Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/14/1999 03:26 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 51(L&C) - LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS
Number 1821
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is CSSB 51(L&C), "An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers,
manicurists, and cosmetologists; providing that the only
qualification necessary for licensure as a manicurist, other than
payment of fees, is completion of a class that is 12 hours in
duration, addresses relevant health, safety, and hygiene concerns,
and is offered through a school approved by the Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1827
DOUG SALIK, Researcher for Senator Tim Kelly, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward to present SB 51 as aide to the Senate
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. Mr. Salik
commented the legislation's length might appear intimidating, but
it comes mainly from changing the current statute's "cosmetology"
to "esthestics", or "cosmetologist" to "esthetician". This change
has been made primarily to clarify the language according to other
states; other states use the terms "esthetician" or "esthetics".
Mr. Salik indicated the legislation would replace the references to
"cosmetology", "cosmetologist", and "skin care only" with
"esthetics" and "esthetician". It would also create a manicurist's
license and define the required training for this license to a
12-hour class covering health, safety and hygiene. This class is
not in current statute. In addition, a temporary permit would be
created for persons who have applied for a license and have
practiced their profession in another state. Mr. Salik indicated
this would allow people to come to Alaska and continue practicing
while awaiting Alaska licensing. The legislation also creates a
new instructor's license that covers practitioners as well as
instructors. Therefore, if someone is an instructor, she/he can
hold a dual license which allows the person to both practice and
instruct in the skill. Lastly, the legislation removes the shaving
requirement from statute since it is neither taught nor tested.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if her questions concerning the
examinations should be addressed to Mr. Salik or to Ms. Reardon
[Director, Division of Occupational Licensing].
MR. SALIK indicated he could attempt to answer her questions.
Number 1935
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI understands manicurists would take a
course of not more than 12 hours, and the legislation specifically
says a person does not have to take or pass an examination. She
questioned, then, if it is basically an informational course.
MR. SALIK replied that is correct. He indicated there are
currently no statutory requirements for manicurists. The state has
not received such a volume of complaints that it believes full
licensure is necessary. Mr. Salik noted a lot of other states
require 600 or 800 hours of classes, training, internships, et
cetera. It is felt this might be somewhat severe, especially for
locations like Sitka or Ketchikan where the person in current
practice would have to close her/his shop to attend a $5,000 to
$6,000 eight-week course in Anchorage. Mr. Salik indicated the
cost of such a course would be approximate to that of a student
loan. He noted the class required by SB 51 is basically intended
to eliminate known problems such as use of dental cleaners. The
dental chemicals cost about $2 per gallon, Mr. Salik thought, as
opposed to a significantly higher cost for the correct ones.
However, the dental chemicals actually "eat away at your skin and
things." Mr. Salik indicated the concept of the 12-hour class is
that it could be taken in a weekend to avoid harm to a
practitioner's business, and would cover basic safety issues and
the possible concerns of the profession. Mr. Salik commented that,
for example, this is to instruct someone to avoid shaving down to
the point at which blood is drawn, and what should be done in case
there is blood or something along those lines.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted the legislation states that the
board will issue a license if a person submits documentation that
she/he has completed the course. Describing the example of someone
coming to Anchorage from Sitka for this course, signing in and then
leaving, Representative Murkowski asked what assurance she would
have that her manicurist has actually sat through 12 hours of
instruction. She questioned if there is a certificate of
completion or similar.
Number 2046
MR. SALIK answered that is correct. The intent of SB 51 is to
still maintain the direct oversight of the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers on the schools to ensure the schools will be taking
care of that. In turn, the schools would provide that to the
Division of Occupational Licensing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Ms. Reardon should join the committee
at the table and contribute where she feels necessary.
