Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/14/2002 01:37 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE LABOR & COMMERCE COMMITTEE
February 14, 2002
1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ben Stevens, Chair
Senator Alan Austerman
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Loren Leman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 252
"An Act renaming the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council as
the Alaska Workforce Investment Board and relating to its
membership; repealing the termination date of the state training
and employment program; relating to employment and training
activities; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 266
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of community and economic
development to refinance and extend the term of a fishery
enhancement loan."
MOVED CSSB 266 (L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 270
"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 CSSB 270 (L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 252 - No previous action to record.
SB 266 - No previous action to record.
SB 270 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Rebecca Gamez, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce
Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 252.
Mr. Jim Sanders, Executive Director
Alaska Human Resources Investment Council
Department of Labor & Workforce
Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported on SB 252.
Mr. Greg Winegar, Director
Division of Investments
Department of Community and Economic Development
P.O. Box 34159
Juneau AK 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Neutral position on SB 266.
Mr. John Carter, Executive Director
Douglas Island Pink and Chum (DIPAC)
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 266.
Mr. Jerry McCune
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 4th Street #110
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 266.
Mr. Larry Hancock, Manager
City of Cordova
P.O. Box 1060
Cordova AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 266.
Ms. Lisa Vonbargen
City of Valdez
P.O. Box 307
Valdez AK 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 266.
Ms. Pat Davidson
Legislative Audit
P.O. Box 113300
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 270.
Mr. Larry Harper
Opticians Association of Alaska
National Contact Lens Examiners
State Board of Dispensing Opticians
534 W 2nd
Anchorage AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 270.
Ms. Catherine Reardon, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 270.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-5, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 252-EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM/BOARD
CHAIRMAN BEN STEVENS called the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee
meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. and announced SB 252 to be up for
consideration.
MS. REBECCA GAMEZ, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, said she would give an overview of STEP
and changes to the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council
(AHIRC) that are in SB 252 after Mr. Sanders' testimony.
MR. JIM SANDERS, Executive Director, Alaska Human Resources
Investment Council, said there are five issues in this bill and
the first one is the name change. Currently, it is called the
Alaska Human Resource Investment Council and this legislation
proposes to change it to the State Workforce Investment Board
(WIB). This would bring them in line with the Workforce
Investment Act and more clearly aligns them with the two Alaska
Workforce Investment Boards - the Alaska Mat-Su and the Balance
of State WIB.
Secondly, the AHRIC doesn't clearly convey the purpose of the
Council. Their mission says that they are a private public
leadership board that sets policy framework for the development
of Alaska's workforce. The proposed title is shorter and more
succinctly identifies the organization's purpose.
There are a number of housekeeping issues. Throughout the text of
the bill they would change the reference of "Council" to "Board"
and change references to the "Private Industry Council" to "Local
Workforce Investment Board".
The third issue is adding the Commissioner of Administration as a
non-voting member of the Board. He said that Juneau is one of
Alaska's major employers and the Commissioner of Administration
has a comprehensive knowledge of current and future employment
needs for the state employment system. He would be a valuable
asset to the Board in its deliberation and discussion of policy
issues. In addition, the Commissioner would benefit from a
greater exposure to the full spectrum of employment and training
issues that confront the state and are frequently discussed by
AHRIC.
The fourth issue is one of flexibility. Currently, AHRIC is
restricted to meeting three times a year and this would allow
them one more meeting per year [but not make it mandatory] giving
them the flexibility to address unexpected issues.
The fifth issue is in Section 9. The AHRIC advises the governor,
state and local agencies and the University of Alaska on
workforce issues and they propose adding "other training
entities". This reflects what they currently do with the Alaska
Vocational Technical Training Center, Charter College or the
Southwest Vocational Training Center.
The other change in section 9 is that the Board shall develop
standards that encourage agencies to contract for programs and
says, "meets local demands and maximizes the use of resources."
This is something that they already do. They want training and
employment to reflect regional needs and funds that are used are
used most effectively.
