Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/24/2017 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 | |
| SB83 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 83(HSS)
"An Act relating to the protection of vulnerable
adults and residents of long term care facilities."
1:35:52 PM
TERESA HOLT, LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, explained that the word Ombudsman was a Swedish
word that meant representative of the people. She explained
that SB 83 amended provisions of AS 47.62, related to the
Office of the Long Term Care Ombudsman and certain
provisions of AS 47.24 (protection of vulnerable adults) to
ensure alignment with 42 U.S.C. 3058(g) (Older Americans
Act of 1965) and its implementing regulations. She
furthered that the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act
of 2016 created new regulations for the Long Term Care
Ombudsman program. The federal Administration for Community
Living reviewed all states for compliance to the new act
and discovered the two Alaskan statutes out of alignment.
Regardless, the Department of Revenue (DOR) believed that
the changes were beneficial to Alaska's program.
Ms. Holt related the provisions in the bill. She reported
that the legislation aligned state and federal statute and
regulations to ensure that the Ombudsman only shared
resident information with informed consent and only
obtained records, investigated, and provided referrals when
a resident was unable to provide informed consent. The bill
included new definitions for "resident" and "resident
representative." She indicated that due to a conflict of
interest, the bill removed the option for mandatory
reporters to meet their reporting requirements by
submitting reports to the office of the Long Term Care
Ombudsman. In addition, the bill clarified the separation
of the role of Long Term Care Ombudsman from the role of
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and
allowed the Ombudsman's office to serve residents in long
term care facilities under 60 years of age.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the language changes in
sections 4 and 6 of the legislation that dealt with the
Ombudsmen's ability to share reports. He asked about the
effects of the change from "shall" to a "may". Ms. Holt
responded that the Central Intake Office received
approximately 250 reports of abuse each week. She
communicated that subsequently, reports were sent to
different agencies, i.e., Quality Assurance, Adult
Protective Services, Licensing for Assisted Living Homes,
and the Long Term Care Ombudsman's Office. The language
allowed the intake office to only send the Ombudsman's
Office the reports that applied to the Ombudsman.
Representative Wilson referred to page 1, lines 9 and 10 of
the bill and noted the change from "Centralized Intake
Office" to "Central Information." She inquired about the
difference and wondered whether the change involved a
"centralized data base versus and central data base." Ms.
Holt deferred to the question to DHSS.
1:40:41 PM
KELDA BARSTAD, HEALTH PROGRAM MANAGER - SENIOR DISABILITIES
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), replied that Centralized
Intake was a new name for the intake department and did not
refer to the registry or the database.
Representative Wilson noted the change to a "resident
representative." She asked about the qualifications of a
resident representative. Ms. Holt responded that the change
only applied to the Long Term Care Ombudsman and expanded
the list of who was authorized to grant permission on
behalf of an elder for and investigation. The provision
included a power of attorney, guardian, and a designee. She
qualified that the elder can appoint a designee only if the
senior was their own guardian.
Representative Wilson pointed to page 6, lines 4 through
10. She read the following:
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of AS
47.62.015(c)(1), the ombudsman may obtain medical or
other records of a resident of [AN OLDER ALASKAN WHO
RESIDES IN] a long term care facility in the state
only with the consent of the resident or the person's
resident representative or [OLDER ALASKAN OR THE
OLDER ALASKAN'S] legal guardian or, if the resident
[OLDER ALASKAN] is unable or incompetent to consent
and does not have a resident representative [LEGAL
GUARDIAN], only with a subpoena or court order.
Representative Wilson asked for clarity. Ms. Holt replied
that the language only applied to retaining records and
resident representative was "all inclusive." She asked
Representative Wilson to clarify her question.
Representative Wilson did not understand the paragraph.
She did not understand why the reference to legal guardian
was included on line 8 and removed on line 10. Ms. Holt
pointed to the definitions page [page 7, line 10].
Representative Wilson emphasized that legal guardians were
appointed by the court. She believed that resident
representative had a much lower threshold. She was
concerned with removing the language, "legal guardian" due
to the fact that the elder might not be in a clear state of
mind when appointing a resident representative.
1:45:49 PM
Ms. Holt replied that the language was based on the federal
requirements and that it was necessary to include the
language to align with the federal law. She offered that
the provision allowed the Ombudsman's office to disregard
the resident representative's decisions if it determined
the representative was not acting in the resident's best
interest. Representative Wilson did not really care about
the federal regulations if they made someone unsafe or
misrepresented. She referenced page 6, lines 15 through 30
and deduced that the long-term care facility "could make
that determination."
