Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/21/2002 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
March 21, 2002
1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ben Stevens, Chair
Senator Alan Austerman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 317
"An Act relating to the national forest income program in the
Department of Community and Economic Development and to the
authority of the department to adopt regulations; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED SB 317 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 418(L&C)
"An Act amending the Alaska Corporations Code as it relates to
delivery of annual reports, notice of shareholders' meetings,
proxy statements, and other information and items to
shareholders, to voting, and to proxies, including electronic
proxy voting and proxy signing; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED CSHB 418(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 262
"An Act relating to accounting for and appropriations of receipts
from fees collected by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development for certain inspections and for certain plumbing and
electrical worker certificates of fitness; establishing a
building safety account; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED HB 262 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 281(JUD)
"An Act relating to civil liability for providing alcoholic
beverages to a person under 21 years of age; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSHB 281(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 321
"An Act relating to the Board of Veterinary Examiners and the
practice of veterinary medicine."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 317 - No previous action to record.
HB 418 - No previous action to record.
HB 262 - No previous action to record.
HB 281 - No previous action to record.
SB 321 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Taylor
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 317.
Ms. Amy Erickson
Staff to Representative Lisa Murkowski
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 418 and HB 262 for sponsor.
Mr. Bud Simpson, Atty.
Sealaska Corporation
One Sealaska Plaza
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 317.
Mr. Ramond Henderson, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Labor & Workforce
Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 262.
Mr. Dennis Bowden, Assistant Chief
Labor Standards
Department of Labor & Workforce
Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 262.
Representative Kevin Meyers
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 281.
Ms. Cindy Cashen
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 281.
Ms. Pam Watts, Executive Director
Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 281.
Ms. Heather Peterson
PO Box 2855
Palmer AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 321.
Ms. Merri Ann Noey
PO Box 110018
Anchorage AK 99511
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 321.
Deanna Jo Thornell, D.V.M., Chairman
Board of Veterinary Examiners
2702 Peger Road
Fairbanks, AK 99709-5319
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 321.
Ms. Charlotte Ronin, Executive Director
American Association of Veterinary State Boards
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 321.
Ms. Tracie Audette
PO Box 2132
Palmer AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 321.
Ms. Teresa Firmin
PO Box 220190
Anchorage AK 99522
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 321.
Ms. Jan Wrentmore
Skagway AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 321.
Mr. Bill McDonald
Lay Member
Alaska State Board of Veterinary Examiners
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 321
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 321.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-13, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 317-NAT'L FOREST INCOME AND REGS OF DCED
CHAIRMAN BEN STEVENS called the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee
meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. and announced SB 317 to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR TAYLOR, sponsor of SB 317, said that Senators Larry Craig
from Idaho and Ron Wyden from Oregon introduced legislation in
Congress a few years ago that Southeast Alaska strongly
supported. They passed a bill that basically provided that for
each of the communities impacted by the Forest Receipts Program,
which was a bill passed in the early part of this century
providing that 25% of all receipts that came into the U.S.
government from the sale of timber on national forests would be
conveyed back to the counties and in our instances, the boroughs,
who are affected by those forest receipts, basically, those
proceeds were to go towards education or roads with the decision
being made by the local counties and boroughs. The Clinton
administration cancelled the long-term timber sale contracts on
the Tongass and our communities were suddenly not receiving very
much money off of timber receipts. No timber was being sold.
To correct that problem, communities dependent upon forest
receipts for their schools and their roads were going broke. That
is why Senators Wyden and Craig introduced legislation that
basically said that whatever your highest and best three years
were of forest receipts, the federal government would pay that to
the counties and boroughs for a period of seven years. When the
legislation passed, Alaska actually got 85% of the highest and
best three year average. Fifteen percent was given over so that
environmental concerns could be addressed. He noted that the
Forest Service is still trying to figure out how to spend that
15% here.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the only reason this legislation is before
them is that the Department of Community and Economic Development
did not have sufficient statutory authority to actually make the
conveyance of the money. "This bill is nothing more than clean up
language that will enable the Department of Community and
Economic Development to disburse these timber receipts."
SB 317 gives the department the authority to adopt regulations
necessary to implement the revised federal program in a manner
consistent with federal law. It also provides general regulation
adoption authority for the department to carry out its statutory
functions created by the merger of the former Department of
Commerce and Economic Development and the former Department of
Community and Regional Affairs.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN moved to pass SB 317 from committee with
individual recommendations with the attached fiscal note. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
HB 418-ELECTRONIC PROXY VOTING & NOTIFICATION
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced HB 418 to be up for consideration.
