Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/2017 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| HB48 | |
| SB45 | |
| SB78 | |
| SB51 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 51
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Veterinary Examiners; and providing for an effective
date."
2:23:59 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 51, Work Draft 30-LS0465\U (Bruce,
4/7/17).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
2:24:38 PM
SHAREEN CROSBY, STAFF, SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF, explained
that the CS would extend the termination date of the Board
of Veterinary Examiners.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:25:39 PM
KRIS CURTIS, AUDITOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, of the
"Performance Audit of the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development, Board of Veterinary
Examiners", dated March 18, 2016 (copy on file). She stated
that the board was serving in the public's best interest by
effectively licensing and regulation veterinarians and
veterinary technicians. She said that the division
recommended an 8-year extension, which was the maximum
allowed for in statute. She noted one recommendation, found
on Page 7, that the board chair should review the annual
report for accuracy and completeness before final
submission to the Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development. She noted the schedule of revenues
and expenditures found on Page 6, Page 5 contained a
schedule of licenses.
2:27:48 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to the chart on Page 6; she
clarified that the board had a surplus in its account in FY
13, which resulted in a decrease in fees. She expressed
concern that the board was going to enter deficit spending.
Ms. Curtis replied that the division did not issue
recommendations if the department had appropriately
increased and decreased fees in the past and appropriate
action was expected to be taken in the future. She
explained that only when boards failed to respond to
deficits and surpluses that recommendations were issued.
2:28:52 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked why the fees had not been
increased in light of the looming deficit spending.
JANEY HOVENDEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS,
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, stated that
prior to the last renewal cycle, the fees had been raised
from $300 to $500. She said that the board was in the black
for FY 17 by $25,303.
Co-Chair MacKinnon observed that in FY 16 and FY 17 there
had been a budget deficit carryforward.
2:30:34 PM
AT EASE
2:33:04 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that the differences in the
legislative audit accounting versus the department was that
the legislative audit was calculating through the fiscal
year, while the department was calculating through the
calendar year.
Ms. Hovenden restated that before the last renewal cycle, a
fee analysis had been conducted, it had been determined
that feed needed to be increased from $300 biannually, to
$500 biannually.
Co-Chair MacKinnon assured the committee that legislative
audit and the department would come to terms on the actual
numbers.
2:34:14 PM
Senator Olson asked whether there were ongoing
investigations or complaints to licensees.
Ms. Hovenden stated that she would need to investigate the
issue and get back to the committee.
2:34:40 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon reiterated that the CS was a simple
extension bill.
2:35:00 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
DR. RACHEL BERNGARTT, BOARD OF VETERINARY EXAMINERS,
JUNEAU, testified in support of the legislation and that
she was available for questions. She believed that the
board was functional, unique, and necessary. She shared
that the board regulated licensees and veterinary
technicians. She shared that the board offered courtesy
licenses for veterinarians coming in the state for special
events and temporary licenses for veterinarians coming from
out of state to provide relief service. She relayed that
all applications were forwarded to the board for review.
2:37:12 PM
BRIAN BERUBE, ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), called in to speak to the
alteration of the make up of the board. He hoped for
additional rural input and further discussion on services
in rural Alaska.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the issue was not
discussed in the current legislation.
Mr. Berube thought that many people in the state were
concerned about the issue and wondered who he could talk to
to bring the subject to light.
Co-Chair MacKinnon restated that the current bill was an
extension bill and that another piece of legislation could
be introduced that proposed to change the make up of the
board.
2:39:48 PM
PAMELA SANASH, SELF, NENANA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. She reiterated previous testimony
concerning an amendment in another committee that would
have changed the make-up of the current board.
Co-Chair MacKinnon restated that the issue was not
discussed in the current committee substitute.
Ms. Sanash testified in support of a sunset of the board in
2 years. She also suggested that the board should be
completely dismantled. She said that traveling
veterinarians to her rural community had been blocked by
the board, which had resulted in danger to the human and
animal public. She believed that the board was corrupt and
should be reduced or abolished. She lamented that her area
had been without animal vaccinations for 2 years because
traveling veterinarians could not obtain courtesy licensure
through the board.
2:44:06 PM
LEA MCKENZIE, SELF, SUTTON (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the bill. She echoed previous concerns
about traveling veterinarians obtaining licensure; she said
that they were not flat out denied but were not made to
feel welcome, either.
2:46:47 PM
ROMAINE KOBILSEK, SPAY ARKANSAS, ARKANSAS (via
teleconference), testified in opposition to the bill. She
expressed concern for the long tern extension of the board
given the current non-welcoming climate and the fee
schedule. She argued that the board was not working in the
best interest of the state by increasing the fee schedule,
which made it difficult for non-profit veterinarians to
afford to provide services in the state. She argued that
traveling veterinarians provided services for animals that
would otherwise go without.
2:51:12 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
2:52:03 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked whether Ms. Berngartt agreed with
the 8-year extension proposed in the bill.
Dr. Berngartt replied in the affirmative. She specified
that all 50 states had boards that regulated veterinarians
and veterinary technicians.
2:52:33 PM
AT EASE
2:52:53 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that the current bill version had
a narrow scope but that she would allow for questions that
pertained to previous versions.
Vice-Chair Bishop expressed concern for animal care in
rural Alaska. She wondered whether the board supported
veterinarians from out of state providing services in rural
Alaska.
Dr. Berngartt confirmed that receiving animal care in rural
Alaska was difficult. She said that board members were not
aware where people intended to practice when they applied
for a permanent license. She argued that the board did not
control courtesy license fees.
