Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/12/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB302 | |
| HB318 | |
| HB323 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 302 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 323 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 318
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Social Work Examiners; and providing for an effective
date."
Co-Chair Foster indicated that there was 1 amendment before
to committee. He invited the bill sponsor, Representative
Sponholz, and her aide to the table.
1:42:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPONHOLZ, SPONSOR, introduced herself
and indicated that her aide would introduce the bill.
TED MADSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPONHOLZ, explained
that the bill was a sunset extension for the Board of
Social Work Examiners. It was currently scheduled to sunset
on June 30, 2018. However, HB 318 would extend the sunset
to June 30, 2026. The Board of Social Work examiners
licenses about 783 social workers throughout the state as
of March 2017. The board issued licenses to qualified
applicants, established continuing education requirements
and a code of professional ethics and standards, and
adopted regulations as necessary. The Division of
Legislative Audit reviewed the operations of the board and
concluded that the board was serving the public's interest
by running effectively. The legislative auditor was
available in the room and Lara Theisen with the Board of
Social Work Examiners to offer testimony.
Co-Chair Foster invited Kris Curtis to the table to walk
the committee through the sunset audit for the Board of
Social Work Examiners.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, suggested that members should have a
copy of the audit dated October 2017. She reported that the
division found that board was serving the public's
interesting by effectively licensing and regulating social
work examiners. The division found that board meetings were
conducted in compliance with law, investigations were
generally processed timely, and the board issued or changed
regulations to improve the profession. The division was
recommending the maximum 8-year extension.
Ms. Curtis continued that scheduled licensing activities on
page 6 was 783 licenses as of March 2017, which was a 41
percent increase compared to the prior 2009 sunset audit.
It was a growing profession. A schedule of revenues and
expenditure was on page 7. There was a surplus of about
$95,000 at the end of FY 17. The schedule of license fees
was on page 8.
Ms. Curtis relayed that the division had 2 recommendations
for improvements. The division recommended that the
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional
Licensing (DCBPL) director improved procedures to ensure
board-required documentation was obtained prior to
licensure. Legislative Audit tested 25 licenses that were
issued the audit period and found one error. The board had
appropriately approved a license pending receipt of key
documentation but found that DCBPL staff failed to obtain
the documentation prior to issuing the license.
Ms. Curtis reviewed Recommendation 2. Legislative Audit
recommended that the Office of the Governor Boards and
Commissions Director work with the board to help identify
interested applicants to fill a vacant board position.
There was a board position that was vacant March 2017 which
was still vacant in October. It was one of the clinical
social work positions. Statute required that 1 of 5 board
member position could not be an employee of the federal
government, the state government, the local government, or
a non-profit agency. The Office of the Governor staff
stated that these were stringent requirements that made it
difficult to identify interested applicants. Responses to
the audit began on page 19. The first response was from the
Office of the Governor. In the response they reiterated the
stringent requirements that made it difficult to find
interested applicants. They agreed to work with the board
to help fill the vacancy.
Ms. Continued that the department's response was on page
21. The department agreed with both recommendations. In
regard to the first recommendation concerning licensure
documentation, they agreed that additional quality checks
were needed to help insure that their administrative record
was complete. They stated that additional supervisory
resources were needed to help ensure that the standards
were met. The board's response was on page 23. The board
agreed with both recommendations.
SARA CHAMBERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS, AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, indicated
that the fiscal note was structured similarly to the
previous extension just heard by the committee. She
explained that the $21,400 would provide authority for the
board to do its business including attending 4 board
meetings per year, providing public notices for the board
meetings, and providing stipends pertaining to the board.
If the board were to sunset, the department would take over
licensure.
Representative Wilson asked about the difference between a
private, non-profit organization that was exempt and a non-
exempt non-profit organization. It sounded like some non-
profit organizations would be allowed on the board
currently. By allowing those that were exempt, she wondered
what kind of organizations would be included to be on the
board.
Ms. Chambers thought Representative Wilson's question would
be better addressed by the bill sponsor. She thought that
making a wider pool available would be helpful.
Representative Spohnholz responded that the vast majority
of social workers either work for a government organization
or a non-profit organization. There were very few social
worker that practiced in private practice. Hence, there had
been difficulty recruiting someone for the fifth position
that was required to be licensed in social work but who did
not serve in either a governmental capacity or a non-profit
capacity. The amendment would allow for 1 member of the
board to either be a private practice social worker or work
for a non-profit organization. An example of the kinds of
non-profits that hired social workers would be some of the
tribal health organizations or Denali Family Services, a
non-profit organization in Anchorage that hired social
workers.
1:50:35 PM
Representative Wilson was trying to understand the
difference between exempt versus non-exempt.
