Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/14/1999 03:26 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 1999
3:26 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 158
"An Act relating to the annual report of the director of the
division of insurance and to notice of cancellation of personal
insurance."
- MOVED CSHB 158(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 51(L&C)
"An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers, manicurists, and
cosmetologists; providing that the only qualification necessary for
licensure as a manicurist, other than payment of fees, is
completion of a class that is 12 hours in duration, addresses
relevant health, safety, and hygiene concerns, and is offered
through a school approved by the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 126
"An Act relating to sign language interpreters; establishing the
Alaska State Board of American Sign Language Interpreters; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL CANCELLED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 158
SHORT TITLE: NOTICE OF INS. CANCELLATION TO ELDERLY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/24/99 556 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/24/99 556 (H) L&C, JUD
4/07/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/07/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/07/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/09/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/09/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/09/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/12/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/12/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/14/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 51
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/01/99 126 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/01/99 126 (S) L&C, FIN
2/16/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/16/99 (S) MOVED CS (L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/16/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
2/18/99 285 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 3NR NEW TITLE
2/18/99 285 (S) NR: MACKIE, DONLEY, HOFFMAN;
2/18/99 285 (S) DP: TIM KELLY
2/18/99 286 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO SB AND CS (DEC, DCED)
3/16/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/16/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/17/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/17/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/17/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/17/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/26/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/26/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/26/99 699 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1NR 1AM (L&C) CS
3/26/99 699 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
3/26/99 699 (S) ADAMS,
3/26/99 699 (S) WILKEN, LEMAN; NR: DONLEY; AM: GREEN
3/26/99 699 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DEC)
3/29/99 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/29/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/31/99 750 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/31/99
3/31/99 753 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/31/99 753 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/31/99 753 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
3/31/99 753 (S) CONSENT
3/31/99 754 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 51(L&C)
3/31/99 754 (S) PASSED Y17 N1 E2
3/31/99 754 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
3/31/99 756 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/07/99 666 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/07/99 666 (H) L&C, FIN
4/14/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in the proposed Version H
committee substitute for HB 158 as aide to the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Lobbyist
for State Farm Insurance Company
124 West Fifth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5912
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the proposed Version H
committee substitute and amendments for HB 158.
JOHN FERENCE, Deputy Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
Telephone: (907) 465-2560
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the proposed Version H
committee substitute and amendments for HB 158.
JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist
for the National Association of Independent Insurers;
Lobbyist for the American Council of Life Insurance
3328 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-0172
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 158.
DOUG SALIK, Researcher
for Senator Tim Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 101
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4823
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 51(L&C) as aide to the Senate
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2536
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 51(L&C).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-39, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:26 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Sanders, Harris and Brice. Representatives Cissna and Murkowski
arrived at 3:29 p.m. and 3:54 p.m., respectively.
HB 158 - NOTICE OF INS. CANCELLATION TO ELDERLY
Number 0065
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business
is HB 158, "An Act relating to the annual report of the director of
the division of insurance and to notice of cancellation of personal
insurance." The chairman requested staff to explain the changes in
the proposed Version H committee substitute (CS).
Number 0083
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB
158, Version H, as a working document. Version H is labeled
1-LS0128\H, Ford, 4/13/99. There being no objection, Version H was
before the committee.
Number 0102
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to explain the
changes in Version H as aide to the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee. Version H incorporates the amendment that was
adopted at the previous hearing [April 9, 1999]. It can be found
on page 2, lines 11 to 13, of the proposed CS, regarding sold or
terminated and proprietary information. This language appears as
Section 1, subsection (7) of Version H:
(7) statistical information regarding health
insurance, including the number of individual and group
policies sold or terminated in the state; this paragraph
does not authorize the director to require an insurer to
release proprietary information; and
MS. SEITZ noted "less than 70 years of age" on page 2, line 19, is
new. She indicated that all of subsection (2) of Section 2,
beginning on page 2, line 27, through the end of the bill, is new
language. It sets out that a written notice of cancellation can be
mailed to the named insured and to a designee, if the insured has
requested that a designee also receive a copy of the (indisc.)
notice.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed from Ms. Seitz that was for all three
notices. He indicated, then, the insured would designate the third
party to receive notice, but the insured would receive notice as
well, so there would be two sets of notices sent.
