Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
05/17/2025 10:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| HB104 | |
| SB54 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB132 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 137(FIN)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Certified Direct-Entry Midwives; extending the
termination date of the Board of Nursing; extending
the termination date of the Board of Veterinary
Examiners; extending the termination date of the Board
of Parole; and providing for an effective date."
5:28:47 PM
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. The bill would extend the sunset date of the
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives, the Board of
Nursing, the Board of Veterinary Examiners, and the Board
of Parole from their current sunset dates of June 30, 2025.
The 2024 audits of the Board of Certified Direct-Entry
Midwives, the Board of Nursing, and the Board of Veterinary
Examiners each recommended a six-year extension. The audit
for the Board of Parole recommended a four-year extension.
He noted that Kris Curtis would review the audits and the
department was available for questions.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, reviewed the audit recommendations for
each of the boards beginning with the Board of Veterinary
Examiners (copy on file). The audit found the board to be
serving the public's interest, conducting meetings in an
effective manner, actively amending its regulations, and
effectively licensing veterinary professionals. The audit
also concluded that board related cases were not
consistently investigated in a timely manner, two board
members were serving with expired terms, and one board seat
had been vacant for 31 months. The audit recommended a six-
year extension of the board.
Ms. Curtis directed members' attention to page 6 of the
audit showing the schedule of licensing activity. As of
January 2024, the board had 716 active licenses and
permits. The board's schedule of expenditures was located
on page 8 of the audit and as of January 2024, the board
had a surplus of $200,000. There were three audit
recommendations beginning on page 11. The audit recommended
the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing (CBPL) create procedures to ensure the
regulations for occupational boards were presented to the
boards for final review and approval before they were made
effective. The audit found the final version of the
veterinary and client relationship regulations omitted
language the board had intended to be enacted. She
explained it was due to changes made by the Department of
Law that were intended to be inconsequential. The second
recommendation was for the governor's Boards and
Commissions director to work with the board to identify
interested applicants to fill board seats in a timely
manner. The third recommendation was for the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED)
commissioner work with policy makers to improve the
recruitment and retention of investigators.
Ms. Curis next reviewed the audit findings for the Board of
Parole. The audit recommended a four-year extension, which
was half of the eight-year maximum allowed for in statute.
She reviewed the conclusions beginning on page 8 of the
audit (copy on file). The audit found that board staff
positions that had been added based on criminal justice
reform continued to be funded despite the subsequent repeal
of the reforms. The main criminal justice legislation, SB
91, was passed in 2017 and it awarded the board four
additional hearing officers and one additional criminal
justice technician, for an annual recurring cost of
$591,000. The positions helped the board effectively cope
with the increase in its workload. She explained that most
criminal justice reform laws were repealed in 2019 by House
Bill 49 and as a result the board was decreased. She
pointed to Exhibit 3 on page 9 of the audit report showing
that the discretionary parole hearings returned to the
level existing before criminal justice reform. The exhibit
also showed that the number of parole revocation hearings
were actually lower than prior to justice reform after HB
49 passed.
Ms. Curtis elaborated that despite the decrease in
workload, HB 49 continued to fund the positions. The audit
questioned whether the positions continued to be necessary.
Page 10 of the report showed the audit's conclusion that
the Board of Parole approved parole in accordance with
state law; however, the audit noted that parole was
approved at a much lower rate than before criminal justice
reform. Exhibit 5 on page 11 showed that on average, the
board granted parole 63 percent of the time before 2017
compared to only 25 percent of the time after 2020. She
relayed that the board could not provide a specific
explanation for the decrease.
Ms. Curtis reviewed the audit's three recommendations for
improvements for the Board of Parole beginning on page 14.
The audit recommended that the Department of Corrections
(DOC) commissioner and the board chair work together to
ensure all hearings were conducted in a confidential
manner. The audit found that the Hiland Mountain
Correctional Center was conducting preliminary revocation
hearings at times in the general population area that was
violating the offenders' rights to confidentiality. Second,
the audit recommended that the board chair should ensure
regulation changes occurred in a timely manner. The audit
found that parole eligibility regulations had not been
changed since 2015, despite significant statutory changes.