Ms. Holt answered that the section was in reference to a
very specific situation. She explained that the four
circumstances listed in the section were the only instances
when the ombudsman can share the information and only if
the older Alaskan was unable to provide consent and did not
have a resident representative. She provided the example of
a homeless person who ended up in a facility and pointed
out that the provision was important in that type of
situation. She noted that the law was added to federal law
because it was a problem when the ombudsman could not
obtain consent. She delineated that the four reasons were
based on health, safety, welfare, and the best interest of
the person. The ombudsman was the only official sanctioned
to make the authorization and the decision could not
conflict with any evidence that the resident would
disapprove of the referral. Representative Wilson
maintained concern over the legislation. She asked what the
current provisions were versus the changes in the bill. Ms.
Holt relayed that currently the situation and therefore,
the provisions applied to a very small number of residents.
The ombudsman worked by talking with residents of long term
care facilities to identify and assist them with any
issues. The whole matter of resident representatives was
exclusively to help the ombudsman obtain permission to work
on behalf of a resident.
1:50:04 PM
Representative Guttenberg commented that at times the
fiscal notes were revealing. He referred to the analysis on
page 2 of fiscal note 2, FN2 (REV) and read the following:
Clarifies that the OLTCO may serve residents in long
term care facilities who are under the age of 60;
Representative Guttenberg referred to page 4, line 13 of
the bill. He noted that the language deleted individuals
under 60 years of age. He inquired where the language in SB
83 was located that ensured the ombudsman's office served
residents under 60 years old. He wanted to reconcile the
difference between the fiscal note analysis and the bill.
Ms. Holt asked the representative to further clarify. Ms.
Holt explained that the legislation stated that the
ombudsman can serve anyone in a long term care facility at
any age in accordance with the federal law.
Representative Guttenberg cited additional analysis from
the fiscal note. He read the following:
Removes the option for mandatory reporters to meet
reporting requirements by submitting a report to the
OLTCO and clarifies the differences in the roles of
the Long Term Care Ombudsman, Adult Protective
Services, and (Health Care Services) licensing
division.
Representative Guttenberg expressed concerns regarding the
"flow of reporting." He wanted to ensure that the reports
were forwarded to the right service provider and not "stuck
in an intake office." He wondered how the flow of reports
was facilitated. Ms. Holt explained that Central Intake
disseminated all of the reports for any vulnerable adult
over 18 years of age to the appropriate office. The bill
prohibited mandatory reporters from providing the report to
the ombudsman's office and "count that action as their
mandatory reporting." The direct exchange created a
conflict with the ombudsman's office who followed the
direction of the resident or resident representative and
can only undertake an investigation by their request. The
legislation clarified that the mandatory reporters were
required to send their reports directly to the Central
Intake Office.
1:55:10 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the number of complaints the
ombudsman's office investigated in one year. She reported
that her office "opened" roughly 662 cases every year for
investigation. Vice-Chair Gara inquired about the number of
staff employed in the office. Ms. Holt replied that the
office employed 6 staff in total. Vice-Chair Gara wondered
what positions were employed. Ms. Holt responded that the
Office of the Long Term Care Ombudsman was comprised of an
Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman, three assistant ombudsman
and one intake specialist. Vice-Chair Gara asked whether
the office was a "stand-alone" within the department. She
answered that the office operated under the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority (AMHTA) and were housed in its
building. Vice-Chair Gara inquired whether every state was
required by federal law to maintain an Office of the Long
Term Care Ombudsman. Ms. Holt responded in the affirmative.
She added that the mandate was part of the Older Americans
Act. Vice-Chair Gara asked whether there were further
federal requirements regarding the ombudsman's office. Ms.
Holt indicated that although no further federal
requirements were imposed, there were standards regarding
visiting every facility every quarter. She detailed that
currently the office visited 18 nursing homes and 249
assisted living homes licensed to serve seniors. Vice-Chair
Gara asked whether the numbers included visits without
complaints. Ms. Holt replied in the affirmative. She added
that the office recruited and trained volunteers and that
30 volunteers assisted in the quarterly visits. Vice-Chair
Gara asked what portion of the paid staffs work was spent
visiting rather than following up on complaints. Ms. Holt
answered that facility visits comprised approximately 60
percent of the work. She elucidated that the more frequent
the visits the less problems the facility had.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Representative Claman and
Representative Parrish joined the audience.
1:59:45 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked whether the bill
"significantly" changed how responsive the system that
facilitated meeting the needs for seniors was or if the
bill was simply a compliance issue. He asked if she heard
concerns from seniors in regards to the legislation.
DENISE DANIELLO, ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING, JUNEAU,
responded that her office had no problems with the
legislation that brought the state into compliance with
federal statutes. She appreciated the changes regarding the
flow of reports funneling through the Central Intake
Office. She offered that the provision assisted the
commission to track the number of reports more efficiently.
2:02:28 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
2:02:45 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
SB 83 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
hb222
HOUSE BILL NO. 222
"An Act relating to the licensure of nail technicians;
and providing for an effective date."
2:03:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, read from a prepared
statement:
In 2015, 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 requiring 250 hours of education and an
examination, to become a licensed "nail technician".
