Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/17/2017 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 | |
| HB195 | |
| HB222 | |
| SB93 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 222-LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS/NAIL TECHS
3:43:27 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the second order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 222, "An Act relating to the licensure of nail
technicians; relating to the practice of manicuring; and
providing for an effective date."
3:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 222, Version 30-LS0803\O, Bruce, 4/17/17,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version O
was before the committee.
3:44:15 PM
OWEN PHILLIPS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor,
introduced HB 222. In 2015, he stated, the legislature passed
House Bill 131 in hopes of improving the health and safety of
nail salon patrons. House Bill 131 outlined new regulations,
including 250 hours of education and an examination to become a
licensed nail technician. Prior to that bill, a person could
receive a manicurist's license by completing 12 hours of
training, though many people received many more hours outside of
the state of Alaska. In 2015, he explained, the House made an
amendment on the floor that brought unintended consequences on
existing licensees seeking renewal in 2017. The floor amendment
added a grandfather clause, but the clause was unclear. The
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers consultant consulted with the
Department of Law and interpreted the new statute to have a
temporary and confusing grandfather clause. Therefore HB 222
seeks to remedy the onerous renewal process enacted in 2015
while protecting the health and safety of Alaskans.
MR. PHILLIPS outlined what is currently required of experienced
manicurists seeking to renew their license: by August 31, 2017,
proof of 250 hours of work as a manicurist; by August 31, 2017,
take and pass a written or oral examination; after one renewal
period, however, an experienced manicurist is nevertheless
required to take 250 hours of additional coursework to receive a
nail technician license after the two-year grandfather license
that does not require any coursework. He said HB 222 would
remove the education requirement for people who are already
licensed and working under statutes prior to December 31, 2015.
He pointed out that requiring 250 hours of coursework, which is
six to eight weeks of full-time effort, could mean these
experienced working manicurists might not be able to work.
Affected individuals include small business owners and single
mothers, he continued. Requiring this training for persons who
have been successfully practicing for years could have
detrimental impacts on their finances and their families.
3:46:46 PM
MR. PHILLIPS provided a sectional analysis of Version O. He
said Section 1 adds legislative intent to the uncodified law
that the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers allow an applicant to
use a foreign language translator during an exam. Currently, he
noted, the exam is only offered in English, Spanish, Vietnamese,
and Korean. Section 2, he explained, clarifies the grandfather
clause by stating that the board may not require an applicant
applying for or renewing a license to complete 250 hours of
instruction in manicuring if the applicant holds a valid license
that was issued on or before December 31, 2015. Section 3, he
stated, amends Section 13(a), ch. 27, SLA 2015, allowing
manicurists who hold a valid license on January 1, 2016, to
continue practicing manicuring until their license normally
expires. [Paragraph] (1) provides that manicurists can renew
their license before August 31, 2017, if they meet pre-existing
requirements under AS 08.13 as it existed prior to January 2016.
[Paragraph] (2) states that manicurists may renew their license
for an additional period before August 31, 2019, if they submit
proof of 250 hours of satisfactory work experience and have
taken and passed the written or oral exam under AS 08.13.090.
Section 4, he said, retroactively amends Section 13(a), ch. 27,
SLA 2015, as amended by Section 3 of this Act. Section 5, he
continued, sets an immediate effective date for this bill.
MR. PHILLIPS added that the intention of HB 222 is to remove the
unnecessary burden of education and training hours for
experienced manicurists who practiced prior to December 31,
2015, and to extend equal opportunities to individuals who may
have a difficulty with a language barrier.
3:49:17 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 222.
3:49:33 PM
JEANNINE JABAAY testified in support of HB 222. She related
that she was a former public member of the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers and an advocate of House Bill 131 in 2015. As
outlined by Mr. Phillips, she stated, it was [the board's]
understanding that for Alaska's nearly 1,000 current licensees,
those 250 hours required for new licensees would be
grandfathered hour for hour for the hours they worked on the job
and incurred incumbently. However, the [floor] amendment
changed that accidentally, she continued, and [the board] would
like to see that fixed, which HB 222 would do.