Number 2082
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), came
forward. She anticipates the department would be looking for a
certificate of completion - some evidence of graduation. Her
reading of the legislation is that the board itself would not be
conducting examinations. Acknowledging Representative Murkowski's
legal background, Ms. Reardon referred to new language on page 2,
beginning on line 26, "The board may not require an applicant for
licensure as a manicurist to take or pass an examination for the
field of manicuring.". Ms. Reardon indicated she thinks this would
still allow the schools to give an examination before completion of
the course is awarded. There is no examination available for
purchase to offer to a person who has completed the 12-hour course.
The national examinations available for purchase are for people who
have taken eight-week, three-month type courses.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to language on page 5, beginning
line 23 ["24"], "The board may not issue a license to a school of
manicuring if the school requires its students to complete more
than 12 hours of instruction or training before the school will
certify that the student has completed the school's manicuring
course for purposes of AS 08.13.080(b).". She questioned how this
new language fits with a beauty school eligible to receive [Alaska]
student loan monies, or if it fits: If a beauty school offers a
manicure course longer than 12 hours to its students, would its
ability to receive student loan monies possibly be jeopardized?
Representative Murkowski noted she is wondering if there is a
tie-in with student loan monies.
Number 2172
MS. REARDON answered that she needed to check with "student loan"
[Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE)] to see what
the rules are regarding school eligibility. She noted it is
conceivable the commission would require a beauty school to be
licensed through the Division of Occupational Licensing. Ms.
Reardon commented Representative Murkowski is the first person to
ask this question.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated she would be interested to know
because she sits on the ACPE and is aware there are beauty schools
for which students can receive Alaska Student Loans. Her concern
is that this legislation not go against the commission's
requirements for school eligibility.
MS. REARDON explained the reason for the language on page 5 is to
encourage schools to create these 12-hour courses. She noted the
legislation's success depends on schools responding to the demand
for these 12-hour courses. Ms. Reardon expressed her frank concern
that the few beauty schools in Alaska might respond by saying they
only offer the three-month course; if this happened, there would be
no place for people to receive the 12-hour course. Ms. Reardon
said there is not a lot of competition in beauty schools outside of
Anchorage. She commented, "I think the sponsor was probably
responding to some of my concerns that way by trying to give
further impetus to say that if you're going to do it, you have to
offer the 12-hour course because that's all the state is willing to
mandate that people take at this point." Ms. Reardon noted she
would definitely look into the postsecondary angle in order to
provide a better answer.
Number 2251
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to a one-page copy of an informational
flyer in the bill packet on Cimarron Tech Nail Artist School. He
noted it shows a cost of $3,350 for a 180-hour curriculum and
displays prominently on the bottom of the flyer that Alaska Student
Loans are available. He noted six weeks seemed like an awful long
time.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out all the things the students
are taught.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "This looks like it could be, I hate
(indisc.), (indisc.) in terms of education here." He questioned if
Mr. Salik had any further testimony "on the Senate Committee"
regarding these types of educational programs (indisc.) being
offered in the state.
MR. SALIK indicated the legislation's intent is to not jeopardize
the business of a nail technician who might own and run a salon in
a small community by requiring the person to leave for six weeks to
complete a course in a profession she/he has already been
practicing for a significant period of time. He noted the intent
is that that person probably already knows what she/he is doing,
but should have a refresher [course] on the possible dangers.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee had received testimony from any of the schools currently
providing this curriculum.
Number 2327
MR. SALIK answered in the negative, stating, "No ... I had only
spoken with them personally and I had tried to ask them to testify,
but they said that they'd prefer not, that they were okay with it.
... They were not happy that it was 12 hours but they thought it
was a step in the right direction. They still wanted to be able to
provide a further, longer course ... to anyone who'd prefer to
specialize (indisc.) such."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that there was nothing in the
legislation that an advanced certificate of manicuring could still
be provided, but it just couldn't be mandated by the student loan.
He indicated he wondered if that was what the provision in the
language referenced by Representative Murkowski meant.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI clarified that language is on page 5. She
reviewed the wording, "may not issue a license ... if the school
requires".