MS. SEITZ answered in the affirmative. She noted the mailing
schedule has been changed from the 60 days in the original bill
back to the existing 30-day, 20-day, and 10-day mailing schedule.
Number 0242
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked the reason for raising the age from 67
to 70.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated it was an issue of driving records.
There were statistics regarding ages of registered drivers from the
Department of Motor Vehicles and some information on the estimated
prevalence of ADRD [Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders]
related to age groups from the Commission on Aging in the bill
packet. The chairman indicated a slight raise in age would reduce
the number of people involved and that the biggest incident of
ADRD-type manifestations appear after age 70, getting progressively
worse.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned if these were statewide figures.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the affirmative, noting the chart in
the bill packet was provided by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
He commented page 4 of the chart shows there are 403,304 automobile
passenger car licenses and only some 16,000 [16,803] licensees are
over age 70. The chairman indicated this, combined with the
medical evidence regarding ADRD-type diseases, was the reason for
the age change. The chairman invited Mr. Lessmeier [lobbyist for
State Farm Insurance Company] forward. Noting there was another
issue, the chairman commented he has been working with the industry
on this issue. One of the major concerns he has been trying to
address is the return receipt requested. This provision has been
removed from the bill by adding the additional notification to a
third party. Chairman Rokeberg drew the committee's attention to
the possible H.1 amendment, which he designated as Amendment 1.
Amendment 1, labeled 1-LS0128\H.1, Ford, 4/14/99, read:
Page 3, line 6, following "cancellation":
Insert "; an insurer who provides a personal
insurance policy to an insured who is 70 years of age or
older shall give written notice to the insured of the
insured's right to have a designee receive notice as
provided in this paragraph"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained the amendment mandates that the insurer
tell people they have the ability to designate a third party. The
chairman asked Mr. Lessmeier if it was his interpretation of
Version H that there would be two notices sent on the 30, 20[, 10]
mailing schedule, if the insured selects the designee option.
Number 0532
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company (State
Farm), answered that was correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned how this compared regarding cost to
the certified mail standpoint.
MR. LESSMEIER replied that this was proposed as a way of meeting
the chairman's concerns to give meaningful notice to the insured
and, if the insured is not someone who can receive meaningful
notice, giving notice to someone else. This is what State Farm
thinks would be the most effective way to accomplish this in terms
of giving that notice, as well as the most efficient way for them
to do so. He noted it would be the easiest and have the least
impact from an expense viewpoint.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expressed his concern is that this is three
additional pieces of first class postage, plus accompanying forms,
versus one return receipt request cost element. He asked Mr.
Lessmeier to explain why the industry would prefer the first
method.
Number 0629
MR. LESSMEIER responded their first concern is of effectiveness.
If the intent is to ensure that the person receiving the notice
actually understands it, in their view it would not be more
effective to send more mailings to the same person. Their belief
is that it would be better to provide the option for the insured to
designate another responsible person. The second concern is that
if they make it "on request," it is being done for those people who
recognize they need this. It is being done in a specific situation
and no one's resources are being wasted. Thirdly, under AS
21.36.260 they are still required to provide a certificate of
mailing from the post office in order for the notice to be
effective; therefore, they think they will have given meaningful
and effective notice to two parties. Under that circumstance, they
cannot see what would be gained by going the additional step of
requiring return receipt requested, which would impose a cost that
this would not. Mr. Lessmeier noted he could not estimate that
cost, but indicated he felt the cost would be imposed for something
that probably would not be of much benefit. Mr. Lessmeier
indicated there was a proposed amendment to Version H which would
require certified return receipt mailing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if Mr. Lessmeier's calculation was
based on the probability factor that a majority of people over 70
would not want a designee.