MS. AMY ERICKSON, Staff to Representative Murkowski, said that HB
418 is modeled after existing corporate statutes approved by the
Federal Securities Exchange Commission and gives Alaskan
corporations the explicit ability to offer electronic proxy
voting and receive electronic delivery notice of meeting
materials to its shareholders.
Approximately 25 states already offer this proxy
voting. Corporations that elect to implement electronic
voting will establish secured processes in which a PIN
is issued to each shareholder and shareholders will
still have the option of paper and person voting. In
addition to electronic voting.
HB 418 also includes provisions that permit
corporations to send one copy of an annual report and
proxy materials to multiple shareholders at the same
address and to stop sending annual reports and
statements to shareholders whose mailing address is
invalid.
Passage of HB 418 will result in cost savings and added
convenience for Alaskan corporations and provide faster
tabulation and higher accuracy of voting results.
Because Alaska households have the highest computer
ownership and Internet access, electronic voting will
greatly improve access to shareholder participation.
This act has been modeled from existing law and has
been reviewed by the Division of Administrative
Securities and there is no know controversy surrounding
the bill.
MR. BUD SIMPSON, Sealaska Corporation, said that they view this
bill as a corporate matter and not a Native corporation issue. He
said he would be happy to address any questions. He didn't see
that there would be any controversy.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked in addition to the regional corporations
and the village corporations, how many other corporations are
registered in the state of Alaska.
MR. SIMPSON replied that his impression is that within Alaska the
larger business corporations tend to be from Outside and within
Alaska, there are about 300 of mostly Native corporations.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass HB 418 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
HB 262-BUILDING SAFETY ACCOUNT
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced HB 262 to be up for consideration.
MS. AMY ERICKSON, Staff to Representative Murkowski, sponsor of
HB 262, said that it was introduced at the request of the
Department of Labor's Mechanical Inspections Program.
It is a fees for service measure establishing a
building safety account to allow the department to
collect fees to support its mechanical inspections
program. The measure provides a mechanism and proper
funding to hire three new positions to catch up on the
sizeable backlog of boiler and elevator inspections.
Currently, the mechanical inspection section generates
just over $1 million in general funds and is allotted
about $695,000. This has been a nagging public safety
concern for many years and has reached a level of about
6,000 boilers and about 300 elevators need inspection.
The Americans With Disabilities Act has caused the
number of elevators to double in the state in the last
eight years.
In the mid 1990s there were five electrical inspectors,
two elevator inspectors and five boiler inspectors. Now
there are just two electrical inspectors, one elevator
inspector and three boiler inspectors to inspect the
enormous backlog of boilers in addition to the ADA
elevators.
Passage of 262 will give the Mechanical Inspections
Program the ability to restore the three new positions
to eliminate the sizeable backlog in about two years.
She said there was a new fiscal note.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked what fees would be charged for boilers.
MS. ERICKSON replied that she thought it would be $40 per boiler.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if the fees would be the same for
elevators.
MR. RAMOND HENDERSON, Director, Administrative Services,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, said there is no
increase or decrease in the amount of fee level. The fee that's
charged depends on the kind of inspection and varies from $40 -
$105.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if they already have the ability to
collect fees, what is the objective of this bill.
MR. HENDERSON replied that they have the ability to collect the
fees, but they don't have the authority to spend all the money to
address the backlog by hiring the three additional positions,
which will generate enough proceeds to pay for themselves.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked him to explain the fiscal note.
MR.HENDERSON replied that $234.6 K is for the three new positions
for the first 10 months and 10 months in 2003, as it would take
them a couple of months to get the positions on board and project
that they will generate revenues of $242.8 K.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if they had projected finishing the
backlog in 2007.
MR. HENDERSON said yes and that's when they would eliminate one
of the positions.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if they figured the program would stay
consistent from that point on for the receipts to fund the
program from after that.
MR. HENDERSON said that was correct.
SENATOR LEMAN commended him for actually showing in the fiscal
note that they would actually finish something and eliminate a
position.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked how many inspectors are in the program
right now that are charging the fees.
MR. HENDERSON answered a total of four. They estimate that they
are going to be able to perform 1,250 inspections per inspector.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if there were any other sources of revenue
in the program except for the work performed.
MR. HENDERSON replied yes, that there is a fee for a certificate
for electricians and plumbers.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said the point Senator Austerman was trying to
make was that they were increasing their workforce by three
quarters, but they would only increase their revenue by one
quarter.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said he thought this question could be answered
in the Finance Committee and he wouldn't object to passing the
bill.
MR. DENNIS BOWDEN, Assistant Chief of Labor Standards, explained
that one of the constant revenues they have is sales of licenses,
which runs about $400,000 per year. That amount would not change
with the increase of personnel.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass HB 262 from committee with individual
recommendations with the accompanying fiscal note. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
HB 281-CIVIL LIABILITY FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced HB 281 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, sponsor of HB 281, said under this
bill an adult who knowingly furnishes alcohol to a person under
the age of 21 can be held civilly liable for the resulting
damages.