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO indicated, then, a person could still go to
the nail artist school for an advanced degree.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, however, the person could not get a
student loan for it.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed, and commented that the nail artist
school would not be licensed.
Number 2375
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented to Ms. Reardon that the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers would license the schools; therefore, they
would have to go through the licensing procedure in place now.
MS. REARDON indicated the board licenses all the schools covering
the disciplines - barber schools, hairdresser schools, and
skin-care cosmetology/esthetics school - and the board would also
be certifying the licensing of schools offering the manicure
course. She would anticipate that it is often the same school
offering the entire range of disciplines. The school would receive
one school license which indicates what subjects can be taught,
depending on the qualifying documentation provided to the division.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the legislation looks like more of a bill
intended to cut down abuse of the student loan program than
anything else. He questioned if this assumption is correct,
commenting he has not read the entire bill.
Number 2463
MS. REARDON answered she does not think that that was behind this,
explaining that most student loans for beauty professions are used
primarily for hairdressing, and nothing is being changed regarding
how schools of hairdressing operate. Ms. Reardon stated, "The
things that you have directed your attention to in this
conversation regarding the limits on schools were designed to try
to create 12-hour courses that people could take - to try not to
have onerous regulation coming down on existing small businesses
or..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 99-39, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. REARDON continued, "...(indisc.) schools from not getting -
being student loan-eligible anymore, that hadn't - actually, we
hadn't thought about the whole topic. But perhaps on page 5, I
don't know how the sponsor feels about it, but we could [have] said
something more like, 'The board will not issue a license to a
school of manicuring unless the school offers a manicure course ...
of 12 hours of instruction.' Something like that might work
because as long as they offer a 12-hour course they can also offer
a 260-hour course or something." The concern Ms. Reardon has, and
perhaps this was reflected in some of the sponsor's decision, is
that if some pressure is not put on [schools] to create the 12-hour
course, everyone will respond by only creating the 360-hour or
180-hour courses. Then, every manicurist in the state would have
to take one of those longer courses. Ms. Reardon does see why a
school want to offer a comprehensive course like the one described
in the bill packet; there is no harm in having a more complete
education.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned Mr. Salik if there had been any
testimony from "postsecondary education" on this legislation.
MR. SALIK answered in the negative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, his suspicions are not necessarily
confirmed in terms of the student loan program.
MR. SALIK indicated he believes some of the manicurists' curriculum
is covered during the barber/hairdressing program. He noted this
simply might be a further refresher. Most current barbers or
hairdressers already have a basic understanding of manicuring and
have performed some manicures.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG acknowledged Representative Brice's question,
commenting, "Before we beat this thing to death here for a minute,
but maybe we'll go back to it ...."
Number 0083
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he thinks they still need to beat a
little bit more. He asked what the basis was for the 12 hours. In
response to Mr. Salik's comment, Representative Brice said he
understands why, but questioned how.
MR. SALIK indicated the number of hours was set with the intention
that it be small enough to allow someone from a more remote
location to travel to Anchorage and complete the course over a
weekend, rather than having to close her/his shop for an extended
period of time. Mr. Salik further indicated other states require
between six to eight weeks, or similar.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted 20 hours is more than 12 hours but not
six weeks. He understands there has to be a certain level of
arbitrary decision; he is just wondering if 12 hours is enough. He
has heard testimony that there are some pretty invasive techniques
performed, referring to Mr. Salik's earlier comment about drilling
and drawing blood. Representative Brice noted fairly sharp
implements being stuck up through a person's cuticle; he pointed
out that is a question. However, Representative Brice said he also
would like to clarify a statement made by Ms. Reardon. He
indicated he thought he had understood Representative Murkowski's
comments until Ms. Reardon spoke. Representative Brice referred to
language on page 2 being added to current statute, "The board may
not require an applicant for licensure as a manicurist to take or
pass an examination for the field of manicuring." He believes it
was Ms. Reardon's testimony that this would not bar a school from
giving a test before a person receives her/his certificate of
completion. However, Representative Brice indicates he thinks this
would not allow a test to be required at all. He described the
scenario of someone taking the 12-hour course and using this
language to inform the school it expressly is not allowed to
require a test before giving out the certificate of completion.
