Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
02/11/2015 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB81 | |
| HB9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 9-PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS/AGENCIES
4:12:02 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 9, "An Act providing for the licensing and
regulation of private investigators and private investigator
agencies; and providing for an effective date."
4:12:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES, speaking as prime sponsor of HB 9,
presented HB 9. She acknowledged she introduced a similar bill
to license private investigators last year when it was brought
to her attention that a felon could get a business license and
operate as a private investigator. She related a situation in
which a family lost a daughter and was approached by such an
unscrupulous individual. She emphasized that a presumption of
authority exists when someone identifies himself/herself as a
private investigator. In those instances citizens might offer
the private investigator personal information that they might
not otherwise give out. She offered her belief that this is
something that should be addressed. She described her approach
to curb this activity was not to create a costly board, but to
pattern private investigator licensing after other professions
licensed by the division. Finally, since the fiscal note for
licensing private investigators quadrupled from one the division
proposed last year, she has questions for the department about
the fiscal note, she stated.
4:14:49 PM
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, presented a
section-by-section analysis of HB 9. She stated that Section 1
would include private investigators as one of the specified
professions licensed under the Department of Commerce, Community
& Economic Development (DCCED) and Section 2 would require
private investigators to be licensed in the state. This
provision clearly states that person may not practice private
investigating unless licensed under this chapter or exempt from
being licensed, noting a number of exemptions exist. A person
may not use the title of or practice as a private investigator
unless the person is registered with the department or it could
result in a misdemeanor.
4:15:55 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to page 2, line 4, of proposed AS
08.85.110 that outlines the scope of practice for private
investigators, including investigating criminal offenses,
obtaining information from individuals, or gathering evidence to
be used in court. Private investigators working in the state
have advised the sponsor that if someone has not received
adequate training, the collection of evidence may not admissible
in court.
4:16:59 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to page 2, line 19, of proposed AS
08.85.120 that outlines the general requirements for a private
investigator. She related that in order to obtain a license as
a private investigator, an applicant must be a citizen, cannot
have been convicted of a felony in the prior 10 years or been
convicted of a crime of dishonesty or sexual misconduct, or have
received a dishonorable discharge from the military, or have
been determined to be mentally incompetent by a court of law.
Further an applicant cannot currently be on probation or parole,
she said.
4:17:51 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to page 3, line 15, of proposed AS
08.85.130, which would create two classes of license, with a
class A license being a more advanced professional level of
private investigator and a class B license an entry level
position, such as an apprentice who may need additional
experience or training to become a class A private investigator.
She directed attention to page 4, lines 21-31, through page 6,
line 12 of HB 9 to language that identifies the information for
the license application, including providing the typical
standard information, plus providing criminal history and
conviction record, employment records, and a statement that the
applicant is free from mental illness. Applicants must submit
fingerprints and fees for the criminal history record check,
letters of recommendations from three citizens without any prior
felony convictions, and the application must be notarized, she
said.
4:19:41 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to page 6, line 13, of proposed AS
08.85.170 that would allow the department to conduct background
investigations of applicants. She directed attention to page 6,
lines 19-28, which would create provisions for reciprocity to
allow private investigators licensed in another state, with
comparable qualifications, to become licensed in Alaska.
4:20:28 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked how many states currently license private
investigators.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that she was unsure. She recalled that
approximately 109 Alaskans have identified themselves as private
investigators and approximately 40 out-of-state investigators.
In further response, she answered that she was not sure how many
other states currently license private investigators.
MS. BLAISDELL clarified that proposed AS 08.85.200 would allow
Alaska to recognize private investigators licensed in other
states, but she wasn't certain how many states would recognize
Alaska's private investigators for reciprocity. In further
response, she related that a wide range of licensure programs
exist in other states. She recalled that four states do not
license private investigators, but some states provide municipal
oversight, although others have statewide laws.
4:21:41 PM
MS. BLAISDELL referred to page 6, lines 29-31 through page 7,
line 12, of proposed AS 08.85.210, noting the department would
issue an identification card that will list the private
investigator's license number, which must be carried while the
investigator is performing private investigator duties.
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 7, lines 12-31 through
page 8, line 15 of proposed AS 08.85.220, to the requirement for
a private investigator agency certificate, noting the department
will issue a private investigator agency certificate if the
primary employee meets the requirements of possessing a class A
license and the agency is insured and bonded. She referred to
page 8, 1ines 16-31 through page 9, line 2, of proposed AS
08.85.230 related to license renewal and nontransferability of
licenses. She related that a private investigator license is
not transferable, but can be renewed as long as the
qualification criteria is still valid; however, approximately
every five years a licensee must submit to an additional
background check.