She noted the recommendation was recurring from the
previous audit. Third, the audit recommended the
commissioner ensure fiscal notes for pending legislation
reflect decreases as appropriate.
5:35:19 PM
Representative Tomaszewski referenced Exhibit 5 and thought
Ms. Curtis had stated that the board had not responded to
the specific finding. He observed a written response from
the board stated that the finding presented an inaccurate
comparison. He asked for detail.
Ms. Curtis responded that the board could find no
explanation or reason. She noted that the board's response
letter stated that they did not believe the finding was an
accurate representation. The board believed that all
discretionary parole hearings were unique and could not be
compared. She disagreed with the interpretation in that the
data was from the Board of Parole and it was presented to
the public to show the rate at which parole hearings were
occurring. In previous sunset audits where a change in the
rate parole was being approved was observed, the board had
been able to provide an explanation. For example, two
cycles back, there had been a change in the rate because
there were fewer providers in the community; therefore,
there were less available services for offenders and the
board was not approving parole at as high of a rate as a
result. She explained that in the current audit, the board
had been unable to provide an explanation of why the rate
had changed so dramatically.
Representative Hannan looked at page 8 of the Board of
Parole audit, which noted that the criminal justice reform
legislation SB 91 added positions and the positions had
been retained after subsequent legislation repealed most of
the reform. She asked whether the positions had been filled
with staff to the parole board or if only the money had
been retained.
Ms. Curtis answered that the board positions had been fully
staffed.
Representative Hannan asked if all of the positions were
working for the Board of Parole versus in other DOC
positions.
Ms. Curtis responded affirmatively. She highlighted that
the audit noted that HB 49, which repealed the reforms,
also added another position. The audit noted that the admin
position approved in the first bill had not been moved to
the Division of Administrative Services after HB 49 was
passed. She summarized that five positions had been added
as part of SB 91 and one position had been added under HB
49. Additionally, the department transferred one if its
other positions to the Division of Administrative Services.
Representative Hannan thanked Ms. Curtis and noted she had
a committee assignment already for next year's DOC budget.
5:38:37 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked it could be that DOC was so
desperate for parole and probation officers that the
department seconded (loaned) them out for general parole
and probation work not exclusively for the board.
Ms. Curtis answered that DOC had not told auditors that the
positions were being used outside of the parole board in
the general institutions. She did not believe the
department provided any explanation.
Co-Chair Josephson looked at page 11 of the audit and noted
there was a change in Title 33 or 34 to the burden of
proof, effectively the lens the board had to look through
to make decisions. He stated it was an incredibly generous
lens after passage of SB 91, favoring the defendant. He
stated it had been repealed and brought back to the
previous burden of proof, which was not as favorable.
Additionally, under SB 91, even if someone did not apply
for parole, it required applications to be completed for
the individual. He thought it could explain a lot of the
statistics in Exhibit 5.
Ms. Curtis responded that she did not look at the burden of
proof but, the audit looked at the impact of SB 91 and the
fact that incarcerated individuals were eligible whether or
not they applied. She noted that it had driven the number
of hearings up. She elaborated that the change had been
repealed by HB 49 and the hearings went back to the level
that existed before the board was awarded the five
positions. The auditors could not get and explanation for
why the board needed to keep the five positions when its
workload appeared to revert back to the level prior to
being awarded the positions.
Co-Chair Josephson referenced the audit's third
recommendation pertaining to ensuring fiscal notes. He
stated his understanding that the recommendation meant the
[DOC] commissioner should cut the budget $591,000.
Ms. Curtis answered, "That is what the law says." The audit
included the criteria in recommendation 3. In the opinion
of the auditors, the department did not follow the law when
presenting the bill to reflect the decrease in its workload
and decrease in staff.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that if the
department needed more probation and parole officers in the
normal course of events, it should have just said so. He
thought they were both saying the same thing.
Ms. Curtis responded that she did not know. She explained
that the department did not provide any explanation as to
why it was necessary to retain the positions. She remarked
that the department could have given auditors anything for
evaluation.