Prior to the 2015 bill, a person could receive a
manicurist's license by completing 12 hours of
training, though many people received a few hundred
hours of training in the States before practicing in
Alaska. In 2015, the House made an amendment on the
House Floor that wrought unintended consequences on
existing licensees that would be seeking renewal in
2017.
The floor amendment added a grandfather clause but the
grandfather clause was unclear. The Barbers and
Hairdressers board consulted with the Department of
Law and interpreted the new statute to have a
grandfather clause that allowed manicurists to
practice for 2 years before having to go back and take
training all over again.
House Bill 222 seeks to remedy the onerous renewal
process enacted by the 29th legislature while
protecting the health and safety of Alaskans.
2:05:06 PM
SARA PERMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, read from a
prepared statement:
House Bill 222 amends AS 08.13.030 by clarifying the
grandfather clause, which allows individuals who held
a manicurists' license prior to December 2015 to
forego the 250 hours of instruction in manicuring
required of new applicants. They will still be
required to prove 250 hours of prior work experience
as a manicurist.
The current rules for nail technicians are outlined in
House Bill 131, which the 29th Alaska Legislature
passed in 2015. The House Labor & Commerce Committee
intended to include a grandfather clause in statute.
The bill was amended on the House Floor to add a
grandfather clause. However, the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers interpreted the passed bill to have a
temporary, confusing grandfather clause. The following
is now 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, taken and passed a written
or oral examination.
After one renewal period, however, an experienced
manicurists is nevertheless required to take 250 hours
of educational coursework to receive a "nail
technician" license after a two-year grandfathered
license that does not require the coursework. HB 222
seeks to remove the education requirement for people
who were already licensed and working under statutes
prior to December 31st, 2015.
Requiring 250 hours of coursework, or essentially six
weeks to two months of fulltime effort, could mean
these experienced, working manicurists might not be
able to work. Many of the individuals who would be
affected are "Mom-n-Pop" business owners or single
mothers. Requiring this training for persons who have
been practicing successfully for years could have
detrimental impacts on their finances and families.
It is the intention of HB 222 is to remove the
unnecessary burden of educational training hours for
experienced manicurists who practiced prior to
December 31st, 2015.
Ms. Perman read the sectional analysis:
Note: As the CS HB 222 (L&) was adopted on the first
hearing before opening statements, we have not
included an explanation of changes from version A.
Section 1 - Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section of legislative intent
that the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers allowing
license applicants the ability to use a translator
during their required oral or written examination.
Section 2 - Amends AS 08.13.030 by adding a new
subsection (d) that states that the Board may not
require 250 hours of instruction in manicuring (under
AS 08.13.080(a)(4)) for applicants who hold a valid
license to practice manicuring that was issued before
Dec. 31, 2015. This, in effect, defines the
grandfather clause.
Section 3 - Amends Sec. 13(a), ch. 27, SLA 2015
allowing a person who holds a valid license on Jan 1,
2016 to continue practicing manicuring until their
license normally expires. Subsection (1) states that a
person is allowed to renew their license before August
31, 2017, if the person meets preexisting requirements
under AS 08.13 as it existed prior to Jan 1, 2016.
Subsection (2) states that a person may renew their
license for an additional period before August 31,
2019 if the person submits (A) proof of 250 hours of
satisfactory work experience and (B) has taken and
passed a written or oral exam under AS 08.13.090.
Section 4 - Retroactively amends Section 13(a), ch.
27, SLA 2015, by section 3 of this Act to Jan. 1,
2016.
Section 5 - Provides an immediate effective date.
Ms. Perman summarized that the intention of the legislation
was to remove the unnecessary burden of additional
educational training hours for experienced manicurists who
practiced prior to December 31, 2015 and extended equal
opportunity for individuals who may have difficulty with
language barriers. She noted that the fiscal note reflected
an amount of $5 thousand for regulatory changes that were
covered in licensing fees.
2:08:46 PM
Representative Grenn asked about the number of people that
would be grandfathered in. Representative Claman thought
the number was approximately 975. Representative Grenn
asked whether the board agreed with the changes.
KEVIN MCKINLEY, CHAIR, BOARD OF BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), corrected that the number
of licensed manicurists was currently 944. He favored HB
222. The bill carried out the original intent of the board
in respect to manicurist licenses and protected the health
and safety of Alaskans.
Representative Guttenberg cited the letter by the law firm
of Fortier and Mikko dated March 20, 2017 (copy on file).
The letter interpreted that the previous bill's HB 131
(Licensure of Manicurists/Hair Dressing) [Chapter 27 SLA 15
05/26/2015] grandfathering clause intended to apply to
licensed manicurists. He asked whether that was the intent
of HB 222. Representative Claman explained that as he
understood the previous bill created a two year
grandfathering clause that still required the licensed
manicurist to take the 250 hours of instruction after two
years. Initially, a written test in lieu of the
instructional hours was instituted as a way to solve the
issue. However, the test was not available in multiple
languages and proved problematic for some manicurists. He
added that provisions in HB 222 were added to make
interpreters available during the testing.