MR. LESSMEIER answered that he had not done any calculations. He
indicated he doesn't know how many people would choose the designee
option; the issue is what would be gained as a result of sending
certified return receipt requested. If two mailings are being done
to begin with, State Farm's view is that that is effective notice
and little, if anything, would be gained by requiring certified
return receipt requested, which would have an attached cost.
Number 0779
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee has Amendment 1 before it,
mandating that the insurance industry inform people of their right
to make the designation. He asked if Mr. Lessmeier had any
objections.
MR. LESSMEIER answered he did not, but he would like to "run this
by our folks." Mr. Lessmeier recognized it was the chairman's
desire to move the legislation and he indicated they would just
continue to work on the bill as it proceeded. The issue is whether
it would be the desire to have the industry, for example, include
this information in the mailing at the time of every premium
renewal so that it is done semi-annually. He does not think this
would be a problem but he would like to confirm that. Mr.
Lessmeier expressed his support for notifying people, if this
option is made available, to ensure the option's effectiveness.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that this is a mandate for the
insurance industry to notify [insureds of the designee option]; it
does not mandate a periodic notice or anything like that. The
chairman confirmed Mr. Lessmeier would not like to see some
periodic mandate to assist the company in doing this. The chairman
questioned if the notice would be something placed in the policy
boilerplate or an endorsement.
MR. LESSMEIER commented they would probably just put a mailer in
the premium statement.
Number 0883
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO gave the example that he turns 70, receives
his renewal policy in the mail with the notice and pays his bill.
He asked if this meant the information had to be included in every
renewal notice he was sent now that he is 70, or if one
notification would be sufficient.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he was wondering if that should be a
mandate requirement on an annual renewal.
MR. LESSMEIER said he would not think it would be a problem to do
this on an annual basis.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked about those customers who paid monthly
or quarterly.
MR. LESSMEIER noted he would want to check with their technical
people in this area, but he still does not think it would be a
problem to do this perhaps once a year.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented they could probably amend the amendment
by specifying language to the effect of "annual notice" or
"annually notice". He indicated this would avoid mandating this
information to be sent every time for a shorter periodic renewal.
The chairman invited Mr. Ference forward.
Number 0987
JOHN FERENCE, Deputy Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, came forward.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Mr. Ference has seen Version H and
Amendment 1. The chairman asked Mr. Ference for his comments and
how he thought the industry would react.
MR. FERENCE did not foresee any problems and had no recommendations
other than ensuring that if there were to be a requirement for
return receipt, it be clearly specified.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted return receipt was currently not being
discussed. The chairman referred to the actual notice and the
period notification [of the designee option].
MR. FERENCE commented he did not see any problem at all.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if there were any requirements in
other areas of the insurance law that mandate occasional
informational notification to insureds.
MR. FERENCE answered there are similar requirements for periodic
notice in different circumstances. For example, the division deals
with Civil Rule 82. The division requires that liability policy
holders be advised of their obligations or risks relative to Civil
Rule 82. In response to the chairman's comment, Mr. Ference said
that is every time a policy is issued.
Number 1087
MR. LESSMEIER noted there is a similar requirement for offers of
uninsured and under-insured motorist coverage on automobile
policies. He believes these [notices] need to be made every six
months or at the time of renewal.
MR. FERENCE said it is when the policy is issued.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the existence of policies of varying
periods, with the customer selecting the period. He asked what
then constitutes a renewal.
MR. LESSMEIER recommended not going more than annual, because this
will apply to both automobile and homeowners' insurance. Most of
time, in his experience, homeowners' insurance is an annual
premium.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, then, the issue is whether the
committee wishes to mandate "on renewal" or "annually". The
chairman noted Mr. Lessmeier's testimony that he prefers "annually"
over "renewal". Chairman Rokeberg asked Mr. Ference if he had a
recommendation to the committee regarding this type of
notification.