5:42:11 PM
Ms. Curtis reviewed the audit report for the Board of
Nursing. The audit found the board was serving the public's
interest, conducted its meetings effectively, actively
amended its nursing regulations, and effectively licensed
nursing professionals. The audit also found that board
related cases were not consistently investigated in a
timely manner and one board seat was vacant for an extended
period. The audit recommended a six-year extension. There
was licensing information on page 8 of the audit report
(copy on file) and the audit also looked at the rate at
which nursing licenses were approved. Page 7 summarized the
review of the timeliness of license issuances. The audit
found that 30 percent of the renewed licenses took over
four months to be issued due to turnovers and vacancies.
Page 8 showed why the board's workload increased. She
explained that as of February 2024, the board had just over
27,000 licenses and permits, which was a 37 percent
increase when compared to the 2018 sunset audit. She stated
it was a huge increase in the number of licenses, which the
board chair attributed to the increase of registered nurses
in Alaska serving during the [COVID-19] pandemic. The
board's schedule of revenues and expenditures was located
on page 10 of the audit. As of February 2024, the board had
a surplus of $3.4 million. The board was not planning on
decreasing fees because they believed the number of
licenses would naturally decrease as licensees did not
renew.
Ms. Curtis moved the audit's one recommendation on page 14.
The audit recommended that DCCED commissioner or the board
chair work with policy makers to improve the recruitment
and retention of investigators. The audit looked at 35
nursing related investigations and found nine of the 35 had
unjustified periods of inactivity. The nine audits were
listed on page 14. She detailed that the delays were caused
by turnover, vacancies, and the time to train new
employees.
Co-Chair Josephson pointed to the audit finding on page 7
that licensing delays had been caused by staff shortages.
He asked if it was DCCED division staff and not board
staff.
Ms. Curtis answered that statutes authorized an executive
administrator for the board and in addition DCBPL employed
the following board specific staff: a licensing supervisor,
eight licensing examiners, two office assistants, a nurse
consultant, and two investigators. The specific board had
dedicated DCBPL staff.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there were vacancies [that
could be filled] so that applications could be processed
faster.
Ms. Curtis believed it was a result of the dramatic
increase in workload. She elaborated that the pandemic had
increased the workload significantly. She believed the
board thought it would decrease naturally. The rate at
which nursing licenses were being approved was found in the
preliminary phase of the audit and auditors had looked into
the issue in case there were complaints. The number was not
as bad as auditors anticipated, they found that 30 percent
were taking over four months. The main contributor being
the increase in workload.
5:46:02 PM
Ms. Curtis addressed the audit for the Board of Certified
Direct Entry Midwives (copy on file). The audit found the
board was serving the public's interest by conducting its
meetings in compliance with state law and by amending its
regulations to enhance public safety and approve the
certification process. The audit also concluded that the
board generally certified midwives in compliance with state
law; however, documentation improvements were needed.
Furthermore, the board did not audit compliance with
certification renewal requirements in a timely manner. The
audit recommended a six-year extension. The audit noted
there had been a change in how midwives were certified.
Starting January 2023, the board began requiring midwives
to obtain their certified professional midwife credential
for the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM). As a
result, some board functions duplicate functions of the
national organization. Prior to the change, midwives
already had one of the highest license fees of any
occupation. The change increased the cost to obtain and
maintain state certification. Exhibit 3 on page 7 of the
audit showed there were 41 certified midwives as of January
2024.
Ms. Curtis relayed that the audit included three
recommendations for improvement beginning on page 12. The
audit determined that the Office of the Governor Boards and
Commissions director should work with the Board of
Certified Direct Entry Midwives to identify potential
applicants to fill the board seat in a timely manner. The
physician board seat had been vacant for a number of years.
Second, the DCBPL director should improve training to
ensure certifications were supported by adequate
documentation and the board should adequately review
applications before approval. Third, the audit recommended
that the commissioner work with policy makers to improve
the recruitment and retention of investigators.
Co-Chair Josephson thought it felt almost like the direct
entry midwives were coming before the committee every year.
He noted the audit was recommending a six-year extension.
He asked what the concern had been in the past five years
that was less of a concern in the current audit.
Ms. Curtis answered that in the past four cycles, the board
had been awarded a two-year extension three times and a
four-year extension once. She explained that the auditors
had not recommended the two-year extensions; the
legislature had reduced the recommendation several times.
There were several times where an investigation had not
been handled timely or appropriately on behalf of DCBPL.