MS. JABAAY recalled that regarding the testing requirement, [the
board] was asked directly by a legislator whether it came in the
Hmong language. She said she doesn't remember the exact answer
given by the decision, but it was her understanding that it came
in nine languages and now it is down to only four. The State of
Alaska uses the National-Interstate Council of State Boards of
Cosmetology, Inc. (NIC) test, she continued, which is a
proprietary test that cannot be translated or interpreted
according to the NIC regulations. A person who doesn't speak
one of the four languages outlined by Mr. Phillips will be
unable to understand the questions being asked. There is a
large population of licensees in Alaska's nail technician
industry who don't speak any of those four languages. She said
HB 222 would correct that by allowing the test to be translated
or interpreted and would give the board that discretion. This
bill does a good job addressing those things that are confusing,
she added, and would bring House Bill 131 back to its original
intention of increasing public safety without removing the
livelihood of the current 1,000 licensees.
3:51:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked whether Ms. Jabaay said
she currently serves on the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers.
MS. JABAAY replied she served for four years and her term ended
March 31, so she is no longer on the board. She said she was
part of House Bill 131 two years ago and has been approaching
legislators since January while she was still on the board.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD inquired whether it seemed at
that time that 250 hours of instruction was important to teach
the safety of instruments being sterilized and the safety with
patients or whether it seemed that maybe it could have been a
smaller field of time utilized for teaching manicurists.
MS. JABAAY responded that the board spent quite a bit of time
debating the number of hours. Alaska had the lowest number of
hours and only had 12 hours of sanitation, she said, so not even
two days of bookwork and no testing. But the industry has
changed, she continued. She stated that the 12 hours was back
from the 1970s. She added, ut now they're using drills;
they're using files, cheese graters; they have ... transference
of [acquired immune deficiency syndrome] (AIDS) and
[Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus] (MRSA) [The
board] looked at the standards in all the states across the U.S.
and found that 250 hours brought reciprocity for the licensees -
they could take their livelihood from one state to another
without being overly burdened. She noted that Alaska is still
in the bottom one-third of those hours, meaning that another
two-thirds of the states require more hours than does Alaska
even after passage of 250 hours. The board felt it was a good
number going from 12 hours to 250 and the legislature at the
time agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD, regarding language, said she
wants to know that a manicurist understands what she is asking
and vice versa. She asked whether that came up in the
discussions when the board was looking at the different
languages that it wanted to assist in accommodating.
MS. JABAAY answered that the board did not, and does not, try to
regulate people being necessarily good at their practice. The
board wants to ensure that [manicurists] are safe, she said.
When a customer specifically requests a rounded nail versus a
square nail, that's between the customer and the practitioner
and the board thinks that will get regulated just by commerce
and economy. The board's responsibility is to ensure that those
who are licensed by the state and governed by the board to
practice can do so safely. [The board] felt that 12 hours did
not accrue that safety, but 250 hours did, she continued. So,
if [a manicurist] uses an electric drill and brings it down to
the meat the customer will know he or she is protected as an
individual because [the manicurist] will know how to respond to
that, but if a customer doesn't like the paint polish that [the
manicurist] did, that would be between the customer and [the
manicurist] to determine. The board doesn't try to govern
someone being good at their field, just safe at their field.
3:55:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD said that was not what she was
trying to get at; rather, she was trying to clarify the issue of
communication. She asked, "So, if you're seeking communication
with regard to the testing aspect of being a manicurist, and you
need someone there to help make sure they understand the testing
based on different languages, then how ... does that pertain to
the business? She added, "If English is not a second language
for them, is there difficulty then in the workplace?"
MS. JABAAY replied there probably is going to be some difficulty
if English isn't [a manicurist's] primary or secondary language.