MR. FERENCE answered he believes annual notice would be sufficient;
if he were to recommend anything, he would recommend annual notice.
Mr. Ference informed the committee there is a provision in this
section of Chapter 36 dealing with cancellation notices that says
a policy period is a 12-month period, cycling from the anniversary
date.
Number 1178
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted a letter of opposition in the bill
packet mentioned that homeowners' policies make no reference to the
age of the insured because that is irrelevant [Alliance of American
Insurers, 4/7/99]. He asked how they would track someone's age
regarding homeowners' policies if that information is not gathered
at the time of initial application.
MR. LESSMEIER replied he thinks this information is gathered at the
time of initial application, although he is not 100 percent sure.
Mr. Lessmeier said he thinks the easiest way to do this would be to
send a notice to all insureds on an annual basis which says, "'If
you're over 70 years of age, you have the right to make this
request.'"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated this would be appreciated as a matter
of public education. The chairman confirmed there were no further
questions for Mr. Lessmeier or Mr. Ference. He asked if Mr. George
wished to comment.
Number 1259
JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist for the National Association of Independent
Insurers (NAII); Lobbyist for the American Council of Life
Insurance, concurred on behalf of NAII that annual [notice] would
be sufficient. He indicated he supported the idea of notifying all
insureds regarding this option.
Number 1292
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved Amendment 1 to the proposed Version H
CS for HB 158.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG objected for discussion. He commented he would
entertain an amendment for annualizing the notice.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to amend Amendment 1 by inserting
"annual" after "give" on line 3 of Amendment 1 ["give" appeared
line 3 of written amendment]. There being no objection, the
amendment to the amendment was adopted. Amendment 1 as amended
read:
Page 3, line 6, following "cancellation":
Insert "; an insurer who provides a personal
insurance policy to an insured who is 70 years of age or
older shall give annual written notice to the insured of
the insured's right to have a designee receive notice as
provided in this paragraph"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1. There
being no further objection, Amendment 1 as amended was adopted.
Number 1358
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the other portion of the bill
regarding statistical information. He asked Mr. Ference if he (the
chairman) had previously asked him about the language, "this
paragraph does not authorize the director to require an insurer to
release proprietary information; and".
MR. FERENCE confirmed the chairman had previously asked him about
that language. The division's recommendation would be that that
provision dealing with proprietary information not be existent.
However, the division does not believe it will be a significant
problem if it remains. If it is not there, however, it prevents
this from ever being a question.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that if the division did not receive
the requested information if this legislation passed, it could
always be amended. The chairman questioned if the division feels
this would allow the collection of the desired information in terms
of "uninsured individual and group plans that are non-ERISA."
MR. FERENCE replied he thought this was broad enough. It will
allow the division to identify who is insured and, by default, that
will identify who falls outside the scope of insurance treatments.
In response to the chairman's comment, Mr. Ference confirmed it
would be both for covered bodies and policy numbers.
Number 1437
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. George what kinds of information
the industry would consider proprietary.
MR. GEORGE answered, on behalf of the American Council of Life
Insurance, that he is unsure. He indicated he deals more with the
life insurance side as opposed to health insurance. He supposes
the names of the groups on group policies, those types of things,
to avoid giving competitors a list of a company's clients, might be
considered proprietary. He didn't see a problem with releasing the
actual numbers, noting he thinks that is the information being
sought. As long as it doesn't include names of clients or names of
insured individuals, Mr. George said he thinks they are probably
okay with that. He commented he is speaking off the top of his
head.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if pricing structures, et cetera, would
be considered proprietary.
MR. GEORGE replied it would be, but he doesn't think that is the
type of information being requested.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "That's published information (indisc.)
premium tax (indisc.)?"
MR. FERENCE responded in health insurance policies it is not, only
for Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented he doesn't want there to be a
future debate over what is proprietary and what is not, noting that
is the reason for his questions.
MR. GEORGE indicated he does not think there is a problem with the
information this legislation is seeking to get. He further
indicated this section could be used in the future to gather other
information, at which point the industry could say that is
proprietary.