She expounded that it had posed a public safety risk. Often
times, the details could not be published in the audit
report, but it was important enough to recommend a short
extension in order to ensure the public safety risk was
rectified. The one year she had recommended a four-year
extension, she had been very concerned about the high
licensure cost. She worried it was presenting a barrier to
the occupation; therefore, at the time, she recommended the
legislature consider alternate forms of regulating the
profession due to the high certification fee.
5:49:43 PM
Ms. Curtis relayed that none of the other medical boards
appeared to be interested, the legislature had not pursued
the recommendation, and the board was willing to accept the
high fees in order to regulate themselves; therefore, she
did not make the recommendation going forward. The audit
found that the investigative issues had been dealt with and
it did not find any compelling reason not to recommend at
least a six-year extension, but it did not recommend a full
eight-year extension.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
JANETTE SCHLAEDER, CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF NURSING (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She shared
that the board played a critical role in safeguarding
public health and ensuring the highest standards of nursing
in Alaska. She relayed that the board was due to vote in
favor of the bill. She detailed that doing so would protect
patients, support healthcare professionals, and
strengthened the healthcare system. She thanked the
committee.
Co-Chair Foster moved to the next testifier.
LEITONI TUPOU, CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF PAROLE (via
teleconference), relayed that he was available for
questions.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal notes.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed FN3 from DCCED, OMB component 2360. The note
reflected what was already included in the governor's FY 26
budget including $62,200 for travel and $5,500 for services
for a total cost of $67,700 funded by receipts collected by
professionals. The fiscal note also reflected a $67,700
change in revenue. He provided a breakdown of the cost
between the boards. He explained that $29,400 in travel was
allocated to the Board of Nursing, $5,200 in travel for the
Board of Certified Direct Entry Midwives, and $27,600 in
travel for the Board of Veterinary Examiners. Services were
broken down into $1,200 for board meeting advertising,
$4,000 for training and conference fees, and $300 for board
members attending meetings.
Mr. Anderson reviewed FN2 from DOC, OMB Component 695. The
funding shown in the note was already included in the
governor's budget. The note included $1.849 million for
personal services, $29,900 for travel, $26,700 for
services, and $33,200 for commodities, for a total cost of
$1,938,800 in general funds. The note included nine full-
time positions. The legislation amending the Board of
Parole extended the termination date. He noted that the
departments were available online for questions.
5:56:40 PM
Representative Bynum stated that the committee had just
heard a bill extending the Board of Architects, Engineers,
and Land Surveyors (AELS). He observed that the current
bill looked like a cleanup bill to make extensions to
current boards. He wondered why the eight-year extension
for the AELS Board was not included in the bill.
Senator Bjorkman replied that the sponsor of the AELS bill
included the extension in his bill [SB 54]. He explained
that he had taken on the task of drafting SB 137, which
contained the remainder of the board extensions that needed
to pass during the current session due to their summer
[June 2025] sunset date.
Representative Bynum saw that the AELS Board also expired
[in the coming summer]. He thought they were hinging the
extension of an existing board that provided an important
function for registration of architects, engineers, and
land surveyors on a bill. He thought it seemed a bit
abnormal to make the extension of a board contingent on the
passage of adding to the board. He asked if Senator
Bjorkman would object to ensuring the AELS Board was
protected in the event that SB 54 failed to pass.
Senator Bjorkman replied that after a sunset date was
passed, a board went into a wind down phase where a sunset
extension was needed, or work needed to wrap up and its
advisory and regulatory role was transferred back to CBPL.
He explained that the Board of Direct Entry Midwives was in
that exact position, and it was currently in the winddown
year. Without an extension in the current year, the direct
entry midwives would lose their professional voice in
crafting regulation for their profession. He relayed that
SB 54 had been extremely well vetted over the past three
years. He noted that it had reported out of the House
Finance Committee and was headed for the House floor. He
did not find it necessary to include the AELS Board
extension as a duplicative measure in the current bill, but
it was up to the will of the committee.
6:00:39 PM
Representative Bynum asked if there was cause for concern
when a board went into a wind down status and additional
duties the board had to take on to prepare for wind down.
The committee had heard earlier the [audit] recommendation
was to extend the [AELS] board an additional eight years.