4:22:43 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 9, lines 3-11, of
proposed AS 08.85.240, which pertains to firearms training. She
explained this provision was added to ensure that people
entering into high risk situations would have successfully
completed firearms training.
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 9, lines 12-17, which
provides confidentiality of licensees' personal identifying
information. Under proposed AS 08.85.260, prohibited practices,
licensees cannot collect information for illegal purposes. This
provision also prevents people from impersonating a private
investigator by carrying a badge or uniform, or display flashing
vehicle lights.
4:24:20 PM
MS. BLAISDELL, referring to page 10, line 24 of proposed AS
08.85.270, explained that this basically states that an action
may not be brought against a person who files a complaint in
good faith against a licensee. She surmised that private
investigators may encounter some people who might wish to
complain about the legitimate activities of a licensed private
investigator. Thus a private investigator can't be sued for
damages because he/she located the person he was hired to find.
She next referred to page 10, lines 27-28, noting that the
regulations will be conducted by administrative procedures by
the department.
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to the exemptions beginning on
page 10, lines 29-31 through page 12, line 13, that lists the
types of people who are exempt from private investigator
licensure, including people who perform professional
investigative services in their normal course of business, such
as attorneys, law enforcement officers, insurance agents, bank
employees, forensic scientists, fire investigators, and
paralegals, while acting within the scope of their employment.
She characterized these exemptions include a number of
professions that do not require additional licensure as a
private investigator.
4:26:12 PM
MS. BLAISDELL stated the bill contains a few definitions, and
transitional provisions that allow someone who has met the
requirements of this chapter who is operating as a private
investigator to continue to do so until the business license
renewal. She related that the effective date of the bill is
July 2015, although the department would like to postpone the
effective date to allow time to adopt regulations.
4:26:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES emphasized that private investigators
cannot wear any type of badge that attempts to portray them as
law enforcement officers or some type of state or federal
officials.
4:27:37 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked for clarification on the fiscal note.
MS. BLAISDELL deferred to the department to discuss the fiscal
note; however, she pointed out the fiscal note in members'
packets refers to House Bill 253, which was a bill introduced
last legislature to license private investigators, which did not
pass. She included a fiscal note for the aforementioned bill
since it provides a basis for discussion for the fiscal note for
HB 9.
4:28:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 3, lines 13-14, to
subsection (c), which seems overly vague for a conflict of
interest. She suggested it may give the department unfettered
authority to establish a conflict of interest as opposed to
specifying circumstances.
MS. BLAISDELL stated that this bill was patterned after Colorado
law. She said that the applicant may not be currently employed
in a position the department determines to represent a conflict
of interest for the prospective licensee. The provision
specifically restricts licensees from being currently employed
as a peace officer or federal, state or local government in the
capacity of law enforcement. She suggested that a person might
be employed in a profession that could create a conflict of
interest, such as someone who is a human resource officer who
has access to more information. She suggested there will always
be odd circumstances and questions as to whether the department
should have the discretion.
4:31:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX interjected that she feels uncomfortable
with [the department determining any conflict of interest].
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES welcomed suggestions in improving that
provision.
4:31:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to page 2 of HB 9 to the scope
of practice for investigators. He wondered whether proposed AS
08.85.110 would cover all the activities of a private
investigator and if the activities listed were based on a model
bill.
MS. BLAISDELL explained that the private investigator licensing
bill used Colorado's law, which was tweaked by Legislative Legal
to comport with other statutory provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES reminded members that the previous bill
had input and review from private investigators so she thought
the private investigators would have pointed out any
investigative activities that were missing.
4:33:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to page 7, to subparagraph (A)
to errors and omissions insurance. He asked what is known about
private investigator negligence. He stated that private
investigators could be liable for errors and he wondered if
private investigators can obtain insurance. He said he has
never heard of any insurance being offered, but wondered whether
private investigators could be sued for such things as reporting
that adultery occurred when it actually didn't occur.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that the bill requires surety bonds and
errors and omissions insurance, which was set at $100,000 at the
recommendation of a private investigator. She reported that the
surety bond is standard practice, that the City of Fairbanks
requires licensing for private investigators, as well as
requiring a surety bond of $10,000, or $20,000 if the private
investigators are licensed in two or more states. She was
unsure about the errors and omissions insurance, but offered to
research this for the committee.