Number 0192
MS. REARDON indicated she feels pretty comfortable saying the
intent of this language was to refer to back to the earlier
sentences of that section relating to the duties and functions of
the board regarding meetings and examinations. She indicated the
language Representative Brice referenced may not clearly reflect
this intent. If the committee is of the mind to "fine-tune" the
legislation through a committee substitute already, Ms. Reardon
thought the department would not have any problem with clarifying
that point: the board may not require a board examination but
schools may require examinations of their choice. She explained
the department does not want to offer a board examination because
it would have to write the examination and conduct it.
MR. SALIK said that was correct. The intent was not to require the
board to test, but the schools might require anything they would
like including a practical test. It would be the school's
requirement, not the board's, not the state's.
MS. REARDON noted perhaps additional wording regarding the 12-hour
limit on instruction - to the effect that the person has to have
successfully completed the 12 hours - would make the committee more
comfortable. She indicated this would provide some flexibility and
commented these are improvements to the legislation.
Number 0280
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated his preference would be to mandate some
type of examination, even if it was a practicum, so that the school
would have record that an individual actually took an exam in case
the person was audited for her/his conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated his agreement and a bit of remaining
concern with the 12-hour issue.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Salik, regarding the 12-hour course, if
there had been any testimony regarding the curriculum [necessary]
to train a manicurist.
MR. SALIK answered it was the intent to allow the board to define
the curriculum.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the issue is whether 12 hours is enough
time.
MR. SALIK indicated it was felt the definition of "health, safety
and hygiene" was of the proper breadth to allow the board to
determine the curriculum which would need to be covered.
Number 0359
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA questioned if there is an upper reasonable
limit of what could conveniently fit into a weekend if the intent
is avoid business disruption for those who would need to travel to
participate. She noted she could see the situation where the board
would select more items than would be effective to put into 12
hours, commenting that "to lock it onto that" does seem to
arbitrary. She asked if 12 hours was it.
MS. REARDON replied that, certainly, there was some arbitrariness
to 12 hours. She wanted to put an upper limit so that it wouldn't
be a huge number of hours and the sponsor cooperated. Ms. Reardon
is just not aware of very much research on this profession. She
would recommend against being specific in statute about the
curriculum, above and beyond the fact that it is health and safety
the state is concerned with. Her reasoning for this is that she
suspects there will be a lot more public comment from schools
during the regulation writing process. She said the schools are
pretty active interacting with the board about curriculum and
similar items. Ms. Reardon suspects the advent of acrylic nails,
with the possibilities of infection and other similar issues, has
been the impetus for licensing like this. If the curriculum is set
in statute, the statute might need to be revised in a couple of
years as different kinds of nails and products come out. Ms.
Reardon expressed her lack of knowledge about nail issues, noting
perhaps that is why she hesitates to put anything in the law
regarding the curriculum.
Number 0500
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained he brings the issue up because he
carried a bill dealing with the subject a few years previously.
That legislation spoke of 300 hours; Representative Brice noted he
had to fight to get it down to 300 hours. He discussed that
former-Representative Cynthia Toohey had been a member of the
legislature at that time. She had her nails done and, as a nurse,
had treated diabetics who had to have manicures [pedicures] because
of the high risk of infection in the feet. Representative Brice
indicated former-Representative Toohey had been familiar with the
"more precarious" techniques associated with the profession. This
is where Representative Brice's concern comes from. Additionally,
as he recalls, few states offered less than 150 hours at that time.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned that beauty schools currently
touch on manicuring. The schools have this comprehensive program
teaching a person to cut hair, do nails and do some skin
treatments. He asked if this would mandate that these schools
dedicate a minimum of 12 hours, or if this would mandate that the
schools provide a whole different course. Representative Halcro
asked if the schools would still be able to incorporate manicuring
into their current curriculum.