Under current statute right now we can only hold civilly liable
the licensees that sell alcohol. This bill holds the general
public to a similar standard as they are currently holding their
licensee. However, this bill only impacts those adults who are
knowingly furnishing alcohol to the minors. They are not going
after the kid who sneaks a glass of champagne at the wedding
reception or the parents who give their kids a glass of wine at
dinner. This bill is after those who are waiting out in the
parking lots on a Saturday night and buying alcohol for kids.
This bill will deter some adults from furnishing alcohol to kids
and will give kids less options to get the alcohol and it would
provide recourse for the victims' families.
The tragedy that happened last July in Anchorage, which
took the lives of three teenagers and Anchorage Police
Officer Justin Williams has once again highlighted the
problem of underage drinking and the consequences of
adults who knowingly provide the alcohol to minors. In
this case, two adults were found guilty. I believe one
was 30 and the other one was 31.
MS. CINDY CASHEN, Mothers Against Drunk Driving -
Juneau/Anchorage, supported HB 281, which will impact those
without proper license who give to minors.
By making this action a civil crime, victims from
underage drinking may take action and receive due
compensation from the illegal gift of alcohol. Now, its
mission includes the prevention of underage drinking
and this bill will assist in decreasing the
availability of it to minors.
MS. PAM WATTS, Executive Director, Advisory Board on Alcoholism
and Drug Abuse, supported HB 281 saying they appreciate
Representative Meyers' recognition of the seriousness of adults
furnishing alcohol to persons under the age of 21 and the need to
hold those people accountable for the damages that might result
from underage drinking.
I think many adults who furnish alcohol to minors fail
to realize the potential life threatening problems in
providing alcohol to this population. Research
indicates that drinking is associated with increased
risk taking and sensation seeking on the part of
adolescents who drink and, of course, it has
disinhibiting effects that can increase the likelihood
of engaging in unsafe activities. In 1997, 21% of young
drivers 15 - 20 years of age who were killed in
automobile accidents were intoxicated. Twenty-five
percent of those were male and 12% were female.
Research also shows that people who began drinking
before the age of 15 are four times more likely to
develop alcohol dependence than people who wait until
they are 21. Each additional year of delaying the onset
of drinking reduces the probability of alcohol
dependence by 14%. Adolescents who drink heavily assume
the same health risks that adults do and the
adolescents who use alcohol earlier are more likely to
become sexually active at an early age, have sex more
often and engage in unprotected sex, which places them
at greater risk for HIV infection and other sexually
transmitted diseases.
I think it's significant that 95% of the violent crime
on college campuses is alcohol related and 90% of the
college rapes involve alcohol use by the victim or the
assailant.
Suicide among Alaska youth is a very serious problem
and alcohol use among adolescents has been associated
with considering, planning and completing suicide. We
know that the prevention programs are working that are
in place, but we need your continued support and
advocacy for resources to support those programs and to
meet the community needs for appropriate levels of
intervention and treatment for underage drinking
problems.
But the bottom line for this piece of legislation is
that those adults who provide alcohol to underage
drinkers assume a heavy responsibility and this
legislation makes it clear what that responsibility is
and the consequences associated with it. So, the
Advisory Board strongly encourages your support for
passage of this bill.
SENTOR AUSTERMAN said he understands that right now you can file
a liability against someone that provides alcohol under the same
scenario and this bill just codifies it in law.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYERS clarified that right now you can take a
civil action against a licensee, but not adults.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if he gives alcohol to an underage person
who then goes out and kills himself, can his parents sue him for
that.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYERS answered there could be criminal charges,
but no civil action.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said that section 2 combined with subsection d
on page 2, line 22, is the component that allows the individual
recourse from the person that gave the alcohol to the minor.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYERS said that was correct; it allows them to
take civil action. He said that the drafting wasn't the clearest.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved to pass HB 281 with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SB 321-REVISION OF VETERINARY STATUTES
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced SB 321 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR WILKEN, sponsor of SB 321, said it is an act relating to
the Board of Veterinary Examiners and the practice of veterinary
medicine. He said there are 22 changes in the bill.
SB 321 is the product of considerable discussion and
preparation to update the statutes relating to the
practice of veterinary medicine. The Board of
Veterinary Examiners has reviewed the American
Association of Veterinary State Boards (AAVSB) model
veterinary practice act and has used it as a guide for
revising the state's statutes.