MS. GAMEZ said since 1989, STEP has trained thousands of
Alaskans. This is good because when people are working, they are
not drawing unemployment insurance benefits and it keeps wages in
the state. The collaboration with employers, unions and
industries adds value to the economic development, training and
apprentice programs throughout the state. She used the Hyder
Waterworks Project as an example of how STEP works in Alaskan
communities and it has an adult working-age population of 82.
Adult as defined by the U.S. census is 16 and above. So the Hyder
Waterworks Project employs about half of its population.
The U.S. Department of Commerce, through an Economic Development
and Administration Grant (EDA), paid 60 percent of the cost of
the facility; forty percent was raised locally. They applied for
a STEP grant for training and were award a $32,000 grant. The
University of Alaska Ketchikan provided onsite training for the
workers. She said that the federal funding programs are not as
flexible as this program is. Currently, the Hyder project is
capable of producing 140,000 bottles daily, although they produce
only 40,000 bottles. They are negotiating a contract with Sam's
Club right now. If that happens, they will want to train another
shift of workers.
MS. GAMEZ said the STEP delivery strategy is two-fold delivering
service through competitive grants into business needs and
through individual services largely delivered through the 22
Alaska job centers. A good example of the individual training
model is Kathleen Basinger of Fairbanks. She has supported two
kids by herself on a low paying job. She knew she needed to
improve her skill level. After she graduated, she took her kids
to Disneyland showing them that hard work pays off and that self-
sufficiency and success is a good thing.
Another example is Mr. Glen Shortsmith from Sterling. He had been
on and off unemployment insurance. He needed and wanted full-time
work. Through the Kenai Peninsula job center, he was able to get
an individual grant for $550, which allowed him to get his
commercial driver's license. He is now a full-time driver and he
feels secure with the job that he has.
The competitive grant process is delivered through non-profit
businesses, for-profit businesses, apprenticeship programs and
education institutions, wherever the need is identified. Right
now 300 Alaskans out of the 1,100 in training are training for
high paying union jobs thanks to the STEP program. They also
deliver services through competitive grants to large and small
businesses for local workforces at communities around the state.
Bulk fuel tanks are now being replaced in Alaska. These tanks
used to be imported from outside businesses and now they are
being manufactured in Nome. These are a couple of examples of
success stories of STEP in Alaska. She showed them a map of the
communities that are impacted by STEP training.
She said that STEP has been a pilot program since its inception
in 1989 and this temporary nature has been an on-going challenge.
It needs to be predictable and stable for future generations.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if there was a report that lists the
total number of people who are served through the program.
MS. GAMEZ said they had the data compiled and pending the audit
they were planning on getting this information out to the
committee members. She offered to get that information to them
sooner.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked her to provide them the information. She
said absolutely.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if she eliminated the sunset entirely.
She replied that there was no automatic review of the program,
but it would be done through the annual audits the department
goes through or any special audits that may be raised.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if the Local Workforce Investment Board
was separate from the main board.
MS. GAMEZ replied that the way the Workforce Investment Act is
set up there is a state board, the Alaska Human Resource
Investment Council; there are two local board, the Anchorage Mat-
Su area and the other is the Balance of State area. In addition
to those boards, there are local advisory councils in many of the
communities throughout the states for the job centers. She said
the language replacing the Private Industry Council with the
Local Workforce Investment Board mirrors the Workforce Investment
Act. Private industry councils don't technically exist any more.
SB 252 was held for further work.
1:50 - 1:52 - AT EASE
SB 266-FISHERY ENHANCEMENT LOANS
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced SB 266 to be up for consideration.
MS. DEBORAH GRUNDMANN, Aide to Senator Stevens, sponsor or SB
266, said it authorizes the commissioner of Community and
Economic Development to refinance and extend the term of a
fishery enhancement loan made through the revolving Fisheries
Enhancement Revolving Loan Fund. The funding provided by this
program has helped to create an extremely successful statewide
salmon rehabilitation program. The hatchery system was
established in 1974 to enhance and stabilize Alaska's regional
salmon stocks. Now approximately 40 percent of the entire salmon
harvest in Alaska is enhanced fish. A majority of the loans made
under this program carry the maximum allowable interest rate of
9.5 percent. Alaska statutes allow for interest rates of 1
percent over prime, not to exceed 9.5 percent. New loans if
received today would be at 6 percent. Hatcheries would like to
take advantage of the lower interest rates to bring down their
debt service just as other business and homeowners are currently
doing in Alaska and the nation.