4:35:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to the concealed handgun
provisions and asked whether any second amendment constitutional
issues exist.
MS. BLAISDELL replied that she asked for clarification from
Legislative Legal Services in terms of the permit to carry a
concealed handgun. She reported the legislative legal drafters
advised that Alaska law does not prohibit anyone 21 years of age
or older who may legally possess a firearm from carrying a
concealed weapon. Thus, anyone can carry a concealed firearm
without a special permit or training. Further, Alaska provides
that a person may obtain permit to carry a concealed handgun,
with the primary reason to obtain an Alaska concealed handgun
permit is to be able to carry a concealed handgun in other
states. She stated that in order to obtain a concealed handgun
permit, a person is required to successfully complete an
approved handgun course under AS 18.65.715, typically conducted
by the Alaska State Troopers or by several private entities.
Last year during discussions on the previous bill, it was deemed
important that if private investigators were to carry any
weapons while encountering higher-risk situations, that some
type of training should be required.
4:38:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the penalties for failure
to comply with the investigator certificates [under proposed AS
08.85.220 (e)] was consistent with violations of other
professions, for example, if someone calls themselves a nurse,
but he/she is not one, whether the person is subject to a class
A misdemeanor. He pointed out some of the violations are
technical such as in [subsection (c), paragraph (5)] that
requires notifying the department within 30 days of any change
in the agency's officers, directors, or partners.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the extensive list of 18
exemptions and wondered why so many exemptions were allowed if
horrendous things can happen with unlicensed private
investigators. She asked why the bill was only concerned about
people conducting investigations with their own individual
business, but not for those working for an attorney or an
insurance agent.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES stated that in many of the exemptions, the
professionals conduct investigations as part of their duties and
they have some oversight, whereas private investigators are sole
practitioners. She suggested that some of the other professions
require their own licensing.
4:41:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 10, line 31 through page
11, line 2, which read, "(1), a person who is employed
exclusively or regularly by one employer that is not a private
investigator agency and who performs investigations solely in
connection with the affairs of that employer." She offered her
belief that could be someone working for an insurance company.
She offered her belief that if licensing is going to be required
for investigators, that it should cover everyone.
MS. BLAISDELL responded that the business license classification
for investigations was very broad, and the types of
investigators who seek licensure tend to be the ones who are in
business for themselves with broad access to database
information. Typically, insurance adjusters work for insurance
agencies, and if someone has a concern, he/she could contact the
employer.
4:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX argued that these investigators could be
hired by an insurance company or an attorney seeking
information. She expressed concern that the investigators might
misidentify themselves just to obtain the information, but the
employers might not be concerned since their goal is to hire
investigators to find out.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES suggested that it isn't necessary to
license everyone who puts on Band-Aids as licensed practical
nurses, that there must be a limit. She explained that people
working under these exemptions have employers. Although she
understood the concern, she suggested there must be a limit as
to who needs licensure. She maintained that the exemptions are
for people who work for employers so they have oversight and
likely work under a set of requirements in their professions
that may address the concerns.
4:45:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed the employers might have
requirements, but she is not sure that they do, which is her
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES suggested that the division might be able
to provide a response on the exemptions for professions covered
by licensure.
CHAIR OLSON asked to discuss the fiscal note.
4:46:26 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Acting Director, Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce,
Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), said the fiscal note
reflects the level of staffing and costs to start a new program,
for licensure costs and enforcement. The licensing examiner
would need to compile information and determine eligibility and
the division's investigators would need to review the
information to determine if it is true and accurate and the
applicant was not withholding information that will keep them
from meeting the threshold for licensure. Certainly, the
division would not expect 100 percent of the licensing examiner
or investigator's time to be charged back to the private
investigator licensing program. Last year the division received
three new licensing programs as well as a significant expansion
of a program, but failed to ask for additional support within
the division. This resulted in the division not being able to
absorb the costs, therefore; the division will request the
minimum staff it needs for any new programs. She related her
understanding that a portion of the licensing staff might be
charged to other licensing programs.
4:50:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said it sounds like the division will
be shifting some of the burden of the private investigator
licensing program to some of the other new programs. However,
it doesn't seem fair for the private investigators to absorb the
2014 new licensing program costs. He wondered if the division
must explain to the other programs why their fees will be
increased or whether he is missing the point.