The purpose of changing the statutes that regulate the
practice of veterinary medicine is to create a statute
which reflects a national perspective and one that was
developed professionally by an association which shares
the Board's public protection mission. Guided by this
mission, the proposed statute changes reflect the most
current thinking on professional regulation in
veterinary medicine.
Revising the veterinary practice statutes will
facilitate standardization of terminology and
regulation among states. Such developments are
advantageous by clarifying the role of veterinary
medical regulatory boards while creating valid and
accurate expectations for veterinary medical services.
the proposed revision would also facilitate mobility of
veterinarians from jurisdiction to jurisdiction through
the licensing process, providing the public with
greater access to qualified veterinarians to perform
important services.
With the availability of electronic medical advice and
the advances made in the field of veterinary medicine,
the Board of Veterinary Examiners needs to have a
concise and thorough statute to insure the citizens of
Alaska have qualified professionals accessible for
their veterinary needs.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if they were getting into a turf war.
SENATOR WILKEN replied, "I believe there needs to be a revision
of the veterinary statutes to make them more current and if that
involves a turf war, that's why we have the committee process."
MS. HEATHER PETERSON, small business owner, strongly opposed SB
321 as written. She is in the animal husbandry industry, boarding
and training horses and giving riding instruction and would be
grossly affected with its adoption. "The definition of veterinary
medicine as defined in SB 321 limits owners only to possession of
their animals, but not the ability to legally care for them. This
is unacceptable."
MS. PETERSON said it would also limit anyone employed as a
trainer or instructor from giving advice as to the physical or
mental well being of an animal. Trainers and instructors are the
very people who are also providing a foundation of education in
all-round horse care for their clients.
Large animal veterinarians are in demand in Alaska and small
injuries are not a priority. Many vets give instructions and
recommend treatment over the phone without ever seeing an injury,
the same veterinarians who produced SB 321, making it illegal for
her to treat her own animal or any other animal under her care.
This bill would be a state sanctioned monopoly and would limit
animal owners to what veterinarians choose to offer as services.
She said there are many alternative medical treatments available
that are illegal to engage in unless they're provided by a
veterinarian. Sometimes they are not taught in veterinary schools
and are not available from the veterinarians. She pointed out
that she could use alternative therapy for herself without
consulting a doctor, but not for her animals.
Section 09.198.990 4, 7, (c) limits the use of
complimentary and alternative veterinary procedures and
does not define complimentary and alternative
procedures. Any complimentary and alternative
procedures should in no way be defined as veterinary
medicine. Complimentary and alternative procedures are
taking healing arts to new levels in regards to animal
well being and veterinarians are turning a blind eye to
this choosing to deal with sickness rather than opening
their eyes to the possibility of wellness.
SENATOR LEMAN said she delivered a good statement and asked her
to get it to them in writing. She agreed.
MS. MERRI ANN NOEY said she has many pure bred animals that this
bill would affect. She thought there were several places where
the new text needed to be underlined.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked her to go to page 14, line 18, which would
clarify the section 21 insert.
TAPE 02-13, SIDE B
MS. NOEY said the bill was confusing and asked them to withdraw
it until it could be presented in a clearer manner so the average
person could understand it.
SENATOR WILKEN said he would have his staff call her and walk her
through sections 21 and 22.
She said the bill looks like it would allow sending euthanasia
drugs to the villages to be used by persons who are not
veterinarians.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS commented that this is the first hearing this
bill has had and it has a long road to go through the legislative
process and she would have several opportunities to speak on it.
DR. THORNELL, Chairman, Board of Veterinary Examiners, said their
purpose in changing some of the statutes was for a couple of
different reasons. One was to clarify current statutes. The
language in the revision is not much different than what they
have the power to do under current language. Many of the sections
were very general and open to interpretation. A legislative audit
suggested that the bill was a little biased toward the
veterinarians in the state and suggested that they stay very open
and nonbiased in statutes. Three years ago they looked at their
statutes objectively and consulted with the American Association
of Veterinary State Boards, the national organization that looks
over the public protection mission for the whole United States.
They helped delineate some of the language so it wasn't too far
out of line with national standards. They really want to avoid
setting barriers to veterinarians applying for licensure in
Alaska and they want to also make sure there is enough room in
the statutes to accommodate species-specific examinations. She
said that alternative and complimentary medicines are now
recognized in veterinary schools and taught extensively. There is
a vet in Fairbanks who practices and specializes in acupuncture
and complimentary medicine.
In current statute, you are not allowed to be an acupuncturist
unless you are licensed. They have created a euthanasia
technician position in an effort to stop HB 306, because it was a
public protection issue. It uses a very dangerous drug and it
should be overseen by someone who knows how to use it. There was
a lot of criticism from outlying villages that they need some way
to humanely euthanise unwanted pets.