2:13:01 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the importance of 250 hours of
training. Mr. McKinley answered that most of the training
would focus on aseptic techniques, skin conditions,
sterility, and barely touched on the health and safety of
the practitioner. He felt that the 250 hour requirement was
at the lowest end of the typical licensing requirement and
was not an exorbitant expectation. Vice-Chair Gara asked
why the state was not requiring licensees to get the
additional training and provide a longer deadline, if the
training was important. Mr.McKinley believed that the
requirement would be a hardship for licensed manicurist and
felt that experience should qualify. He elaborated that
many manicurist were trained via apprenticeships in a shop
or school and the practice was acceptable. Vice-Chair Gara
was not convinced work experience met the same standard
that training provided. He was concerned about safety. Mr.
McKinley answered that passing the national exam for their
next renewal period and work experience were accountable
standards.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the required schooling.
He wondered what the required instructional costs were in
the state. Representative Claman responded that one school
in Alaska offered the course for $3.5 thousand.
Representative Kawasaki inquired whether the manicurist
school was required to obtain a license by the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE). Mr. McKinley
affirmed that the school had to be accredited by the
commission. He contended that there were currently 3
schools in the state costing approximately $1000.
Representative Kawasaki maintained that there were no
accredited manicurist schools in the state. He asked
whether the board heard complaints regarding violations of
health and safety. Mr. McKinley responded that health and
safety violations were forwarded to the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). He specified that the
board handled licensing. Representative Kawasaki was trying
to establish whether any complaints were received from
"non-trained" nail technicians. He announced that he voted
against the original bill. He recounted that the reason for
the original bill was to prevent health and safety issues.
He wanted to see numbers that proved the case. Mr. McKinley
maintained that the instruction protected the health and
safety of the public and also increased the skill level.
Representative Kawasaki wondered why not require 500
instructional hours. Mr.McKinley thought that 250 hours was
a good medium point and a jump from the 12 hour requirement
to 500 was excessive.
2:24:53 PM
Representative Wilson wondered about the 250 hour
requirements. She stated that pilots and school bus drivers
were not required to have that many hours. She asked where
the data was derived to justify the amount. Mr. McKinley
was comparing the number of hours that other states
required for licensure. Representative Wilson wondered
about the number of complaints other states received and
whether that was the basis for the 250 hour requirement.
Mr.McKinley relayed that Alaskan practitioners complained
that their license was not valid in other states. The
increase provided the manicurist more opportunity to use
their license elsewhere. The increase was centered more on
the employment factor and was the basis of comparisons to
other states.
Representative Wilson asked whether the increase was based
on safety issues or more about reciprocation with other
states. Representative Claman explained that when the bill
was first introduced the issue was focused on blood borne
pathogens. He added that he did not know whether any
complaints arose regarding health and safety.
Representative Wilson thought that 2 issues were being
discussed. She noted the school accreditation issue which
was a provision in the bill. She requested to hear from DEC
regarding health and safety violations. She pondered
whether the bill was solving an issue or making it harder
and more costly for an individual entering the profession.
She wondered about costs for professional interpreters for
testing. She asked who was paying the costs for the
interpreters.
2:30:23 PM
Mr. McKinley believed that the discussion was veering off
track by comments that the bill was more about reciprocity
over health and safety. He voiced that both issues were
important. Most states required 300 hours of instruction.
He understood that the commission accredited the schools.
Representative Wilson asked which schools were accredited
by the commission. Mr. McKinley knew of 3 accredited nail
technician schools but not their names. Representative
Wilson felt that it was imperative to find the correct
answer.
Representative Thompson thought that schools would address
health and safety issues. He was concerned about the amount
of instruction required to cover the issue adequately.
Representative Claman responded that the goal of HB 222 was
to fix the grandfather clause and the exam issue. The
issues regarding the content of the educational requirement
was addressed in the previous bill.
Representative Grenn clarified that the original bill HB
131, established the increased educational requirement. Ms.
Perman responded in the affirmative.
Representative Grenn ascertained that HB 222 fixed the
grandfather clause for manicurist licensed prior to
December 31, 2015 and allowed them to continue without the
250 hour requirement. Representative Claman replied that
the bill granted previously licensed manicurist credit for
their prior work experience and had to prove that they had
worked at least 250 hours and were also required to take
the exam.
2:35:46 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether the state reciprocated
and accepted other states licensure of 250 hours. Ms.