The last legislative audit of private non-profit hatcheries
published in 1997 recommended that the Division of Investments in
the Department of Community and Economic Development seek the
authority to restructure hatchery loans and that's what this
legislation does. The department is sufficiently staffed to
accommodate the few applications necessary to refinance these
loans. There is no forgiveness of principal or interest allowed
under this legislation and all payments are made directly to the
loan fund.
She said that SB 266 recognizes the public trust nature of these
non-profit entities. It protects the state's financial interest
by guaranteeing the sustained production of salmon for the
commercial, sport and personal use fisheries and assuring
continued payments of outstanding debts to the state. She said
there was a committee substitute before them.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved to adopt the committee substitute to SB
266. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked that the provision be limited to the
refinancing of existing loans.
MR. GREG WINEGAR, Director, Division of Investments, said SB 266
would allow existing borrowers to refinance their fisheries
enhancement loans. Interest rates for this program are tied to
the prime rate and are fixed at the time the loan is made. In the
last year or so interest rates have come down a tremendous amount
and are less than what most of the loans were made at. They want
to let the non-profit aquaculture associations take advantage of
the lower interest rates. He pointed out that the same
legislation was passed for the Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan
Fund in 1993. This would affect the income of the fund and
therefore there is a fiscal note to reflect those differences.
It's important to note, he said, that this bill is going to allow
these associations to lower their interest expense, which will
help their financial picture and increase their ability to
service existing debt. This would not adversely impact the
integrity of this loan fund. They have a very streamlined process
in place to take care of refinancing requests so they don't see
this as being a burden administratively.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if he supported the bill.
MR. WINEGAR replied that their official position is neutral and
explained that basically it's because it will result in a
reduction of funds to the loan fund, but on the other hand it
will help the existing associations.
SENATOR TORGERSON agreed that they should refinance the existing
loans as long as it doesn't adversely affect the portfolio and
Mr. Winegar said that was not an issue. "But I always shudder at
giving a commissioner this kind of authority without the
legislature knowing what is happening within that portfolio."
He was also concerned that the language on page 2 was such that
they would never turn down an extension.
MR. WINEGAR replied that they have the same authority under the
Revolving Commercial Fishing Loan Program and that was passed in
1993.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked what the difference in dollars was.
MR. WINEGAR replied that the loan funds are fairly similar in
size.
SENATOR TORGERSON said if the chairman liked, they could move the
bill out today, but he wanted to see the numbers when it was in
the next committee.
MR. JOHN CARTER, Executive Director, Douglas Island Pink and Chum
(DIPAC), said he wanted to support SB 266 on behalf of the Board
of Directors and the many supporters of DIPAC. He is also
spokesman for many of the hatcheries around the state rather than
flying someone.
The private non-profit hatchery program was created by
the legislature to replace the hatchery program
operated by the state's fish and game FRED division.
The FRED hatcheries are operated through an annual
appropriation to the state Department of Fish and Game.
The PNP hatchery program was created as a user pay
entity. To get the program started, the state gifted
some existing hatcheries to regional corporations, but
primarily created the Fishery Enhancement Revolving
Loan Fund. This fund, along with a tax on commercial
fishermen, was to provide for construction and
operational funds as the enhancement program developed.
Twenty-five plus years later, the PNP hatchery programs
are described even by some of their detractors as some
of the best in North America. They have made dramatic
financial contribution to many areas of the state. When
asked by those who don't understand the concept of
private non-profit, I usually fall back on the phrase
"public trust" as Debbie read today. I think this best
describes the way most of us view the job we do. That
being said, we are still a business and we are
responsible for budgets and payroll and, of course,
debt service. What we are asking for here is the
ability to refinance debt at the lower interest rate.
This is obviously going on in many businesses across
the country. Taking advantage of the current low
interest environment just makes good business sense.