SENATOR LEMAN asked why veterinarians used "licensure by license
transfer" on page 9, line 11 instead of the term, 'comity' as
other professions use.
DR. THORNELL replied at the national level it was suggested that
they stay with terminology that all veterinarians adhere to in
each state, which is basically licensing by credential. It does
not mean that you have to give up your license in the other
state; it means you can get a license in this state through that
process.
2:25 p.m.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if that was a standard term in veterinary
medicine.
DR. THORNELL answered that is what they are using at the national
level.
MS. CHARLOTTE RONIN, Executive Director, American Association of
Veterinary State Boards, said when they drafted the model act,
they chose that term as a compromise. It is not used universally,
however, nothing is universal. They hope to come to an agreement
on what that term is. Some states use endorsement or reciprocity
or credentialing. The bottom line is that it's a process that
enables veterinarians who are licensed and in good standing in
one jurisdiction to be able to transfer that license and be also
licensed in a new jurisdiction.
She said it is critical that boards have authority to enforce the
laws that they have and do so with enough flexibility to make
changes. Veterinary boards are to protect the public and that's
the most important thing to keep in mind. They are not there to
restrict individuals.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if her organization gave them the
language.
MS. RONIN explained that they are a voluntary organization and
the boards belong to their association. "We don't dictate to
them; we just provide this as a tool for them to use if they
choose."
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked how many states recently have this
proposed legislation before them or how many have adopted changes
and definitions like these.
MS. RONIN replied that it's slow going. A number of states are
working on it.
SENATOR LEMAN said on page 12, regarding the grounds for
disciplinary sanctions, item #6 says, "failed to comply with a
federal law or regulation or fail to comply with another state's
applicable laws or regulations" and asked why would an Alaskan
board want to take it on themselves to enforce the federal laws
or the laws of another state.
MS. RONIN replied:
Because an Alaskan licensed veterinarian who may have
violated either a federal law or a law in another
jurisdiction, but many veterinarians are licensed in
more than one state. It would simply be a tool for the
board to use in their disciplinary process. It's not an
attempt to enforce the other state or the federal law.
She said there is a need for specific grounds to be listed so in
a hearing they can be supported in statute.
DR. THORNELL said the board needs to know if someone violated a
DEA law so they can decide if discipline is needed.
SENATOR LEMAN said his concern is that in Alaska, while we have
great respect for animals, in general we may have a different
attitude than another state.
DR. THORNELL said they actually had an instance where this
happened with someone in this state who also had a license in
Illinois. When they heard what had happened, they would not let
him have a license to practice in Illinois unless he went through
continuing education. They outlined that and it was similar to
what the Alaska board already imposed. "For the public
protection, we need to know when individuals are doing something
that might not conform to our standards…"
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if language on page 4, line 25 says that
this board will have to approve every college that has veterinary
programs before they will accept that college's programs or those
people graduating from that school to be licensed in Alaska.
DR. THORNELL replied that is already something they are doing.
They look at schools the American Veterinary Medical Association
has accredited. They would also look at European schools that are
not accredited and now are able to set up different processes.
That is why they need general language in their statute.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said it appears to him that this gives them an
arbitrary decision to accept or not accept.
DR. THORNELL said this is such a dynamic area. One year it could
be the AVMA and another year it changes to AAVFD. That's in
regulation and it's difficult to have statutes catch up. They
hope to put what they expect in regulation as far as which
particular organization is following through on that.
MS. TRACIE AUDETTE, concerned citizen and small business owner,
strongly opposed SB 321. She said that other states are looking
at this, but that doesn't mean that it has been passed in any
state. To her knowledge, in most states the citizenry is very
concerned as to how this would affect the animal industry. She
didn't know that a board could possibly show the will of the
public. She thought there might be the need for another board for
animal issues for non veterinary professionals so that they have
some sort of say in areas that are borderline or absolutely not
veterinary medicine.
Regarding section 22, she did not agree that euthanisation of
animals should be done except by the animal's owner or by a
licensed veterinarian and the lethal drugs should be stored under
strict security.
The farrier exemption, number seven, needs a lot of work and this
is another example of a non-medical professional board that needs
to be developed for Alaska. Farriers have an exemption with this
state. Anyone who can buy tools and business cards can be a horse
shoer, which involves cutting with a knife, rasping and trimming,
after which nails are driven in by hammer to the wall of the
hoof. This procedure if done improperly can permanently disable a
horse. The Veterinary Board allows them to work totally
unsupervised and with no certification, understudy or completion
of course work required.