MS. REARDON explained SB 51 sets requirements for a manicurist's
license. Currently, some manicurist training is being provided to
people getting hairdressers' licenses. She would think the schools
could require whatever manicure training they wished for the
hairdresser's license. Through regulation, the board has required
a certain amount of manicuring for a hairdresser's license. This
statute gives the board a lot of leeway - the board sets the hour
amount and the entire curriculum for barbering and hairdressing;
the statute contains very little specific detail about how the
state will license that. Ms. Reardon believes the board requires
1600 hours of training and a certain amount of different
procedures. She doesn't think manicuring is required of barbers
but is required of hairdressers. The required amount of manicuring
for hairdressers should appear in the regulations. Ms. Reardon
stated, "I would think that they could continue to do that, both to
meet the board 'regs' or to exceed the board 'regs,' if they chose
to - for hairdressers, just not for manicurists' licenses."
Number 0641
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG drew Ms. Reardon's and the committee's attention
to a March 25, 1999, letter or fax in the bill packet sent to the
Senate from Rosalyn Wyche, a member of the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers. He indicated the communication said the board agreed
with SB 51 except for the amount of hours manicurists should
receive and that they should be tested. The communication
recommends 300 hours and following the Milady textbook. The
chairman questioned Ms. Reardon about this.
MS. REARDON explained Ms. Wyche and another board member had missed
the last board meeting due to weather conditions. Indicating an
attempt to teleconference has not been successful, Ms. Reardon said
she believes Ms. Wyche based her letter on positions the board had
taken in previous meetings or years. However, at the March 22,
1999, meeting the board did discuss this very topic of hours and
Ms. Reardon observed it appeared the board felt getting licensing
this way is a good start and could be adjusted in future years.
Referring to the minutes of that board meeting, Ms. Reardon noted
a motion had been carried unanimously by the three members present
expressing the board's approval or support for the CS for SB 51, as
presented in Version G, the current version [CSSB 51(L&C)].
MR. SALIK indicated the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee, he believes, requested each board member be faxed
regarding this legislation. The responses are included in the bill
packet; Ms. Wyche's response [received 3/11/99] shows she was in
support of the legislation and had chosen not to provide further
comments. Mr. Salik commented he had spoken with Ms. Wyche after
the legislation passed the Senate; she was glad it had come this
far and had expressed the board was excited that at least they had
something in the right direction. Mr. Salik said the board is not
sure how far to go in that direction either. He compared this to
how the 12 hours was arrived at. Mr. Salik noted Ms. Wyche said
she personally believes more hours would be a better thing, but yet
the board agreed that 12 hours was a good step in the right
direction.
Number 0799
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how the issue of "grandfathering" was
being handled. He asked for confirmation that the practice of
manicuring by a hairdresser who has gone through a class requiring
250 to 300 hours of manicurist training would not be disallowed by
this legislation because the person hasn't taken the 12-hour
course.
MR. SALIK replied he believes this version does not grandfather
people in; these people would be asked to take the 12-hour course,
which would, at the very least, be a refresher for some. He
indicated he had done some research regarding other states and the
required hours vary greatly.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the state of Alaska requires 15 practical
[manicure] operations for a hairdresser's license and 180 wet hair
stylings and dryings. The chairman commented the regulation
reference is 12 AAC 09.160[(12)].
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wondered whether or not people with the
hairdressing license should receive some type of grandfathering and
not be required to go through the 12-hour class.
Number 0910
MS. REARDON clarified Representative Brice meant grandfathering in
currently-licensed hairdressers to receive manicurists' licenses,
not that hairdressers would be allowed to practice manicuring
without a separate manicurist's license. She noted the second
option would cover both existing and future hairdressers; Ms.
