olson spoke of his experience as a member of the Board of
Optometrists and stated it was "quite helpful" to have photograph
as it made it easier to identify a person and easier to recall the
person if their name came up at a later proceeding. He stated he
"did not necessarily agree with the findings of the audit."
Senator Ward asked if the Board could make a decision as to whether
a photograph would be required.
Ms. Reardon commented "boards review the application forms" so she
would "look to boards for direction."
Senator Ward clarified that if Board did not require a photograph,
the Department would not object.
Ms. Reardon concurred.
Senator Ward clarified that if Board did want a photograph that
also would be fine with the Department.
Ms. Reardon concurred, stating "as long as it was not contrary to
statute."
Senator Leman voiced he did not agree with the audit
recommendation, and he believes it is important to have photographs
on file. He stated that the terrorist events of September 11, 2001
make him "realize what some people will go through to defraud and
harm other people." He opined that requiring a photograph is
appropriate. He continued "this language is not necessary because
the policy of division has been to do this and if that is the
boards policy they can continue to do that." He does not foresee a
"problem with discrimination" as these people will interact with
other professionals and the public in their profession.
Senator Green stated the current language takes the decision
whether to require photographs away from the Board and perhaps it
would be more appropriate to let the Board make that decision.
Co-Chair Kelly asked "if it is not the statute to let Board deal
with this anyway."
Ms. Reardon replied the current statute language authorizes such
discretion to the Board. She suggested changing the language to
clarify that the Board and not the Department make this decision.
Amendment #1: This amendment changes the wording in Section 2, line
11 to reflect "the board may require.." instead of "the Department
may require…"
Senator Green moved for adoption.
Co-Chair Kelly reiterated the change.
There being no objection, Amendment #1 was approved.
Senator Leman asked if the Committee should address this photograph
issue through statute instead of through Board policy. He suggested
removing a portion of Section 2 from the bill. He discussed the
normal application process.
Ms. Reardon clarified that photographs are handled varies among the
boards. She detailed that some boards require photographs at
different stages of the application process. She stated that the
Optometrist Board has not been viewing the photographs during the
application process.
Senator Green stated this language should be addressed throughout
all licensure boards.
Co-Chair Kelly agreed.
Senator Green suggested statutory language could be enacted to
leave the photograph requirement up to the discretion of all
boards.
Ms. Reardon informed that the Department does have a statute, AS
08.01. under which something of this nature could be addressed.
Co-Chair Kelly acknowledged this change could be done in this bill,
and then addressed in a "more generalized statute" at a later date.
Amendment #2: This amendment deletes Section 2 of the committee
substitute in its entirety.
Senator Leman moved for adoption. He stated if Section 2 were
deleted, there would be no change to existing practice.
There being no objections, Amendment #2 was ADOPTED.
Senator Leman offered a motion to report CS SB 244 (FIN), 22-
LS1267\J with a prior $17,700 Department of Community and Economic
Development fiscal note from Committee.
Without objection, the bill MOVED from Committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 257(L&C)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Professional Counselors; and relating to licensing of
professional counselors."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
DEBORAH GRUNDMAN, staff to Senator Stevens, detailed the specifics
of SB 257. She informed that the Division of Legislative Budget and
Audit report [copy on file] recommends continuation of the Board.
She noted that the audit also recommends the merger of the Board of
Professional Counselors and the Board of Marital and Family Therapy
into a "single oversight and licensing Board." She informed that
Division of Legislative Budget and Audit also recommends similar
sunset dates for the two boards in order to address the possible
merger.
Ms. Grundman noted Section 2 of the committee substitute addresses
some changes in the educational requirements of professional
counselors at the request of the Board and the Department.
ANN HENRY, Chair, Board of Professional Counselors, Department of
Community and Economic Development informed that Committee that the
division supports the extension of the Board.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee, Division of Legislative Audit, notified the Committee
that the Audit report did recommend extension of the Board to allow
time to merge "two very similar groups." She clarified each group
would have their own separate licensing statute but "would be
controlled by one Board." She continued this recommendation was
"based on effectiveness and economy of scale." She noted the merger
"would not result in any substantial impact on costs associated
with either of those boards."
Ms. Davidson stated all behavioral science boards including
Professional Counselors, Marital and Family Therapists,
Professional Social Workers, and Psychologists "would be up for
review at the same time" in the year 2005.
Senator Olson inquired if there were any objections to the merger
of "these two disciplines."
Ms. Davidson reported the Division conducted surveys during the
audit period. She informed there were no strong disagreements from
professional counselors or from marital and family therapy
counselors; however psychologists "strongly objected to being
combined with either of those boards."
Amendment #1: This amendment would delete "completing the
requirement of" and insert "earning the degree required under" on
page 2, line 19, Section 2(a)(6).
Senator Leman offered a motion to adopt Amendment #1. He explained
this amendment allows counselors to begin earning supervised
experience as soon as they complete their education" instead of
having to wait until they complete their graduate hours of
training.
Ms. Reardon informed the Committee this amendment is supported by
the Board and the Division of Occupational Licensing. She stated
this amendment would allow it to be "more feasible" for people who
need to work while they are obtaining graduate hours.
Senator Olson exampled that the effect of this amendment would be
to allow someone to do "moonlighting."
Ms. Reardon characterized the language as clarifying "when
someone's supervised experience would start counting for
licensure." She stated current law requires people to get 3,000
hours of supervised experience, in addition to a 60-hours master
degree requirement. She noted this amendment would allow those
people who have a Masters degree with less than 60-hours of
required degree time to work toward getting that 60-hour
requirement.
SFIN 02 # 7, Side B 10:47 AM
Ms. Reardon continued that with this amendment a person with a
Master's degree could count hours as "supervised hours" while they
were working toward the 60-hour requirement.
There being no objection, Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
Senator Leman offered a motion to report CS SB257 (FIN), 22-LS
1336\J from Committee with the previous fiscal note of $51,400 from
the Department of Community and Economic Development.
There being no objection, the bill MOVED from Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Pete Kelly adjourned the meeting at 10:48 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|