Representative Spohnholz replied that all non-profit
organizations were exempt from federal taxes.
1:51:00 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "Examiners;":
Insert "relating to the composition of the Board
of Social Work Examiners;"
Page l, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 2. AS 08.95.010(a) is amended to read:
(a)There is created the Board of Social Work
Examiners composed of five members, as follows:
one member licensed under this chapter as a
baccalaureate social worker; one member licensed
under this chapter as a master social worker; two
members licensed under this chapter as clinical
social workers; and one public member who has
never been licensed under this chapter. At least
one of the licensed members must be a person who
is not an employee of a federal, state, or local
government [OR OF A PRIVATE NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME
TAX]."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Co-Chair Seaton OBJECTED for discussion. He wanted the
auditor to come forward.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if she thought the amendment would
aid in filling the vacancies.
Ms. Curtis replied that Legislative Audit did not conduct
any work to learn what types of employers employed social
workers. She could not comment on whether most of the
social workers worked for non-profits. She could confirm
that the specific stringent requirements and it not being
one of the 4 groups was causing trouble in making sure they
had full representation.
Representative Kawasaki noted that there were 590 clinical
social workers, 117 master social workers, and 47
baccalaureate social workers that looked active. He relayed
that there were 1 out of 47 potential candidates and only
47 potential candidates. Under the master social workers
there were 117 and under the clinical social were close to
600 between the 2. The amendment would delete the private
non-profit organization. He understood it would open up the
administration's ability to find someone to fill the
vacancy. He challenged whether it was really that difficult
to find a person to fill it. He knew it would be made
easier by making the change. He did not know why the
requirement was initially included. Typically, the
legislature had clean board extensions.
Mr. Madsen responded that in discussions with the
Legislative Research they reviewed the law from 1988 which
established the Board of Social Work Examiners. The
discussion at the time was that the board was going to be
regulating social workers who were in governmental
practice, non-profit practice, and private practice. The
idea was to have someone in private practice be able to
regulate those who were also in private practice. However,
over time it was found that the board vacancy had come up
and was very difficult to fill because of the stringent
requirement. He thought Ms. Theisen from the board would be
able to testify as to whether the board was in support of
the amendment.
Representative Kawasaki relayed that the statute state that
at least 1 of the 4 licensed members could not be an
employee of the federal, state, or local government, or a
private non-profit organization. It meant that the other 3
could be. He questions the difficulty in finding 1 person
to qualify for the vacancy. If it was that difficult to
find someone he was fine with it. He would like to hear
from someone on the board.
Mr. Madsen had discussions with the chair of the Board of
Social Worker Examiners. From her discussions it seemed
that Division of Boards and Commissions received a number
of qualified applicants who would be otherwise qualified
for the position. However, they were not able to fill the
position because they worked for non-profits.
1:56:36 PM
LAURA THEISEN, BOARD OF SOCIAL WORK EXAMINERS, GLENALLEN
(via teleconference), reported that the board had looked
for a significant amount of time to find an appropriate
person to fill the position. It had been very difficult.
She believed it would be positive for the board to be able
to broaden the number of possible applicants.
1:57:07 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked that with a change if the
private sector would be properly represented.
Ms. Theirsen asked Representative Guttenberg to repeat his
question.
Representative Guttenberg asked if it would be a problem
not having someone in private practice on the board. He was
concerned with social workers in private practice not being
properly represented. He asked if it was more important to
have a full board or everyone represented.
Ms. Theirsen replied that it would be more important to
have a full board. The goal of the board was public
protection. She believed that the board had representation
from the licensed social workers with 2 of them on the
board. She did not believe there would be an issue.
1:58:44 PM
Representative Wilson asked for the number of private
social workers in the state.
Mr. Madsen was looking for the information. However, on the
website for the Board of Social Work Examiners did not have
the number broken down. It was difficult to find somebody
who was qualified through the private practice position to
serve on the board.
1:59:13 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the amendment would prevent
anyone from applying from the private sector.
Mr. Madsen responded, "That is correct."
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 318(FIN) out of
Committee as amended with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 318(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1(CED).
2:00:57 PM
AT EASE
2:01:19 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 318 Amendment #1 A.1.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 318 |
| HB318 Sponsor Statement 2.7.2018.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 318 |
| HB 318 Social-Work-Final-Report-WEB.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 318 |
| HB302 Sponsor Statement 1.30.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 302 |
| HB 302 Audit BPC-Final-Report-WEB.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 302 |
| HB 323 Audit Pharmacy-FINAL-Report-WEB.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| HB323 Support Letter 2.5.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| HB323 Sectional Analysis 2.2.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 323 |
| HB323.SponsorStatement.verD.2.2.18.pdf |
HFIN 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 323 |