He recognized there was hope that SB 54 would pass, but he
was a bit worried that if the bill did not pass that it
would create uncertainty for 7,803 licensees. He recognized
that the legislature could come back in January to fix the
issue.
Senator Bjorkman replied that the question would be more
appropriately addressed to the director of the CBPL. He
relayed that it was not an uncommon position for boards to
be in, albeit not a desirable one. He did not have many
doubts that the other bill [SB 54] would pass, but it was
up to the House. He stated it was up to the will of the
committee to decide whether it wanted to add a duplicative
board extension to the bill. He remarked that it would be
an uncommon thing to do. There had been a bill in the
Senate that sought to extend the Board of Parole and it had
been taken out of the other bill after he introduced SB
137. He personally felt confident SB 54 would pass. He
stated that if the committee wanted to amend SB 137 it was
the committee's prerogative.
6:03:37 PM
Representative Hannan stated that in her experience, the
only thing being tweaked in a sunset bill was the date the
board lived for, and sometimes multiple boards were
included in one sunset bill even though they may have
different extension dates. She elaborated that when a
change of duty to a board was proposed, it ran as a
separate bill. She would be very opposed to adding in the
AELS Board extension to the current bill. She explained it
meant there would be two bills dealing with the AELS Board
in two different forms, one where the board would have
expanded duties and membership and one with an extension of
the board's sunset date. She stated the two bills were like
oranges and tangerines they were related, but they were
not the same flavor. She did not believe she could support
blending the two together.
6:05:06 PM
Representative Allard asked if adding the AELS Board
extension to the bill would delay the processing of the
midwives board extension.
Senator Bjorkman replied affirmatively.
Representative Allard emphasized that it was very important
there was no delay. She had been working with the midwives
and they needed the bill to pass. She encouraged leaving
the bill in its current form.
Representative Bynum reasoned that if the bill was amended
it would have to return to the Senate for concurrence. He
asked if that was what Senator Bjorkman was referring to.
Alternatively, he wondered if Senator Bjorkman thought
amending the bill would make it unlikely for the
legislation to pass in the current session.
Senator Bjorkman replied that the delay would occur because
the committee would have to draft an amendment or a
committee substitute to the bill and it would take longer
to get out of the committee, which would delay when it
would arrive for a vote on the House floor. Additionally,
it would have to go back to the Senate for concurrence.
6:06:54 PM
Representative Hannan MOVED to REPORT CSSB 137(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Bynum OBJECTED. He did not agree with the
path forward. He thought the bill should be amended to
include the AELS Board. He stated that the AELS Board would
go into the sunset phase in less than two months, and he
did not like the situation when there was a bill before the
committee extending other boards and commissions. He had
provided an amendment to add the language to the bill. He
did not support moving the bill forward, when there was an
administrative amendment available that could correct the
problem. He remarked that the issue was no fault of Senator
Bjorkman. He would be a no vote on the passage of the bill.
He wanted to protect the board from unforeseen hazards that
would result if SB 54 did not pass. He was merely trying to
ensure the legislature was protecting boards and
commissions.
Co-Chair Schrage appreciated the concern; however, he
believed both bills [SB 54 and SB 137] would receive
bipartisan support based on conversations he had in the
building. He believed making amendments to the bills would
slow them down. He remarked that the legislative session
was in its final days, and he would prefer to keep the
bills moving on their way. He supported moving the bill in
its current form.
Representative Allard asked Representative Bynum was
looking at offering an amendment. She would support him if
so.
Representative Bynum responded that the motion at hand was
to move the bill from committee. He stated that if he
wanted to take up an amendment, he would have to offer it
on the House floor. He thought it did not sound like there
was the will of the body even if he offered the amendment
on the floor. He MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
[Note: a first role call was taken and voided.]
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, Galvin, Jimmie, Tomaszewski, Hannan,
Schrage, Josephson, Foster
OPPOSED: Bynum, Allard
Representative Stapp was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8/2).
CSSB 137(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with seven "do
pass" recommendations, one "no recommendation"
recommendation, and one "amend" recommendation and with two
previously published fiscal impact notes: FN2 (COR) and FN3
(CED).
Senator Bjorkman thanked the committee.
6:13:16 PM
AT EASE
6:40:40 PM
RECONVENED