MS. CHAMBERS explained that the division puts forth a certain
level of service regardless of the number of staff, which
depends on the length of the lag time to process new licenses,
for example, if applicants must wait three weeks, six weeks, or
a year for licensure. Thus the volume doesn't reflect the
activity, but the level of service can be provided. She did not
necessarily think there will be additional costs for a specific
program, but the division desires to provide a high level of
service to the state. For example, the Alaska State Medical
Board just completed its renewal period at a time when the
division experienced an influx of applications. Having
additional staff available allows the division to temporarily
assign licensing examiners to programs that need seasonal help,
in this instance, to assist the medical board license doctors to
ensure that hospitals were fully staffed and able to function.
In fact, Alaskans have a high expectation for service and the
division can experience a need for help in any of its licensing
programs, she said.
4:52:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed concern that the fiscal note was
nearly quadruple of the fiscal note on a similar bill last
legislative session. She recalled during the presentation for
the Division of Corporations, Business & Professional Licensing,
that Ms. Chambers reported the range for license fees was a
minimum of $50 for some professions to $1,700 for midwives.
However, she reported that page 3 of the fiscal note for HB 9,
lists an estimated license fee of $2,900 for private
investigators. She questioned the figures since the fiscal note
to license private investigators last year was $60,000 total
instead of $230,000. She wondered why private investigators
were being asked to help cover the expenses for the error of
licensing costs for three new professions last year. She
explained that it was not her intent to create a bureaucracy.
She further questioned the need for 1.5 licensing examiners to
license a potentially 140 private investigators in the state.
She stated that this program was patterned after some processes
in place for other professions, including fingerprinting. She
expressed concerned about the proposed costs to license private
investigators as well as their proposed biennial fees.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that she did not anticipate the 1.5 staff
positions proposed for the program to charge all of their time
to the private investigator program. It's possible the proposed
private investigator licensing program might need a fulltime
investigator for a month, or 80 percent of an investigator's
time for three months, or perhaps 60 percent for six months.
After the initial licensure period, the investigator's ongoing
commitment could be reduced to 30 percent, she said, noting that
the fiscal note anticipated the absolute worst case scenario,
and took into account the number of exemptions that must be
considered as well as potential complaints. However, at this
point the division doesn't know how many private investigators
will apply for licensure. She described the fee setting process
as being very dynamic, one that depends a number of factors
outside the division's control. It is more likely that private
investigators will pay fees closer to those of midwives, but the
projected $2,900 in biennial fees were based on the information
the division has today. Any portion of staff time not used for
the private investigator program will be charged to another
program. For example, if the licensing examiner assigned to the
private investigator program was temporarily assigned to help
medical board process applications or license renewals, the
examiner's time will be charged to that program, she said.
4:57:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES questioned the ratio of 1.5 staff for this
program. She asked for further clarification on the number of
staff assigned to other non-board professions of similar size -
with 150 licensees - since 1.5 staff seems very high.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that it depends on the program. She
explained that some programs with under 100 licensees are
assigned one fulltime staff; however, other programs may have
several thousand licensees but their profession requires minimal
requirements for licensure, with little need for investigations.
Thus, those professions may be assigned one-half or one fulltime
licensing examiner. Certainly, at times the division may assign
multiple investigators to work on one investigation. However,
for this program, the division envisions that investigating
licensees and reviewing the allowable exemptions will initially
require quite a bit of "hands on" effort. It seemed highly
unlikely the private investigator licensees would be charged
$2,900 in biennial fees or that it would take 1.5 staff to
maintain the program. The division will employ the practice of
positive timekeeping. She emphasized that the division cannot
absorb these program costs so it anticipated the costs for the
proposed program.
4:59:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES maintained her concern over the
"quadrupled" fees reflected in the fiscal note. She said she
did not wish to have the fiscal note reiterated, but she
expressed concern that the bill will not pass with the current
fiscal note attached. In fact, she said she will pull the bill
rather than add to the bureaucracy in the division.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB81 ver A.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB81 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB81 Fiscal Note-DCCED-CBPL-02-06-15.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB81 Fiscal Note-DOLWD-MI-02-06-15.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB81 Supporting Documents-Letter Jess Hall 2-10-2015.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 81 |
| HB9 ver A.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Fiscal Note-DCCED-CBPL-02-06-15.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Supporting Document-Email Habeger 09-09-2013.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| FOR REFERENCE ONLY-HB253 Fiscal Note-DCCED-CBPL-03-21-2014.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB9 Opposing Documents-Letter Frank Wake 2-07-2015.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2015 3:15:00 PM |
HB 9 |