There is no requirement for proof of insurance. The
Farriers Association at the national level has
certification programs within their industry, but in
Alaska, you're a farrier because you say you are and
the Veterinary Board agrees. If this exemption is to
remain in place, then all complimentary holistic
therapists and all blue collar animal industry
entrepreneurs should enjoy the same right to do
business. These have much less potential for harm than
does horse shoeing.
She didn't feel the reporting requirements, especially in small
villages without veterinarians, where if an animal needs help
even in routine things that the veterinarian should have to
report if a health nurse of someone else helps out. She also
strongly objected to saying that her religious practitioner needs
to be reported if she chooses to have a prayer or religious
ceremony done for her animal. "I don't think my spiritual
practices should constitute veterinary medicine."
The definition in section 1 defines accredited
veterinary schools and what is required to become a
veterinarian in our state. This should also serve as a
definition of the Veterinary Board's scope of
jurisdiction. Areas of practice not taught in
traditional veterinary colleges should not be regulated
by the Veterinary Board. The Board was put in place to
monitor the conduct of veterinarians and they should
not be allowed to have a monopoly on all the other
areas of animal care.
I don't think that in the definitions, (4), lines 12
through 15, they're saying that areas that diverge from
the practices taught at veterinary schools will be
covered by the Veterinary Board. Simply stated, if they
diverge from what's taught at veterinary schools,
they're not veterinary medicine. There again, this
would be another place where I feel a board for animal
wellness or animal issues should be set up to look into
some of this.
She said another definition, 7(a), would prevent the neighbor to
neighbor exchange of health and ideas regarding animal health
issues and that would be unconstitutional. "We all depend on each
other to increase our awareness of animal health and we need to
look at that."
MS. AUDETTE said this bill doesn't at any point acknowledge that
the animals have owners, much less than the animals owners' right
to choose what they feel is appropriate treatment. "The rights of
property owners should never be superceded by the veterinarians…"
MS. TERESA FIRMIN, animal owner, said she didn't have any
business interests relating to this and opposed SB 321. She
wanted to correct Senator Wilken's sponsor statement as to what
other states are doing this. This bill reflects the theories of a
national association, but it doesn't reflect the common interests
of the animal owner. "It's being met with just as much puzzle in
this state as it is in all the other ones."
In regards to the Board being formed for the public's protection
she said that she and her family have been animal owners in the
state of Alaska for their entire lives and she has never been
able to give public testimony to the Veterinary Board. She was
raised in rural Alaska and had to perform many animal care tasks
herself. Many of the things listed in the bill make those tasks
illegal for her to perform on her own animals, let alone other
individual's animals if they needed help.
Another concern she had was that animal husbandry is not further
defined and is a very gray area.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary "animal
husbandry" is defined as "the care and breeding of
domestic animals, such as cattle, hogs, sheep and
horses….In closing, until I feel assurance that the
practicing body of veterinarians in the state of Alaska
qualify for the care of my animals in a manner that
meets my standards of excellence I will oppose further
restrictions of my rights to find other sources of
care, such as complimentary alternative medicine.
MS. JAN WRENTMORE, Skagway business owner, said she is testifying
as a pet owner. She has a friend in Fairbanks, Donna Perry, who
asked her to read her testimony.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that they had already received a copy of her
testimony.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said he thought the intent was for the other
people listening on-line to hear the letter and asked her to read
it.
MS. WRENTMORE said that she has two miniature donkeys, a pot
bellied Vietnamese pig and five huskies and has had lots of
creatures in the 30 years she has lived in Alaska. She asked the
committee to look very closely at this bill and the ramification
it has for rural Alaska. She lives in a community that has no
vet. She will do whatever she has to do to care for her animals,
but often a vet is not available and she has relied on the advise
of friends and trainers, saving the lives of animals. She read
Ms. Perry's testimony as follows:
My name is Donna Perry. I am the owner of Northern
Quest Kennel, which I established in 1989. My family
and I live at 300 Front Street, Fairbanks, Alaska. I
have a self-financed project to keep the aboriginal,
sub-arctic, northern breed husky, commonly called the
Mackenzie River Husky from extinction. I personally
have four of these huskies as pets who live with me. My
"kennel" is the over 300 huskies I have produced from
my breeding program who belong to and live with other
families. My project works from the cooperation both
verbally and contractually between these people and
myself. I personally breed, birth, place and follow
each of these dogs for life. My huskies come with a
lifetime warranty. This project takes my total
dedication, commitment and devotion both emotionally
and financially.
If passed, the way I organize and facilitate this
project would place me in violation of the law. This
law says I cannot use the skills I have learned from
over 25 years of owning this type of dog to help teach
other people how to be the best owner they can be.
