Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/20/1993 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSHB 249 ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL TRADESPERSONS Number 403 CHAIRMAN VEZEY read the title to SSHB 249 and noted a committee substitute (CS) had been drawn up. He entertained a motion to adopt the new version for purposes of discussion. Number 418 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG moved for adoption of CSHB 249(STA) for purposes of discussion. There were no objections. Number 422 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked what the differences were between SSHB 249 and CSHB 249(STA). Number 425 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated CSHB 249(STA) reconstituted the Board of Electrical Examiners and the Board of Mechanical Examiners and placed them under the Department of Commerce, while SSHB 249 would have placed that responsibility under the Department of Labor. Number 432 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 249, stated he felt any version of the bill was necessary to provide for the health, welfare and safety of Alaskans statewide. He noted the sunsetting of both the electrical and mechanical examiners boards, and stated not rebuilding a mechanism to certify licenses of electrical and mechanical administrators could put the state into a position of liability. He said he preferred SSHB 249 to CSHB 249(STA), but because of the urgency of the need, would accept the CS. Number 459 CHARLES MAHLEN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, testified in favor of SSHB 249 and in opposition to CSHB 249(STA), saying there was a studied need to transfer responsibility of the electrical and mechanical administrators to Labor because of enforcement problems in the Commerce Department. He stated HB 249 was created after the Attorney General noted the need to draw up new administrative and enforcement practices. He said the idea behind the original version of HB 249 was to streamline the administrative, license and training problems behind the electrical and mechanical administrators positions. He also stated that putting the licenses back under the Commerce Department would recreate the enforcement problems first cited by the Attorney General. Number 507 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked how the enforcement would be different. Number 509 COMMISSIONER MAHLEN stated the penalty under the later version was only $300, which would amount to nothing for people working on major projects. Number 518 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the original statute provided for only a $300 fine, with the possibility of injunctive relief in court. He asked if the commissioner would advocate a larger fine. Number 531 COMMISSIONER MAHLEN stated he felt the administrator should also be responsible for all project work and that the jail time previously included should also be written in. Number 541 CHAIRMAN VEZEY told the commissioner he felt he didn't get an answer to his question, and restated it as to whether the statutory fine should be adjusted, and if so, to what level. Number 545 COMMISSIONER MAHLEN stated he felt the injunctive relief should cover the damages, but restated his wish to see jail time included. Number 552 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER reminded the Chairman of an auto bill the House took up in which the statute gave the court the right to determine the severity of the penalty depending on the offense. She suggested the court ought to be given the same latitude depending on the size of the job under the administrators purview. Number 568 CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted a previous version set out penalties of up to 60 days in jail, and stated he felt a jail term was inappropriate for this type of economic crime. Number 571 COMMISSIONER MAHLEN stated he felt the penalties were immaterial unless enforcement was returned to Labor, as opposed to Commerce. Number 587 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the commissioner to return to the topic of the penalties themselves, and asked if the commissioner would favor a sliding scale system proposed by Representative Ulmer. Number 591 COMMISSIONER MAHLEN said he could go along with penalties being meted out on basis of the scale of the job. Number 598 JIM WHITE, PRESIDENT OF SOUTHEAST MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, testified in favor of some form of HB 249, but stated he had several problems with CSHB 249(STA). He said he opposed the provision stating any job lasting over 24 hours must be inspected personally by an electrical administrator. He stated in outlying areas jobs may last more than 24 hours for a variety of reasons, none of which would require a personal inspection. He stated requiring one would cost the industry and consumers unfairly. Number 620 CHAIRMAN VEZEY agreed, saying he felt the provision should also be addressed. Number 627 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked what Mr. White thought of CSHB 249(STA). Number 630 MR. WHITE responded he did not like the CS, stating he felt going back to the previous system, as CSHB 249(STA) did, would be a step backward. He stated there was a need for consistency, which putting the entire process under Labor would do, and would make the system more efficient and better enforced. He noted that Commerce had little real enforcement power in the field, and putting enforcement into the department that