Reardon said it is just another option for dealing with that.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented the question arises that if to
receive a hairdressing license, a person has to go through a higher
standard of education and training. He thinks it only stands to
reason that that license should give a person the right to practice
manicuring on its own.
MS. REARDON said she doesn't think the bill does that at this time,
however.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Section 20, on page 8.
[Section 20 read:
* Sec. 20. AS 08.13.190 is amended to read:
Sec. 08.13.190. Failure to possess a license or
permit. A person who practices barbering, hairdressing,
manicuring, or esthetics [COSMETOLOGY], or operates a
shop, or operates a school of barbering, hairdressing,
manicuring, or esthetics [COSMETOLOGY], or teaches in a
school of barbering, hairdressing, manicuring, or
esthetics [COSMETOLOGY], without a license, temporary
permit, temporary license, or student permit and who is
not exempt under AS 08.13.120 or under AS 08.13.160(d) is
guilty of a class B misdemeanor.]
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted this is the penalty for failure to
possess a license or permit. She would bring this up in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee if this legislation had that referral:
she thinks there is a great difference between someone teaching or
operating a school without a license and this group of manicurists
who would only have to take this 12-hour health and safety course
without an examination. However, these manicurists would still be
guilty of a Class B misdemeanor if they fail to take this course
and get their licenses. Representative Murkowski commented this
does not equate. She recommended the examination of this and
removal or reduction of the penalties for at least the manicurists.
Number 1025
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted all occupational licensing infractions are
subject to Class B misdemeanors; it is a universal penalty. He
questioned Ms. Reardon regarding the last occasion someone in
Alaska was charged with a criminal misdemeanor for being out of
violation with his/her license.
MS. REARDON answered that it has not occurred in their memory.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if it is correct that all occupational
licensing infractions are generally subject to the Class B
misdemeanor.
MS. REARDON answered there are a few that might be Class A
misdemeanors. Mobile home dealers, unusually enough, might be
subject to Class A misdemeanors. Ms. Reardon added, "And also in
some philological reasons in some of the professions like medical.
If you practice without a doctor's license, I think it can work its
way up to maybe even a lower felony or something." She indicated,
however, the general penalty for occupational licensing infractions
is a Class B misdemeanor but there are quite practical difficulties
with applying that because the district attorney's office and the
police are pursuing many types of crimes. Therefore, the division
likes to have some penalty in statute to encourage compliance with
licensing even though it may never be enforced. The penalty could
be a different level, but Ms. Reardon feels there does need to be
some penalty. She referred to unsuccessful legislation introduced
several years previously by Representative Jeannette James which
would have given boards the ability to assess fines for unlicensed
activity; that legislation was unsuccessful for an unrelated
reason. Currently, boards have no statutory authority over
non-licensees. It is left to the criminal justice system to punish
people, but it is not happening.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted unless a person is on real estate
commission.
MS. REARDON indicated this was due to the chairman's previous
legislation [the previous session's HB 33].
Number 1118
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she would not have a problem with it
if the manicurist license actually meant something. However, at
this point no examination is required; the person simply has to
check in and pay her/his fees. Representative Murkowski expressed
that putting these people in the same class as a beauty school
teacher or operator does not make sense.
MS. REARDON commented there are other professions Representative
Murkowski would probably feel the same way about, although her
point is not invalid. Ms. Reardon indicated there are some
professions that basically only require a fee and signature. She
questioned if there were other types of lower penalties that would
be a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted there is a penalty for people
practicing without a license; he non-seriously questioned if there
is a penalty for those practicing with a license but who are really
bad, commenting he has received some really bad haircuts.