Perman responded that manicurists were required to take the
Alaskan exam. Representative Wilson thought that the
confusion was in the attorney's letter. She relayed that
the letter reported the existence of three manicurist
schools but none were accredited by ACPE. She requested
verification of their accreditation status. She worried
that the schools did not offer the advanced curriculum
recently required by statue. Representative Claman replied
that the letter was referring to the currently licensed
manicurists and the consequences if HB 222 was not adopted
and the grandfathering clause was not corrected. He
reiterated that the grandfathering clause allowed a
currently licensed manicurist work experience count in lieu
of the 250 hour training requirement and was the goal of
the legislation. He thought that the schools lack of
accreditation was problematic for newly licensed
manicurists. Representative Wilson deduced that
approximately 317 manicurists would still not be
grandfathered in with passage of the bill. She wanted to
gather information regarding manicurists' violations in
regards to health and safety before moving the legislation
forward. She also maintained her concern regarding the
manicurist schools lack of accreditation and how that would
affect the 317 manicurists' ability to work in the state.
She thought it was vital to obtain the answers regarding
accreditation.
2:41:01 PM
SARAH CHAMBERS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, JUNEAU, informed
the committee that the three manicuring schools were
licensed and accredited with ACPE. She related that she
verified the information with the division's licensing
examiner. The department was prohibited from issuing a
license unless the school was accredited. She revealed that
there were 99 investigations of barbers and hairdresser
licensees in the previous fiscal year that ended in
punitive action. She was unsure whether any were
specifically against manicurists and offered to provide the
information. She detailed that DEC conducted the safety and
sanitation duties via statute as the "experts" in the
field. In the prior 2 years DEC, due to budget cuts stopped
investigating schools and shops for safety and sanitation
violations. The facilities were inspected but not
specifically the manicurists. She qualified that tattoo
parlors and cosmetic coloring shops inspections were
continuing. The division did not have the statutory
authority to inspect or investigate and tried to fashion an
agreement with DEC. She noted that another bill, SB 4 (Non-
Chemical Barbering; Hair Braiding), granted the division
and the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers the authority to
perform inspections and investigations. The two agencies
were working to resolve the inspection issue until a
statutory change was adopted.
2:44:23 PM
Representative Guttenberg referred to Ms. Chambers comments
about inspections and that DEC was still inspecting tattoo
parlors. He asked who was carrying out the inspections and
paying for them. He felt that health inspections were
important and wanted them to continue. Ms. Chambers
responded that the DEC inspection of tattoo parlors fell
under a reciprocal agreement with the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers. The division was billed by DEC and the
board's fees covered the RSA (reimbursable services
agreement) between DCCED and DEC. The tattoo parlor
inspections were self-sustaining. Representative Guttenberg
thought that the part members were concerned about was the
health and safety inspection. He wondered why DEC stopped
the inspections when the licensing fees covered the costs.
Ms. Chambers believed that agencies "should follow statues"
but understood the nature of budget cuts. She recommended
that DEC speak to the issue. She reiterated that the
division was attempting to address the issue through SB 4
that granted the board authority to carry out health and
safety inspections. She characterized the situation as
being in "limbo."
Representative Wilson asked if the license fees were paying
for the tattoo parlor inspections why the hairdressers and
barbers inspections weren't being carried out by DEC as
well. She asked about the number of instructional hours
required for tattoo artists licensing. Ms. Chambers agreed
with her inquiry regarding inspections. She deferred the
question to DEC.
2:48:26 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, DIRECTION, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), replied that since FY 16 the
department had "significant" reductions in Food Safety and
lost 9 or 10 employees. The remaining staff was focused on
"high risk" facilities in both food and sanitation and
eliminated some of the work in the "lower risk" facilities.
Representative Wilson wondered why the RSA funding was not
enough to cover the Food Safety program. Ms. Carpenter
responded that the Hairdresser and Barbershop inspections
did not require a full-time PCN (Position Control Number)
and the work amounted to $5 thousand per year on a
complaint basis only. The remaining staff were shifted to
high risk facilities. Representative Wilson queried what
type of complaints DEC received in regards to manicurists.
Ms. Carpenter was unsure and offered to provide the
information at a later date.
Vice-Chair Gara queried about the severity of complaints
that were filed against manicurists who did not receive the
training. Ms. Chambers did not have the information
available because the bill did not address the topic. Vice-
Chair Gara deduced that the topic was addressed in the bill
due to the fact that the underlying question was whether
job experience was as good as instruction time to ensure
the public's health and safety. Ms. Chambers explained that
"the exam was the great equalizer." She relayed that the
board's view was that the exam gauged the education and
work hour experience. She delineated that all manicurists
had to pass the national exam to renew their licenses.
Vice-Chair Gara was unsatisfied with her answer. He
asserted that if the exam was the great equalizer why
require the 250 hour training. He wanted to determine
whether the public was in danger or whether the training
was not necessary and requested answers. Ms. Chambers
restated that the purpose of the legislation was to
determine whether to waive the 250 hour instructional
requirement for a renewal. She elaborated that the
professional board decided that an exam alone was
inadequate. She listed the instructional requirements of
the board's various licensees: body piercing, 1000 hours;
tattoo artists, 380 hours; and hairdressers, 1650 hours.