administered the program would be better. Number 656 GLEN CAVE, PRESIDENT OF CAVE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, testified in opposition of CSHB 249(STA). He stated putting electrical administrators in the field was better than placing them in a bureaucracy. He said building a new bureaucracy under Labor was a mistake and he favored returning to the board system. Number 675 REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked if Mr. Cave could support CSHB 249(STA). Number 680 MR. CAVE said he supported the original bill (SSHB 249), but he had problems with the criminal penalties that were to be enforced. He stated it was best to allow problems to be worked out between contractors and customers before allowing the courts to become involved. He also opposed the licensing exemption for professional engineers. TAPE 93-43, SIDE B Number 020 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked why Mr. Cave opposed the exemption for professional engineers. MR. CAVE stated that while professional engineers had extensive schooling, they should be required to take the test because of the broad area covered in practical electrical work. He also said exempting engineers from the licensing provision did not take into account the possibility of a lack of experience in the person. GEORGE MCCOY, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ELECTRICAL EXAMINERS, testified by teleconference from Anchorage in favor of CSHB 249(STA). He stated there was a greater need for renewal of electrical administrators' licenses than ever before because of the increasing population and because of the changes in technology. He opposed the 24 hour personal inspection requirement, stating such a requirement would place a financial burden on the industry and the customer. Number 129 GARY TRIEWEILER testified by teleconference from Homer in favor of either version of HB 249. He stated he was surprised it took the legislature this long to address a pressing need for the state for more than a year, and it was up to the committee to get in gear and pass some form of the bill. Number 146 CHARLES METZ, ELECTRICAL ADMINISTRATOR, testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition to CSHB 249(STA), stating the latest version did not closely resemble the original HB 249. He objected to the exemption given to professional engineers, despite their extensive schooling, saying their degree would not cover the necessary comprehensive code analysis for everyday use. He called for the committee to revert to SSHB 249 and reject CSHB 249(STA). Number 197 DENNIS ERICKSON testified by teleconference from Ketchikan to support SSHB 249, and urged rejection of CSHB 249(STA). Number 209 WILL JAHRIG testified by teleconference from Kenai in opposition to CSHB 249. He stated he saw a need for a bill to be passed, but said he had several objections to the latest version, including the allowance of outside contractors to be given licenses without testing. He stated such a practice would put Alaskans at risk. He also objected to the exemption given professional engineers. Number 245 SANDY HUSS testified by teleconference from Kotzebue in favor of CSHB 249. He stated he had several problems with the latest version of HB 249, but said any version was better than none at all. He noted there was a need to set a standard for Alaskans to follow until the system could be perfected, and no one would benefit by allowing licenses to lapse. Number 273 FRED MOODY testified by teleconference from Nome in favor of passing either form of HB 249. He stated he was most concerned with keeping licenses valid. He also opposed the professional engineers exemption in CSHB 249(STA). Number 317 DENNIS LEWIS testified by teleconference from Petersburg in support of either version of HB 249. He stated the main concern was not allowing licenses to lapse, and stated it was important to get new electrical administrators on line as soon as possible. Number 336 JOHN LITTLEFIELD testified by teleconference from Sitka in support of CSHB 249(STA), but said he had several problems with the latest version. Specifically, he had objections to sections five, eight, nine and ten. He stated it was wrong to exempt professional engineers from the licensing exam; that the $300 fine to be imposed for violations was too low; and that he would prefer to see the entire process put into the Labor Department. However, he said, despite those objections, it was of primary importance to pass some version of the bill. Number 360 GLENN MARUNDE testified by teleconference from Tok in support of SSHB 249, but said he could also go along with the later version. He registered his objections to the engineering exemption and noted that many people in rural areas do their own work, so he called for an increase in the number of administrators, as well as an increase in the number of electrical inspectors. Number 408 DAN COFFEY testified by teleconference from Valdez in support of SSHB 249 and in opposition to CSHB 249(STA). He objected to the exemption for professional engineers, and also called for the streamlining of the process. Number 420 CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted the committee had heard from 14 witnesses on HB 249 and stated he felt time was running out on the last committee meeting of the session. He entertained comments and motions on HB 249. Number 437 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS moved passage of CSHB 249(STA) with individual recommendations. Number 440 REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS inquired where the bill was headed next. CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated it was slated next for Judiciary. Number 449 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS withdrew his motion in order to discuss section five, which dealt with the testing exemption for professional engineers. Number 466 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the reason he deleted the test requirement for engineers was because under current law three licenses would be required to complete and inspect a job: that of the journeyman electrician, the electrical administrator and the professional engineer. He said if the engineer were exempt, that would cut the level of licenses needed on any one job to two, which would accordingly cut costs for consumers. He also noted that being a professional engineer requires not only a degree but years of experience and the successful completion of a comprehensive test. He also told the committee the standard for such a test was higher than that required of an administrator. Number 488 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS said he saw no reference to licensed electrical engineers in CSHB 249(STA). Number 493 CHAIRMAN VEZEY explained there was no legal status for licensed electrical engineers, and the policing and guarantor of the proficiency of such engineers was a function of the Board of Architects and Engineers. He also stated there was only one statutory category of engineers, that of the professional engineer. He stated the board issues specialty endorsements in several areas, and that it is a violation of ethical and legal standards to practice engineering outside the area of a specialty endorsement. Number 501 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER noted a problem on page two, line seven. She stated there was an apparent conflict on line 19, which stated a violation would constitute the commission of a misdemeanor, but also deleted the possibility of imprisonment. She stated she interpreted the misdemeanor statute to include fines of up to $10,000 and up to 60 days of jail time. She stated that leaving it up to the court with respect to jail time might be better. Number 517 CHAIRMAN VEZEY said he interpreted an unclassified misdemeanor to carry no jail time. Number 521 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER moved an amendment to place a period after the word "violation" on line 19. There were no objections. Number 530 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS noted a problem under the "lapse of license" section, which set four years as the retesting time. He stated that codes could easily change in four years, and suggested putting the word "and" in the sentence to cover that possibility. Number 542 CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted he built the four year period in to prevent licenses from lapsing this year, after the legislature failed to keep them alive after the board's 1992 sunset. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS withdrew his motion to amend the line. REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS noted a need for an amendment on page three for section 11, line 12, similar to the previous amendment mentioned by Representative Ulmer, with this amendment applying to the section dealing with Mechanical Administrators. He so moved the amendment. There were no objections. Number 572 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked for clarification on penalties for Class C misdemeanors. Number 589 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS returned to his earlier concerns over competency testing, and moved placing the word "by" with "and" in the previous line. There were no objections. CHAIRMAN VEZEY put the committee at ease to look up Class C misdemeanor statutes. Number 607 CHAIRMAN VEZEY called the committee back to order after a short discussion with Representative Ulmer and the committee staff. He entertained a motion to change the wording in the penalty section from "misdemeanor" to violation, which would effectively allow for a fine of up to $10,000 and give the court discretion on jail terms. Number 614 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS moved the amendment suggested by the chairman. There were no objections. Number 625 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS noted problems with section eight of CSHB 249(STA). He said the new wording appeared to be redundant with respect to the duties and responsibilities of professional engineers working as electrical administrators. Number 633 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he found the section confusing as well, but he had been assured by Legislative Legal it was consistent with the goals laid out in CSHB 249(STA). However, he said he saw no reason for the section and stated he felt it could safely be deleted. Number 645 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS stated it appeared to him to limit the inspection powers. Number 647 CHAIRMAN VEZEY remarked it actually removed work done by the engineer from being inspected, since it was previously supervised by the engineer. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS moved deletion of section eight. There were no objections. CHAIRMAN VEZEY called for further discussion. Seeing none, he called the question to pass CSHB 249(STA). CSHB 249(STA) passed by a 7-0 vote.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|