Under this bill, I don't know if I can morally continue
my project if I'm not allowed to give my dogs their
best chance of success in this modern world. They come
from a different century. This law thwarts my ability
to pass on the knowledge and care needed for this rare
aboriginal breed that helped settle the interior of
Alaska. Under SB 321, Charly Boyd and John Schultz (God
rest their souls), who taught me how to handle, feed,
care for and practice "veterinarian medicine" would
have been in violation of the law when they passed on
to me traditional dog handling care and treatment.
Here are some specifics of my intended violations if
this bill is passed. Last month I bred one of my
bloodline huskies who I do not "own." I have illegally
diagnosed her pregnancy by a physical examination. I
have advised her owners of the due date, feeding
supplements, behavioral changes that take place as a
result of her pregnancy, requested and scheduled x-rays
that I will attend before the due date so we know how
many pups to expect. I will further violate the law
when I advise her people to take her temperature
rectally so I have the early warning of 12 - 24 hours
before she goes into whelp. I will then illegally
deliver the pups, use my knowledge that comes from
delivering over 30 litters without ever loosing the
mother dog. In doing so I will probably illegally save
a pup with fluid in its lungs or euthanasia a pup who
has been crushed in the birth canal rather than let it
slowly die while the mother circles around stepping on
and possibly damaging other puppies as she nuzzles the
puppy and tries to comfort his death cries. If the
mother dog gets in trouble that I cannot help her with,
I will keep her and the pups warm and as comfortable as
possible until we can get her to a clinic.
I will further violate the law when the potential
owners sign my contract. "Condition of Sale: Donna
Perry, retains the right to remove her bloodline dogs
from any home or situation that jeopardizes the
emotional and/or physical well-being of the dog." Since
I'm the one who makes this judgment, I would be again
practicing veterinary medicine without a license. My
puppy instruction page is full of veterinary advise,
the type of food to feed, vaccine schedules,
supplements to reduce risk of panosteitis (growing
Pains) and to promote overall well-being for the life
of the dog. This includes instructions on dental care.
I instruct the new owners to contact me with any
health, behavior or psychological problems, questions
or concerns.
I have a paying job, which helps to support my dog
obsession so I could not be available for testimony
today. My friend, Jan Wrentmore, graciously agreed to
read my statement. She is familiar with my project and
might be able to answer questions you may have on my
behalf.
Please do not pass this bad bill that will not allow me
to take care of the animals I have brought into this
world. I will have to stop my husky project if I'm not
allowed to keep my huskies safe. I cannot morally turn
my back on them. Thank you for listening.
SENTOR AUSTERMAN asked about page 7, lines 14 - 19,
administration of the examination, which talks about the board
making contract and determining authority to determine what score
is passed on a national exam. Normally, when you think of a
national exam, they set up a criteria for failure or passing. If
he reads this correctly, this board is going to have the
discretion of changing that standard.
DR. THORNELL replied that right now they have their own state
jurisprudence exam and they need to be able to determine what is
a passing or failing grade on that test. The national level is
the little bit of leniency that they suggest for boards across
the United States. Some elect 70 percentile; some elect 75, etc.
MS. RONIN said the language is a state's right issue - that no
one is dictating to the state of Alaska what the passing score
will be. Currently, all of the states have adopted the same
passing score on the national examination, which facilitates
mobility. "It's all the same score."
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said they needed further clarification of that
statement.
MS. RONIN said the National examination has a criteria based on a
passing score of 425 agreed to in 1992. There is a formula that
is used when transferring the score that can make 425 equal 70,
because some state laws say it has to be 70 or they just like to
call it that.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said it sounds like it's a percentile mechanism.
MS. RONIN said it is called a "criterion reference."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if a national exam that's taken in New
Mexico and has a score of 70 or 75 and he passes and thinks he's
coming to Alaska, could he come up here and find out that score
doesn't apply.
MS. RONIN said that score would apply.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if Alaska would retain the discretion of
not accepting that.
MS. RONIN said that is right, but at this point, they have
selected to use the same passing score as everyone else.
SENATOR TORGERSON said that the legislature doesn't normally get
into this level of detail. "This is regulation being mixed in
with statute - way too detailed. Somebody needs to go in and wipe
this stuff out and get back to a regular bill for Occupational
Licensing."
MR. BILL MCDONALD, Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel, said he is the
Governor appointed lay member of the Alaska State Board of
Veterinary Examiners. He wanted to express his support for the
bill, although not necessarily all the detail that's in there. He
thought that the intent was to standardize and specialize the
veterinary practice in the state of Alaska. It is also meant to
facilitate a seamless transition of bringing a veterinarian from
the Lower 48 up to Alaska to practice and to give the Board the
opportunity to make critical judgments on what constitutes the
practice of veterinary medicine in the state.