The question was whether the exam was an alternate pathway
for the 250 hour educational requirements.
2:55:02 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked for clarification regarding the 250
hours of experience. He thought that the 250 hours would be
required as well as the exam and that there was no
alternative path. Ms. Chambers clarified that currently the
statute required that every manicurist had to obtain the
250 hour training and take the exam. The bill allowed
currently licensed individuals the opportunity to use their
work experience and take the exam in lieu of the additional
training. Co-Chair Seaton asked whether there were two
different licenses for manicurist. Ms. Chambers replied
that prior to the 2015 legislation there were two separate
licenses. She explained that the advanced manicurist
license required 250 hours of training and a regular
manicurist license required 12 hours. The previous
legislation, HB 131, leveled the playing field and elevated
the standards for all manicurists by eliminating the
regular manicurist license. The new license is called the
"nail technician license" and required the 250 hours of
education for all manicurist.
2:57:24 PM
Representative Ortiz referenced the reduction in
inspections by DEC and the funding for the inspection work.
He inquired whether DEC was collecting the inspection fees
when staffed at higher levels. Ms. Carpenter clarified that
DEC did not collect fees for the inspections, the funding
went through an RSA with DCCED.
Co-Chair Seaton referenced the discussion regarding the
manicurists paying the same licensing fees which included
fees for inspections but were not included in the
inspections. He asked whether that was correct. Ms.
Chambers clarified that the fees paid to DEC for
inspections were minimal and a tiny fraction of the other
costs for the licensing program. She specified that
AS.08.01.065 required that all of the different license
types were charged the same licensing fee.
Vice-Chair Gara read the original statute which indicated
that manicurists were required to take 250 hours of
instruction and pass a written exam. He believed that if
all of the manicurists performed their job safely the 250
hour requirement was unnecessary. He wondered how he could
determine whether a manicurist was functioning in a safe
manner. He asked if the exam was the great equalizer could
the licensee still pass the test while answering all of the
questions related to health and safety wrong. Ms. Chambers
was aware there was an overall passing score but was
uncertain how the amount and types of questions were
distributed. She observed that the general question about
trusting a professional was often asked. She exemplified
the question regarding how a person knew their doctor was
safe. She offered that it "boiled down to a policy call of
the legislature setting guidelines in statute and DCCED
carrying out its duties of following up on complaints and
carrying out inspections.
3:02:24 PM
Vice-Chair Gara stated that he would not hold up the bill.
Representative Ortiz asked whether the prior work
experience had to be performed in Alaska. Ms. Chambers
replied that the work experience applied to the licensure
from any state. She explained that the licensure allowed a
manicurist to apply by waiver, which recognized another
state's license.
Representative Wilson commented that in reality there was
no way of knowing whether a professional was performing
safely just by testing or requiring a certain number of
hours for licensure.
Co-Chair Seaton was curious about the answer that
experience from outside of the state counted and a waiver
process was in place recognizing licenses from other
states. He wondered whether the waiver could apply to the
in-state manicurists licensed before 2015 through
documenting their hours of work experience. Ms. Chambers
responded that currently an apprenticeship program counted
apprenticing hours in lieu of instructional hours towards
licensure. Co-Chair Seaton restated his question regarding
waiving the required educational requirements for in-state
practicing manicurists. Ms. Chambers explained that the
ability to use work accumulated hours from another state to
qualify for a waiver was in addition to other
qualifications. She clarified that the instructional hours
could also be taken outside of the state.
3:07:25 PM
Representative Ortiz clarified his previous question
regarding the eligibility of work hours completed from
another state qualifying for the grandfathering clause in
lieu of instructional hours in Alaska. Ms. Chambers relayed
that in current regulation a person could participate in an
apprenticeship or required education and take the licensing
exam. In addition, a verified manicurist license from
another state with the requisite hours of training
qualified for an Alaskan license via a waiver. Currently
work hours only count for licensure in an apprenticeship
program.
3:09:15 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony on HB 222.
