Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
01/26/2018 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 | |
| HB180 | |
| HB274 | |
| HB273 | |
| HB275 | |
| HB240 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 274 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 275 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 275-EXTEND: BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
3:53:04 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 275 "An Act extending the termination date of the
Board of Massage Therapists; and providing for an effective
date."
3:53:23 PM
MS. KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Kito, explained that HB 275
extended the massage therapist board by four years. She added
that as a newly licensed program, there would be growing pains
and that the board was actively working to improve the industry
to better protect Alaskans.
3:54:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for the total fee massage
therapists would pay.
MS. KOENEMAN deferred to Sarah Chambers.
3:55:03 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Deputy Director, Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED), replied that there was
a $200 initial application fee for a new licensee and a $290
biennial fee for a total of $490 for two years. Additionally,
there was a $60 fingerprint charge, which was a pass-through
amount. Those renewing would pay $290 for a two-year renewal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the fees were set by the
board or by the division.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that fees were set by the division in
consultation with the board as set forth in AS 08.01.065. The
fees had initially been set higher, and since there were more
licensees it had been lowered. The division would continue to
examine the fees annually and adjust accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON spoke to a discussion with staff
regarding a number of letters requesting the board be dissolved.
He expressed a concern that there was not the buy-in that had
been hoped for. He asked Ms. Chambers for her impression of the
amount of dissention.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that she worked closely with the board and
had not heard of much dissention until recently when the board
faced the new question of education and qualifications. With
1,400 licensees, there had not been a majority of people
questioning the board's fitness.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON mentioned a bill from former
Representative Westlake regarding background checks and asked
whether Ms. Chambers felt Alaska background checks were
adequate.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that this was the only licensing program
which required a background check upon every renewal or every
two years. No other of the 43 programs required that. One of
the missing pieces in public protection was the licensure of
massage establishments which the board supported and
Representative Kito had a bill which addressed that.
4:01:35 PM
CHAIR KITO clarified that HB 145 [subsequently withdrawn by
sponsor] would be heard in committee as well as HB 110, which
was his bill and he hoped to keep those separate from the sunset
audit.
4:02:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether, should the board be
dissolved, the department's work would cause an increase in
fees.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that the only cost of the board was travel
and board meeting expenses. She estimated that should the board
sunset, at least one additional staff member would need to be
hired.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL queried which was the preponderant issue in
the letters of dissent.
MS. CHAMBERS explained that being a newly licensed industry, the
board was working hard. They had found expectations for speedy
licensure were not being met. The issues were that licensing
took too long and there were too many hoops to go through. The
board was currently analyzing its systems and licenses to meet
public safety concerns as efficiently as possible.
4:05:12 PM
CHAIR KITO clarified the two major issues were the cost of the
board, which was decreasing due to an increase in licensed
individuals, and the delay in the licensure process.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the background checks were
responsible for the delays.
MS. CHAMBERS elucidated that the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) handled the background checks and had to work with the
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). There was a delay due
to the volume in tracking the fingerprints. The board had to
evaluate each license and had to give thoughtful evaluation if
they get back a negative report. Additionally, there was often
an appeal of the board's decision, and that could take time.
4:08:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON mentioned a letter from a licensee
stating that the initial license had cost $610 and cost $410
every two years. He asked for confirmation.
MS. CHAMBERS agreed that the initial fees had been slightly
higher in 2016. The license fee of around $600 was correct.
The department had since adjusted that downward. She added that
more recent licensees had paid $290 plus the $60 fingerprinting
fee.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked about the enforcement
responsibilities of the board.
MS. CHAMBERS replied that all of the licensing programs had
enforcement provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked about the review process.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that there were accrediting agencies that
were recognized by the board as well as other criteria that had
to be met. That was one of the more recent issues that the
board had faced.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH declared his appreciation of the insight on
the polling and questionnaires carried out by the board.
4:12:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that the board was licensing
individual massage therapists and asked about the licensure of
institutions. He asked whether the owner of the establishment
would have to be a licensed therapist.
MS. CHAMBERS replied there were currently no statutes governing
massage establishments.
4:13:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL surmised that if someone were engaged in
illegal activity, they probably would not go through the process
of applying for a license. He asked whether it had ever
happened that someone had applied and had been discovered to
have engaged in illegal activity.
MS. CHAMBERS replied in the affirmative, specifying that with
the initial licensing push there had been some applicants who
did not meet standards. She believed that the rationale behind
continuing with background checks and fingerprinting was to
ensure that all applicants were "on the up and up."
4:14:38 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 275. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
4:15:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP declared that he would support the bill to
extend the board. He stated he felt HB 275 did not go far
enough as it did not license the massage establishments. He
would work with the chair on some additional language.
CHAIR KITO added that he was interested in addressing the issue
of fingerprinting frequency and of licensure of massage
establishments.
4:17:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report HB 275 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 275 was reported from the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.