MS. REARDON stated there is a very good point underlying that and
probably not one this legislation wishes to address: there is not
the authority, if this bill passes, for the state to remove
hairdressers', barbers', manicurists', or estheticians' licenses
for incompetence. The statute states the board can discipline a
licensee for violating the chapter but nothing in the chapter says
a person has to perform at any specific level. The chapter
requires a person to have a license and some other similar
requirements. A school might be required to teach certain things
and give certain records but nowhere does the statute specifically
require safe or competent practice. Therefore, the division cannot
cite anything in the chapter as being violated if a person fails
practice safely or competently. Ms. Reardon noted she has brought
this issue up in other settings. She thinks this is a bigger issue
for all of barber and hairdressing; it is not anything they are
exacerbating except that it is being expanded to another
profession. Ms. Reardon noted the other downside of solving this
issue is that if the division had enforcement abilities, it would
then want to enforce. This leads to the risk of a fiscal note for
realistic reasons. Currently, the division spends no money on
enforcement. Ms. Reardon indicated that if a person calls with a
complaint regarding a licensee's competence, the division expresses
sympathy, but since it has no enforcement ability, it incurs no
cost because no time is spent on the complaint.
Number 1305
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out this is where the division relies on
"the invisible hand and the power of the marketplace to sort out
the competent from the incompetent," noting he thinks that
basically works. The chairman indicated he wished the transition
issue to be addressed. He commented there are a large number of
people of Vietnamese background doing manicuring all over the West
Coast and in Alaska. These people have been in business for a
number of years without licenses or anything. The chairman
questioned if these people could receive the temporary licenses
until they take the 12-hour course or how that transition would
work. He asked what he would have to do if he was currently a
manicurist.
MS. REARDON indicated all current manicurists would have until the
legislation's effective date, September 1, 2001, to receive the 12
hours of training and obtain their licenses. Ms. Reardon expressed
her belief that if there is enough risk to public health and safety
to merit licensure and 12 hours of health and safety training for
this currently unregulated profession, not requiring existing
practitioners to take this 12 hours of training would belie the
concern about health and safety risk.
Number 1438
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it is the chairman's desire to take
Representative Sanders' advice and assign this legislation to a
very small subcommittee. The chairman indicated this does not
reflect negatively on Mr. Salik's efforts and that would be
communicated to Senator Tim Kelly. Chairman Rokeberg noted he is
concerned about the 12 hours. He indicated he would like also like
to receive some feedback from ACPE on how this fits in; the
chairman commented they obviously need an amendment in that area
just to clarify that and to make an examination is required before
someone is certified, with records of that examination, et cetera.
Additionally, they need to make sure the transition provisions are
acceptable. Chairman Rokeberg indicated it sounds as if they are.
He guesses it is this issue regarding the length of hours and how
it fits into "postsecondary."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented on the reference on page 5, line
7, to payment of a credential investigation fee for someone
entering from another state. She noted the person basically waives
into this licensure by proving her/his licensing in the other
state. She wondered whether this is the regular licensure fee or
if the person pays the license fee plus the credential
investigation fee and exactly what this is all about.
MS. REARDON indicated she would have to check.
Number 1575
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how reciprocity with other states is
handled.
MR. SALIK indicated the legislation would create a temporary permit
for people who are already licensed in another state to allow these
people to practice in Alaska while obtaining Alaska licensure.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE thought the committee would also want to have
the discussion about people who have had course work beyond the 12
hours through other licenses.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he thinks that is one of the issues with
postsecondary education. He appointed Representative Brice as
chair of the subcommittee on SB 51 because of Representative
Brice's expertise regarding this legislation. The chairman
indicated the two female members of the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee, Representative Cissna, also of the minority,
and Representative Murkowski would serve on the subcommittee. The
chairman noted this is not a sexist recommendation; he indicated he
thinks "you of the fairer sex" have more expertise in this area
than "us dumb guys over here."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA mentioned she has never had her nails done.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that the subcommittee, in conjunction
with Mr. Salik and Senator Tim Kelly, expeditiously bring back a
slightly revised version so SB 51 could properly be sent to the
House floor in a proper way. [CSSB 51(L&C) WAS ASSIGNED TO
SUBCOMMITTEE]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|