3:09:55 PM
BEVERLY HARPER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. She was the
mother-in-law of an Alaskan manicurist with a 12-hour
license prior to December, 2015 who spoke English as a
second language. She shared that her daughter-in-law
received her renewal letter stating that manicurist must
have worked 250 hours, pass an exam, and take 250 hours of
education in order to renew her license. She reported that
she called the board who confirmed the requirements as
written in the letter. She contacted the national
accrediting entity that wrote the exam used in Alaska who
told her the exam was available in many other languages and
used in other states. A passing grade of 75 percent and
above meant that the manicurist "met all level standards of
competence." She then contacted Representative Claman and
related that the regulations and the statutes were not
congruous. She explained that HB 131 was currently the law
and if HB 222 was not adopted currently licensed and
practicing manicurist were required to pass the exam by
August and then attend 250 hours of education. She
discovered that two of the manicurist schools in the state
offered 250 hours of education during daytime hours in the
classroom only. The school in Anchorage charged $3500 and
one in Wasilla charged $4000. The schools were not listed
as accredited. She understood the concerns of the committee
but noted that everyone licensed to do something probably
had to take an examination; the exam may not be perfect,
but it was the best that could be done. She stressed the
importance of passing HB 222. She indicated that
manicurists working for many years and took the exam still
had to obtain the classroom instruction. The individuals
that had already taken the exam had proven their
competence. She opined that the current law contributed to
"lining the pockets" of Glenda Ledford [Glenda's Training
Center] who owned the school in Wasilla and was chairman of
the board in 2015.
Representative Wilson asked whether the manicurists that
had taken the test in February received the results. Ms.
Harper answered that the results had been received about
one week earlier. She clarified that the test was given on
March 17, 2017. She elaborated that the long lag time
between taking the test and receiving the results caused
individuals who failed to miss the sign-up for the next
test date. Some chose to pay the testing fee of $250 and
sign-up again without knowing their results as a
precaution. Currently, the process was quite a financial
burden; some of the individuals were business owners. She
emphasized that manicurists did not earn a lot of money and
worked many hours each work.
Representative Ortiz asked Ms. Harper to objectively share
any anecdotal information about the quality and relevancy
of the test. Ms. Harper answered that her daughter-in-law
had relayed that the test had been very comprehensive. She
knew that the contents of the test related to pathogens,
sanitation, and anatomy. She reported that her daughter-in-
law took the test in Vietnamese and others who had taken
the test in Vietnamese and failed felt that the Vietnamese
language in the test was not clear and proved very
difficult for the examinees. She spoke to an English
speaking manicurist's with 20 years' experience who failed
the test and felt the test was "very difficult."
3:17:47 PM
LYNN GATTIS, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), reported
she had been the bill sponsor of HB 131 when she was a
state representative. She provided a history of the issue.
She explained that for 8 years the board was looking into
offering a license that was reciprocal. There were 47 other
states that offered licensure reciprocity. She also stated
that another goal was born out of the desire for health and
safety. She emphasized the importance of protecting the
public's health and safety. The previous statute did not
address the new techniques in nail beauty. She spoke of
some of the techniques that had been improved and changed
over time. The board wanted the statutes to reflect the new
techniques and technology in use today and changed the
licensing name to nail technician. She had sought out
feedback from nail salons regarding HB 131. She noted that
those who responded felt that the regular manicurist were
not adequately trained and also wanted to incorporate an
apprenticeship program into licensure. She summarized that
the small nail businesses wanted the health and safety
aspect increased, a grandfathering clause, and a license
that qualified as reciprocating. She asserted that boards
were advocates for their industry and decided what was
needed. The problem with HB 131 was that the House Floor
adopted an amendment "on the fly." She supported HB 222.
Some of the nail technicians she had polled were very upset
with the provisions in HB 131 and regretted providing
feedback. She warned that many small nail business "were
hanging on the line" due to the error. She thought HB 222
made the appropriate correction.
3:24:24 PM
Representative Wilson asked why HB 131 required a written
exam for currently licensed manicurists; some of whom
practiced for over 20 years. Ms. Gattis relayed that she
personally did not feel the test was necessary. The
manicurists advocated for the exam requirement for those
that never had taken it so that the license was reciprocal.
The manicurist did not want the provision to apply to
practitioners who had taken the test. She mentioned that HB
222 corrected the error. Representative Wilson understood
that the grandfathering still required everyone to take the
exam.
3:26:52 PM
RACHEL LAUESEN, ATTORNEY, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
represented a current licensed manicurist who preferred to
remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation for retaining a
lawyer. She supported HB 222. The bill impacted over 1,200
licensed manicurists. It was unclear whether the 99 cases
of violations mentioned included manicurists. She reminded
the committee that the board represented a larger group of
professionals. She contended that when HB 131 was adopted
there was not a manicurist or representative of the
occupation on the board. She also commented that the ACPE
website did not include the three manicurist schools on
their list of accredited schools and pointed out that the
accreditation was expressly required in statute. She
thought there was confusion about the meaning of the bill.
She explained that if HB 222 did not pass there would be
many manicurists that would not be able to work and support
their families. The current law required passing the exam
by August 31, 2017. She declared that the bill corrected
the issues and solved the problem. The bill was supportive
of protecting the public's health and safety while not
creating unreasonable barriers to enter the profession. She
maintained that existing law did not mandate the additional
250 hours of instruction for individuals who passed the
exam and had 250 hours of work experience. She offered that
DCCED interpreted HB 131 in the manner that also required
educational hours. In addition, the regulations did not
require the training. She spoke with DCCED who stated that
in order for them to change their interpretation the
legislature needed to change the law.