Simply put, refinancing will strengthen our financial
position, make us better able to pay our debt and more
able to continue doing the job of providing fish for
commercial and sport fishers across the state. This
would mean the principle and interest as you just heard
are paid into the fund at a slower rate, but loan
demand of the fund has slowed dramatically, so the fund
will still be financially sound. Again, I appreciate
your support and am available for questions.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if lowering the cost of doing business
meant a higher number of fish for the fishermen.
MR. CARTER replied in many cases he thought that's who the
benefit would transfer to.
"Your question if we are paying less interest into the
fund - it means that our annual budget - less of it
would go to interest and therefore we could reduce our
annual budget accordingly and therefore require less
cost recovery."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked about DIPAC specifically.
MR. CARTER replied that they are currently encouraging the
department at each opportunity to give the fishermen more time on
their fish. The amount of fish caught by the fishermen is
directly related to how much time they have.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said he was raising these questions because he
was concerned about cost recovery and the percentage that takes
place in the hatcheries. It says in the law that they are
supposed to provide a "significant contribution." He asked what
percentage of cost recovery it takes for them to operate their
hatchery.
MR. CARTER answered that last year it was about 51 percent for
the hatchery and 49 percent for cost recovery, all species
combined. Their stated goal is 60 percent to the common property
and 40 percent to the hatchery. For the regional corporations,
it's 70/30. He explained that when they started their hatchery
they did not get any of the 3 percent money and all of their 3
percent money now goes to the regionals. One percent was given to
the "mom and pops" as far as a goal was concerned.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if he could project a percentage of
savings using this bill.
MR. CARTER replied that he had to give him the same answer he
gave before.
This past year, if the fishermen had additional time
and would have caught a higher percentage of the fish -
it was unrelated to what we were going to pay to
Commerce. It would have affected our reserve, but we
had no control over that. Again, I'm not trying to be
evasive. That's just absolutely the way it is. If the
department had allowed them more days of fishing time
this year or the year before, they would have caught a
higher percentage of the fish. We get whatever is left
over. It's absolutely that simple.
2:10 p.m.
MR. JERRY MCCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska, supported SB 266.
In the areas where we have regional hatcheries
fishermen pay an assessment. We have a huge investment
in the hatcheries and hopefully by lowering the
interest rate at this time, we'll be able to sustain
these runs. A lot of these hatcheries are based on pink
salmon, so Senator Austerman's question - it depends
on the price of the salmon - on the cost recovery.
Because we're all suffering from the price problem as
you all know….
He said in theory most hatcheries would be able to put out more
fish for the common property and that is the goal along with
paying the hatcheries off eventually.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if it was correct that some of the
hatcheries had 80 percent cost recovery.
MR. MCCUNE said he couldn't speak for every hatchery. He knew of
one that had 60 percent.
MR. LARRY HANCOCK, City Manager of Cordova, said he represents
the City of Cordova and the Economic Development Council. He read
a letter of support for SB 266 from Mayor Margie Johnson, which
would help strengthen Prince William Sound Aquaculture
Corporation by allowing them to refinance their term loan, lower
their debt burden and decrease payment time. SB 266 would have a
positive impact on a large segment of their community and other
areas of the state that depend on hatchery produced salmon for
their livelihood.
MS. LISA VONBARGEN, City of Valdez, said that commercial fishing
is one of the top four industries in Valdez and contributes a
quarter of million annually in raw fish tax. The Valdez Fisheries
Development Association (VFDA) also supports and runs the silver
salmon sports fish program in Valdez, which creates one the of
the largest and most successful silver salmon runs in the state
and encourages thousands of people to visit Valdez every summer
providing amazing economic benefits to the community during the
late season. In addition to the commercial benefit of the pink
salmon run, it also creates an additional sports fish draw. VFDA
has 100 percent local hire rate for the 11 full-time and
approximately 35 - 40 summer employees equating to a $600,000
payroll annually. They are also creating a roe processing plant
which could mean potentially an additional 10 - 15 new jobs and
will create a new locally produced Alaskan caviar product, a
value added option for the fish taken out of the Sound.
"Obviously, making this refinancing possible for VFDA is only
going to allow them to be able to put more of their finances back
into the community and back into the local economy through
further enhanced fishery programs."