The testing would be confusing and so could be the job. She
said she imagines that commerce would regulate some of that
[customers] who feel they don't have good ability to communicate
with their practitioners probably won't go back. But, she
added, the board would hope to govern the safety. If the
question is whether [applicants] who don't speak English as
their primary or secondary language should be allowed to have
their tests translator interpreted, she said she personally
believes they should, and HB 222 would allow that accommodation
so that [these applicants] are able to work in Alaska.
3:56:52 PM
RACHEL LAUESEN, Attorney, Fortier & Mikko, P.C. Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of HB 222. She said she wrote an
extensive letter to various representatives, has also contacted
some senators, and has provided supporting documents relating to
the flaws of House Bill 131. She stated that Ms. Jabaay did an
excellent job explaining the history and intent of the
legislature behind passing House Bill 131 as well as the intent
of the board, but she thinks it was misunderstood. She said her
testimony today is in support of HB 222.
MS. LAUESEN noted that she represents a licensed manicurist who
wishes to remain anonymous because she has some concerns about
retaliation. She added that she has spent quite a bit of time
delving into House Bill 131 and the legislative history behind
it, as well as the history of the meetings with the board
reflecting the board's intent. She stressed the importance of
passing HB 222 because of the inherent flaws with the existing
bill and the threat it serves to this group of existing
professionals. There is simply not enough time by August 31,
2017, she explained, for these individuals to pass the test,
particularly where many of them are unable to take it in their
native language; the only language that is offered for the oral
test is English.
MS. LAUESEN stated it is important to clarify that there is
nothing in the legislation that has passed that says individuals
with 250 hours of documented work experience but can't pass the
test are then eligible for a nail technician license, but they
are not required to attend 250 hours of school afterwards.
However, she said, that is how the Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing has interpreted it, and it's
an erroneous interpretation. All the existing legislation says,
she continued, is that to sit for the exam, an applicant for a
nail technician license must have satisfactorily completed 250
hours of schooling from a licensed manicurist school. The
legislature already previously determined that 250 hours of work
experience would qualify somebody to sit for the exam, but
somehow the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing has determined that to receive the nail technician
license even with 250 hours of documented work experience and
with passing the exam, [the applicant] still needs to afterwards
complete 250 hours of schooling, which can cost upwards of
$4,000. It is an additional step that was not required
previously of the holders of the advanced manicurist license,
she pointed out. She recommended that HB 222 be adopted to fix
the many problems with [House Bill 131].
4:00:57 PM
BEVERLY HARPE testified in support of HB 222. She related that
she has a close family member who has been working as a
manicurist for the last five years. This family member would
have had the total hours license prior to the 2015 deadline and
was notified then that she needed to pass a written exam and
then obtain education. English is not this family member's
first language, and it was confusing to the family member, as
well as to herself, as to why examination would be before
education since it is typically the other way around.
MS. HARPE stated she did research and worked with Representative
Claman, and that she and many others noticed that the statute
and regulations simply did not match up. She said the family
member did take and pass the exam, but it was a terrible
financial burden to take off 250 hours of work for the in-
classroom education because in-classroom is how it is offered in
Anchorage. The cost is $3,500, she noted, and the person must
attend in-classroom during the day every day, five days a week,
until reaching 250 hours. It is very burdensome, she added, to
expect someone who has met all the requirements, proved to be
proficient and competent by the testing, and passed all the
safety portions to then pay $3,500 for education for which
they've already proven they have the information and to forego
all income for one and a half months. Ms. Harpe expressed her
support for HB 222.
4:03:36 PM
KEVIN MCKINLEY, Chair, Board of Barbers and Hairdressers,
testified in support of HB 222. He said the previous witnesses
did a good job explaining HB 222 and as chair of the board he is
stating support for the bill.
4:04:21 PM
CHAIR KITO closed public testimony on HB 222 after ascertaining
no one else wished to testify.
CHAIR KITO held over HB 222.