2:56:14 PM
Dr. Berngartt disagreed with the statement that the board
was not welcoming to outside veterinarians. She asserted
that the same criteria were used to review every
application and that board members did not make personal
judgements about applicants. She said that a courtesy
license for a special event had never been denied to a
qualified applicant. She stressed that the powers of the
board were outlined in statute and regulation. She
explained that the job of the board was to regulate, not
recruit, licensees. She relayed that the Alaska Veterinary
Rural Outreach was a private non-profit in the state that
practiced sterilization of animals. She added that other
outside companies that wanted to work in the state could
obtain the courtesy license - highlighting the fees were
not set by the board. She said that outside experts
conducting scientific research were required to obtain a
courtesy license. She concluded that the requirements were
not targeting rural veterinarians but were covering the
cost of operating the board. She lamented that the
licensure was expensive but felt that the necessity
outweighed the expense.
2:58:43 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop expressed discomfort about licensees not
disclosing where they would be practicing, specifically.
Dr. Berngartt clarified that specifics had to be given for
courtesy licensure but that temporary licensees did not
have to provide the same detail.
Vice-Chair Bishop asked whether the board might consider
adding a request for information regarding where an
applicant would be practicing.
Ms. Berngartt expressed confusion with the line of
questioning.
3:00:01 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop continued discussing the question of
temporary licenses and where applicants might practice
under those licenses. He wondered whether it would be
helpful to ask temporary license recipients where they
anticipated practicing.
Dr. Berngartt replied that temporary veterinary license
application required naming the practice that the applicant
would be filling in for; however, occasionally practices
did outreach clinics in area outside of their physical
location. She thought that it could be restrictive to
veterinarians to anticipate every physical location of
practice.
3:01:24 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled public testimony from Arkansas
that licensing fees had been inappropriately increased. She
asked whether the state had the statutory power to increase
fees or if it was the responsibility of the board.
Ms. Hovenden stated that AS 08.01.065 stipulated set fees
that approximated the cost of the program. She added that
the division considered advise from the board regarding fee
changes. She relayed that the fee schedule was ultimately
the responsibility of the state. She noted the program's
past deficit, had lead to the rise in fee. She furthered
that the courtesy license fee was less because it covered a
shorter duration of coverage.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that it had been suggested that
the state was charging fees for veterinarians coming to the
state to perform a public service. She wondered whether all
of the fees associated with the practice were justified
Ms. Hovenden relayed that all applicants went through
identical screening and required board approval.
Dr. Berngartt affirmed that all licensing was reviewed in
the same manner.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the timeline and possible
challenges for the licensing process.
3:05:23 PM
Dr. Berngartt said that she could not speak to having ever
missed a deadline or failed to license an applicant in a
timely manner. She could not speak to the licensing
practices of other states. She said that if people were
under investigation for misconduct - states did communicate
on the matter.
Ms. Hovenden had found that since 2012, through March 2017,
there had been no courtesy licenses denied.
3:06:56 PM
Senator Micciche understood that the bill would extend the
termination date of the board but that the issues
surrounding veterinary practices in the state could be
approached through specific legislation. He offered to help
to work to craft solutions for problems in rural areas of
the state.
3:08:18 PM
Senator Olson asked whether the veterinary community had a
national databank for licensees.
Dr. Berngartt stated that there was an American Association
of State Veterinary Boards but thought that there was not a
national database. She continued that every state had its
own licensing exam and standards.
3:10:41 PM
Senator Olson asked for commentary on the testimony that
had recommended a shorted board extension.
Dr. Berngartt thought that the testifier was possibly
misinformed of the term limits for board members. She did
not believe that the board should be involved in dictating
where veterinarians practiced in the state. She believed
that communities needed to develop strategies to provide
veterinary services in their areas. She stressed that the
board could not provide direct services.
3:12:45 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked whether an individual homeowner in
rural Alaska could administer a vaccination with a
hypodermic needle.
Dr. Berngartt specified that there were vaccines that
individuals could order but there were quality control
issues. She added that private individuals could not
administer the rabies vaccine at home. She recalled that
there had been a lay vaccinator program, which had provided
the vaccine, training, and refrigeration but that the
program had been discontinued due to funding and liability.
She thought that the question should be directed to the
Department of Epidemiology.
3:14:17 PM
Senator Micciche relayed that he was ok with the bill
moving forward.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought that the bill could be used to
address the proper licensure needed to ensure proper animal
care in the state.
3:15:44 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon drew attention to the Page 4 of the
audit findings:
Two regulatory changes improved and increased
veterinary services in bush communities. Regulation 12
AAC 68.041 added spay-and neuter clinics to the
courtesy license definition of special event. This
allows visiting veterinarians to provide spay-and-
neuter services in bush communities. Additionally,
regulation 12 AAC 68.300 amended veterinary technician
duties to allow licensed veterinary technicians,
employed by a licensed veterinarian, to receive
guidance remotely while providing services in
communities with no established veterinary practice.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether there was additional
information in the audit regarding rural communities.
Ms. Curtis stated that the audit had been structured to
examine the rural issue during the planning phase, field
work had been done to see what the board had done in
response to the concerns, it had been identified that the
board had acted to change regulation and make improvements
in the area.
3:17:23 PM
Senator Micciche wondered which agency the committee should
work with to answer the concerns of rural Alaska.
Ms. Curtis thought there was a state veterinarian, employed
by the state, who would be a resource for rural Alaskans.
Senator Micciche appreciated the testifier from Arkansas
and spoke to the vast size of the state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee could discuss
the fiscal note the following day.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.