SENATOR STEVENS said the reason he introduced the bill was to
allow the existing loan borrowers to take advantage of low
interest rates just like all the other businesses and individuals
in Alaska are doing. "If there are positive effects that come
back to the fishing industry as a result of that, then it makes
it more of a reason why we should adopt this language."
SENATOR TORGERSON moved to pass SB 266 from committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 270-BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced SB 270 to be up for consideration.
MS. HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Therriault, sponsor of SB
270, said that there was a committee substitute.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN moved to adopt the CS to SB 270. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
MS. BRAKES said that SB 270 was based on an audit conducted by
the Legislative Audit Division and it had several concerns about
the Board of Dispensing Opticians. One of them was addressed in
recommendation #1 on page 7 of the audit.
The auditors felt the disparity between the number of
people who become licensed and the number of people
registering to be apprentices suggests that 6,000 hours
of required apprenticeship may be unduly prohibiting
people from being licensed. The auditor suggested that
the board reconsider the necessity of the 6,000
requirement.
The board's response agrees with the auditor's recommendation,
but they want to add an additional $800 correspondence course.
The course is not included in the legislation. The feeling is
that it would be a hardship to the employee and the expense may
be shifted to the employer.
Recommendation #2 addresses the board's state exam. The
95 sunset review recommended that the board improve the
objectivity and consistency of the state's exam. After
finding, again, that the board's exam process was
flawed in several of the cases selected for review by
the auditors, the auditor suggests that the board give
serious consideration to discontinuing the practical
exam and require applicants only to pass the nationally
recognized exams offered. Those national exams are
incorporated in SB 270. The auditor continues to be
concerned about the apparent subjectivity and error-
prone nature of the exam.
MS. BRAKES said the section 1 extends the Board of Dispensing
Opticians for three years to June 30, 2005 as recommended by the
audit report released on January 24. Sections 2,3,4,6,8 and 9
remove the board's state examination. Section 5 reduces the
number of apprenticeship hours to 3,000 hours. It also allows for
an applicant who has earned an associate degree from a recognized
school or college of dispensing opticians to use it as a
substituted in lieu of any apprenticeship hours.
TAPE 02-5, SIDE B
MS. PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, said that she recommended
only a three-year extension until 2005 rather than the typical
four-year extension. Her reasoning is discussed in the Auditor's
Comments where they looked at alternative methods to achieve the
purpose of the program. This looked like one where making those
changes - moving to a national exam, reducing the apprenticeship
hours - could be handled by the Division of Occupational
Licensing under the registration process rather than full
licensing under a board process. They wanted to see how the board
dealt with the recommendations in the report and come back in
three years and see if it appeared to still be a good idea to
take it to a registration process.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked how many states have boards.
MS. DAVIDSON replied she thought 22 states currently license
dispensing opticians. The other states either have a registration
process or no registration or licensing. In looking at those,
scope of practice seemed to be one of the key things.
In other states, these type of activities may have
required supervision by either an optometrist or an
ophthalmologist. In this state having a license for
dispensing optician allows them to establish a practice
without supervision of either of those two other
professions.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the bill covered her concerns as shown
in the audit.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that it does.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if the legislature was supposed to
discuss about whether they need the licensing board or not in
2005.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that there are automatic sunset audits for
these boards. They would come back in three years and the focus
of the audit at that time would be an evaluation of whether a
licensing board is still required or whether it can simply go to
a registration process.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if the number of states having a
licensing board was increasing. He wanted to know what the trend
was.
MS. DAVIDSON said she didn't have that information. There is a
national professional organization with a website which is where
they can get that kind of information. She reiterated that, "Part
of the interplay with this profession has to do with those other
professions that are closely associated with this type of
practice. Those being the opticians and the ophthalmologists."
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if the substitution of an associate degree
was acceptable for the auditors in place of the actual hours
training.
MS. DAVIDSON said currently if a person has no more education
beyond high school, 6,000 hours of apprenticeship is required.
That is reduced to 2,000 hours if one has an associate degree.
The recommendation says if you're only relying on your experience
for qualification to reduce the hours from 6,000 to 3,000; but if
you have a degree, your apprenticeship is waived.