3:32:01 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
3:32:59 PM
Representative Wilson queried whether the bill was really
an interpretation problem and if the legislative fix was
necessary. Representative Claman deferred to Ms. Chambers.
Ms. Chambers responded that DCCED forwarded Ms. Lauesen's
letter over to the state's attorney. She relayed that the
attorneys at the Department of Law (DOL) interpreted the
law as mandating the 250 hours of education and disagreed
with Ms. Lauesen's interpretation. Representative Wilson
wondered whether the interpretation applied to manicurists
who came from out-of-state. Ms. Chambers relayed that the
board adopted regulations that DOL found consistent with
statute. The question had to do with the transitional
provisions for existing Alaskan manicurists and how the
application of the transitional language that was included
in HB 131 was what was being corrected in HB 222. A
licensed manicurist could use work hours as an alternative
pathway.
3:36:02 PM
Representative Wilson presented a hypothetical scenario of
an Alaskan nail technician with 20 years of experience. She
wondered whether the manicurist had to take the exam and
the 250 hours of instruction while someone from out-of-
state was not required to take the training. Ms. Chambers
deduced an informational sheet or chart containing the
licensure pathways would offer more clarity and offered to
provide it.
Representative Claman reviewed that if HB 222 passed, the
250 hours of work experience substituted for the
educational requirement for currently licensed manicurists
but the practitioner would still need to take an exam.
Representative Wilson understood that under current law a
manicurist from Hawaii with 20 years' experience could take
the exam and receive an Alaskan license. Representative
Claman was uncertain about current law but affirmed her
understanding under provisions in HB 222. Representative
Wilson maintained her concerns about the difference between
Alaskan practitioners versus out-of-state manicurists'
requirement. She thought "it made no sense."
3:40:05 PM
Ms. Chambers agreed with Representative Claman that the
current bill addressed her concern.
Representative Thompson stated that by August, 2017 some
small shops would be out of business. He thought "time was
of the essence." He proposed swift passage of the bill in
the House and the process expedited through the Senate.
Representative Kawasaki thought that the bill applied to
only those with a license prior to December 31, 2015.
Representative Claman responded in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki relayed his objection to the 250
hour mandate in HB 131. He was supportive of the bill due
to his concern that many manicurists would be forced out of
their job if the bill failed. He agreed with Representative
Thompson that the bill must pass swiftly before the end of
session to protect jobs.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether DCCED was able to
create emergency regulations to extend the timeline of the
licensing changes. Ms. Chambers responded that the timeline
was set out in statute in 2015. She needed to ask DOL to
determine whether the department's regulations "could
override statutory transition language."
Vice-Chair Gara maintained that he had underlying concerns
with the bill and did not receive any answers. Regardless,
he advocated moving the bill out of committee or many
qualified individuals would lose their license.
Representative Wilson asked about a "valid license" from
another state. She read the following from page 1, lines 13
and 14 of the bill:
…if the applicant holds a valid license to practice
manicuring that was issued on or before December 31,
2015.
Representative Wilson wondered whether a manicurist from
another state with a valid license, regardless of the
amount of instructional hours required qualified for an
Alaskan license. Ms. Chambers indicated that the provision
only applied to Alaskans. Representative Wilson read more
of the provision in the bill on page 1, lines 11 through
14:
(d) The board may not require that an applicant for a
license or renewal of a license to practice
manicuring complete 250 hours of instruction in
manicuring from a school of manicuring under AS
08.13.080(a)(4) if the applicant holds a valid license
to practice manicuring that was issued on or before
December 31, 2015.
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure the bill was
correct. She wondered where the statute designated that the
language only applied to in-state manicurists. Ms. Chambers
responded that the reference to AS.08.13 was the governing
statutes for Alaskan licenses. A person had to have an
Alaskan license in order to renew under AS.08.13.
Representative Wilson asked for more evidence that the
statute only applied to Alaskans. She restated that she
wanted to avoid any unintended consequences from HB 222.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the fiscal impact note from DCCED
FN1 (CED) that appropriated $5 thousand for regulations,
printing, and postage funded through program receipts.
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to report CSHB 222(L&C) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB222 (L&C) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (CED).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following day.
He recessed to a call of the chair. He recessed the meeting
to a call of the chair [Note: the meeting never
reconvened].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB222 Additional Document Ltr to J. Maiquis and C. Spencer 4.19.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB222 Additional Document Leg Meeting Minutes 4.19.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB222 Additional Documents Letter to Manicurists 4.19.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB222 Supporting Document Bev Harper 04.19.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB222 Sectional Analysis ver O 4.19.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB222 Sponsor Statement 4.19.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 222 Additional Document - CH27SLA15 4.19.17.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 222 Follow Up H FIN 4-26-17.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 222 manicuring licensure flow chart 2017.pdf |
HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 222 |