Some people think that pet ownership and care will be
completely taken away from them in the conduct of their
service because of this particular bill. As I have read
the bill, I think services rendered for compensation
that's outside the realm of veterinary medicine
practice - that in the bill will become illegal. A
personal pet owner's efforts to take care of their
animals are not so restricted as I read it.
The importance to me about the bill is that [END OF
TAPE]
TAPE 02-14, SIDE A
MR. MCDONALD continued:
…among veterinarians, themselves, on what constitutes a
reasonable and assured special practice of their
medicine without appropriate guidance. We have a
variety of regulations out there. Some of them conflict
each other and this bill I think is intended to try to
standardize and define what constitutes this practice…I
have seen some treatments that have been proposed by
members who are outside the profession, which are not
in conformance with standard veterinary practices. They
may become so one day, but they are not now, i.e.: a
treatment with magnets. These things should not be
allowed if they are done for compensation. I believe
this bill will help bring standardized and safe
veterinary medicine practice to the state of Alaska. I
personally think we need it.
SENATOR TORGERSON said he agreed with a lot of his testimony, but
he thought the bill went too far. "If the bill isn't clear that
pet owners can take care of their pets, then we have failed in
writing the bill. We're going to have to make that very clear."
Also, people sometimes do things to animals that don't belong to
them, but they do it in the normal course of duties as owning
that business. He asked if they would still be able to do that.
MR. MCDONALD replied that he has had experience with animal
husbandry and believes that some of those kinds of procedures are
a matter of requirement for a person who operates the ranch, but
it is sometimes a matter of necessity to save the life of the
animal. This would come in conflict with the way the legislation
is currently written. On the other hand, there are people, as a
side business, who are very good at one particular aspect of
caring for an animal.
Because of their rural location, West Texas, they would
go from one ranch to another as a neighbor and they
would be compensated, but not as a professional
conducting that type of business. They would pay for
gas or reciprocate some kind of payment.
I think the essence of what the veterinarians are after
is not to have something that conflicts with
professional performance of veterinary duties for
compensation and have that run into a problem with the
local and private care of animals.
SENATOR TORGERSON said there is the same situation in Skagway
with Ms. Wrentmore where they don't have a vet.
MR. MCDONALD said he thought they should make it clear in the
legislation that veterinary services are performed for
compensation.
DR. THORNELL noted that there is an exception in statute for
emergency procedures.
SENATOR TORGERSON said they were not talking about emergencies.
"We're talking about a way of life."
MS. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing, said her division staffs the Veterinary Board.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked regarding the proposed definitions on page
18, specifically #7 - the practice of veterinary medicine - there
is nothing there to suggest that a veterinarian does anything for
compensation.
MS. REARDON replied that is a significant difference between the
bill and current statute, which says you're only practicing
veterinary medicine if you do those things for compensation. The
new definition says if you do them, regardless of whether you get
money or not.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if there any other licenses with actual
medical treatment that don't say they do it for compensation.
MS. REARDON replied that occupational licensing statutes are all
different. "The human medical and nursing statutes say that you
only need a license if you are doing it for compensation."
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked, "Why do we need a license if you're not
doing it for compensation?"
MS. REARDON said there are some professions where it's not
linked, like chiropractic. Usually they say you can't assert that
you are a doctor or a nurse or receive compensation.
I suppose an argument for taking away the compensation
link would be that if we feel that it is dangerous to
humans or animals or whatever to do this function
without having certain qualifications or training, then
you could say it's dangerous or harmful whether they
got money or not and we want to stop that. It depends
on what behavior you want to stop.
SENATOR LEMAN asked what was the definition of animal. The bill
says it's any member of the animal kingdom excluding the human.
MS. REARDON replied that it is any animal other than a human
being including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, wild or domestic
living or dead. The current definition is equally broad.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if that would extend to creatures that are
relatively insignificant like insect and shrews.
MS. REARDON said she thought both definitions would include
insects. "I imagine people have tarantulas, for example, as
pets."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said that a lot of the issues appear to be
regulatory rather than statutory and asked the sponsor if he
would rethink that.
SENATOR WILKEN responded that this is the first hearing and now
is the time to talk about those issues and they need to work
through them in a logical manner. "…This is really the first
step."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said on page 11, section 19, it talks about the
board being able to levy a $25,000 fine as a civil penalty for an
unauthorized practice and it appears that this makes a judge and
jury out of the board. Then it talks about the grounds for
imposing disciplinary action and refers to AS 80.01.075, which
has a $5,000 maximum. This is an example of why he is having a
hard time with this bill.
MS. REARDON explained that the increase to $25,000 says
notwithstanding the $5,000 limit in .075. Similar language went
through for dentists and doctors last year.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS encouraged people to submit questions to the
committee so they could be addressed and adjourned the meeting at
3:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|