SENATOR TORGERSON pointed out that it is odd to say one of the
qualifications is to have attended a high school for four years.
He thought they would want a person to have graduated.
MS. DAVIDSON responded that was an excellent point.
2:35 p.m.
MR. LARRY HARPER, a dispensing optician, said he represented the
State Board of Dispensing Opticians, National Contact Lens
Examiners and the Opticians Association of Alaska. He noted that
he had just received their working draft. He said:
One of the reasons that the audit was so damning to us
in regards to the testing procedures was when we look
back at our past fail rate, and that's important not
only here in the state, but on a national basis, we're
finding that people who are coming to take this exam at
the end of their 6,000 hours are doing a miserable job
of passing this national written exam. The reason for
asking for the home study course was to put in an
educational component. The way this course works is two
fold. It really develops and cleans up the
apprenticeship program, of which the guidelines have
been incredibly lax, and puts the apprentice himself in
contact with a sponsor in the Lower 48 who is also in
touch with their sponsor on the job. So they learn in
an sequential manner. This program has been trouble
shot over the past 20 years and reducing the hours from
6,000 to 3,000 makes no sense. If we can't bring these
people to the test table and have them prepared at the
end of 6,000 hours, how are we possibly going to do it
in 3,000 if we don't clean up the training program:
It's imperative that the training program be included
in this scenario in order to prepare these people for
success.
MR. HARPER said the Board has found a source for a professionally
written practical examination. His experience on the National
Contact Lens Examiners Board and the Board of Optitionery shows
that the national written test was never designed as a stand-
alone competency exam for optitionery. It is an entry level
certification exam so someone entering the field has an idea of
what it's all about. He concluded that the educational component
was necessary if the hours were reduced to 3,000.
The other concerns of the legislative audit are being
aggressively pursued, he said.
SENATOR TORGESRON asked if he was in favor of dropping the hours
to 3,000.
MR. HARPER replied that he is not in favor of it unless the
educational component becomes a part of the equation. "We just
are not seeing the success at the testing table that we should be
seeing."
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the education component was on-the-job
training.
MR. HARPER replied, "As with all on-the-job training, it depends
greatly on the instructor as to how successful the trainee is
going to be…."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said he has some concerns with exempting
employees that isn't dealt with in the bill.
MS. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing, said her division staffs both the Board of Dispensing
Opticians and the Optometry Board. She said that there are
ophthalmologists who are MD physicians who specialize in eye
care; then there's optometrists and opticians.
In the past, there has been a difference in perspective
between the Board of Dispensing Opticians and the
Optometry Board over whether the employees of
optometrists who do dispensing optician work should
have to be licensed as dispensing opticians or optician
apprentices. This came up at the time of the last
extensions for both boards four or six years ago. It
has been an issue of contention for longer than that.
My summary is I have the impression that some
optometrists have raised this issue in the last day or
so - expressing the desire to have their employees
exempted from the dispensing optician statute.
My brief summary of what I think the arguments on
either side are is that the optometrists feel like
since they are supervising their employees work that
they can provide the necessary public health and safety
protection insuring that their employees are doing
adequate dispensing optician work. So they don't need
to be licensed. Mr. Harper is here, so he could correct
me, but my impression is that the Dispensing Opticians
Board has felt that it is necessary to have
demonstrated the skills and knowledge of dispensing
optitionery, which are proven through the licensing
process in order to safely provide those skills to the
public.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked how long is a typically dispensing
optician apprenticeship before they decide to sit for a license.
MS. REARDON replied that some of the apprentices choose never to
sit for the exam. They come to the end of the six years and move
on to a different occupation. A dispensing optician apprentice is
not highly paid; so some people are not going into those jobs as
a career. They are apprentices for training.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS calculated that it would take a little over
three years to hit 6,000 (5,076) hours given a 240 day working
year at eight hours a day; 2,000 hours would be less than one
year. So he thought it would take a little less than one and a
half years to meet the 3,000-hour obligation.
He asked Mr. Harper why they wanted to require the home school
course when it seems like the individuals would get a lot more
hands-on instruction with the 3,000 hours under a professional
instead of an instructor. He didn't understand the justification,
because the person in the apprenticeship gets a lot more
instruction.
MR. HARPER replied that in almost every situation when someone is
in an apprenticeship program, they are doing other things
throughout the course of an 8-hour day that doesn't fall anywhere
close to the realm of training. That is why time for the
educational component is so important. An AA degree has the work
component within it, because they all have dispensaries within
the schools. Plus they are getting 8 hours of instruction without
interruptions for doing other unassociated things. A degree
program is much more intensive course work and covers a broader
curriculum than the apprenticeship program.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if he was speaking for the Board or
individually. He asked what the Board's position was on removing
the state requirement for examination.
He replied that he is speaking individually. The Board is not
interested at all in removing the state requirement for
examination. "That's coming from Budget and Audit. The State
Board's position as reflected in the minutes of our last meeting
are very very specific."
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said that the correspondence curriculum would be
geared towards a national test not for a state test.
MR. HARPER replied that wasn't correct. He said the program they
found is as good as anyone could find in a home study program. It
goes far beyond the national competency exam, which is not for
licensing.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if the National Board of Opticians has
national standards.
MR. HARPER said he is a past president of the Opticians
Association of America and that there is a lot of different
components to what they do, but how to apply that on the day-to-
day work station and deliver the best in optics to the public is
what the second component focuses on.
We want these people prepared for success and we want
the very best for the population for the State of
Alaska. This is a very good public health program and
we need more of them. This doesn't cost the state a
dime…"
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked how many people begin as apprentices
actually sit for a license.
MS. REARDON replied eight.
MR. HARPER said they have reviewed the results and are not happy
with them. "There has been a 10-year lapse and we feel that this
board has a lot of work to do."
MS. DAVIDSON said on page 13 of the Audit Report they identify
the number of apprenticeships by fiscal year for the last three
years as well as the number of licenses issued for dispensing
opticians.
You'll see a significant difference in those numbers. I
would add that it does appear, just given those
numbers, that as Ms. Reardon spoke to, not everyone
working for a dispensing optician has the goal of that
as their profession in mind. When there's a discussion
about apprentices taking that course, the concern
becomes is it reasonable for people who are not looking
for licensure as a dispensing optician to go through
that expense. If you are trying to raise your passage
rate and it's a good idea, then it's a good idea. I
don't know that the state wants to create that type of
requirement. If they are not prepared to pass that
national test, then they won't.
Our concern with the audit is the problems with the
practical exam. It was a problem six years ago and it's
a continuing problem. Being a problem when you're
dealing with a licensing function is that you're
putting barriers of entry into the profession in front
of individuals and that's what we see as the major
problem and those have to go away. I understand the
Board may want to set those standards high enough to
protect the public, but they cannot be as subjective as
they are right now, because it causes more problems.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if a prior audit had the same
recommendations.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that their prior audit six years ago also
identified problems with the practical exam given by the Board in
terms of its error-prone nature and its lack of real objective
criteria.
MR. HARPER said he couldn't agree with Ms. Davidson more. "The
strange truth of the matter is that opticians are not necessarily
qualified to be professional test writers. Therefore, they did an
RFP and have found a good test and would like to give it in
April. There is no cost to the state; there's no increased cost
to the test takers.
All it does is give them a professionally qualified
exam…. Both the chairman and I have taken the exam. It
is absolutely straight-forward. There is no guess work;
there is no subjectivity - just yes or no. There's only
one answer.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if he had a position on exempting certain
employees from statute.
MR. HARPER replied that has been an on-going topic of discussion.
The position of the Optician's Board is this, "If you are going
to make independent optician decisions having to do with patient
care, then you need to be a licensed dispensing optician or
working under someone's direct supervision."
If someone wants to be a frame stylist or whatever, they don't
have a problem with that. He said that there are a few
optometrists who don't like the fact that their people have to be
trained.
SENATOR TORGERSON noted a letter from the Board to Ms. Davidson
in which they approve the 3,000 hours and moved to pass CSSB 270
(L&C) from committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS thanked everyone for their testimony and
adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|