Number 1548
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated his view of this amendment [adopted April
9, 1999] is that it was a fence around which the fishing expedition
of the division would be restricted. The chairman indicated the
intention was that the division collect this specific information,
not have untrammeled rights to obtain information.
MR. FERENCE agreed with the chairman's comments.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, regarding the statistical health
insurance information, if that would be the specific services which
are covered, like the level of copayment and the deductibles. He
asked if that would include, for example, whether or not the policy
has mental health coverage as well.
MR. GEORGE said he assumes Representative Brice is interested in
finding out who is treating mental health coverage with parity and
who is not, referring to the mental health parity legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated he was interested in simply who is
providing that coverage.
MR. GEORGE said it is probably not proprietary if it is being
examined generically and statistics are desired. A particular
company might have problems sharing its information publicly.
Number 1645
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned if that is something the department
can work on.
MR. FERENCE answered he doesn't see a reason why they couldn't.
Statistical information, in a sense, is very broad; it is anything
that can be counted. It could be extended to count different
policies on (indisc.) basis, if the division chose to do that.
However, the reality is the division is not interested in "fishing"
either because of the time and expense. He indicated the more
detailed the examination, the more probability the division would
run into proprietary problems and objections from industry over the
cost to provide the information.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted, on the balance of that, he is glad to
see this section is being included, because, as policy makers, the
legislature needs to have some understanding of the real world
impacts of various mandates or various disparities amongst
coverages.
MR. GEORGE commented that people covered under ERISA [Employee
Retirement and Security Act] will not be captured by this,
indicating that is the major section.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said they want to know the other people. He
indicated he doesn't know why this doesn't say non-ERISA.
Number 1713
MR. FERENCE pointed out he doesn't see why there is any reason the
division, under this legislation, could not ask insurers to
identify stop-loss policies that are sold to protect ERISA plans
and solicit statistics on the number of participants protected
under those stop-loss programs.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it would be his intention that the division
obtain that information also. He commented the Department of
Health and Social Services is also always looking for the numbers
of insureds. The chairman confirmed Mr. Walsh [John Walsh,
lobbyist for the Alaska Association of Independent Agents and
Brokers] did not wish to testify. The chairman closed the public
testimony on HB 158 after confirming no one else wished to testify.
The chairman noted he would not be offering the other amendment
[labeled 1-LS0128\H.2, Ford, 4/14/99, adding certified mail
requirements].
Number 1797
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CS for HB 158 [Version
H], as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
158(L&C) moved out the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 1817
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 3:58 p.m. The committee
came back to order at 3:59 p.m.
CSSB 51(L&C) - LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS
Number 1821
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is CSSB 51(L&C), "An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers,
manicurists, and cosmetologists; providing that the only
qualification necessary for licensure as a manicurist, other than
payment of fees, is completion of a class that is 12 hours in
duration, addresses relevant health, safety, and hygiene concerns,
and is offered through a school approved by the Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1827
DOUG SALIK, Researcher for Senator Tim Kelly, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward to present SB 51 as aide to the Senate
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. Mr. Salik
commented the legislation's length might appear intimidating, but
it comes mainly from changing the current statute's "cosmetology"
to "esthestics", or "cosmetologist" to "esthetician". This change
has been made primarily to clarify the language according to other
states; other states use the terms "esthetician" or "esthetics".
Mr. Salik indicated the legislation would replace the references to
"cosmetology", "cosmetologist", and "skin care only" with
"esthetics" and "esthetician". It would also create a manicurist's
license and define the required training for this license to a
12-hour class covering health, safety and hygiene. This class is
not in current statute. In addition, a temporary permit would be
created for persons who have applied for a license and have
practiced their profession in another state. Mr. Salik indicated
this would allow people to come to Alaska and continue practicing
while awaiting Alaska licensing. The legislation also creates a
new instructor's license that covers practitioners as well as
instructors. Therefore, if someone is an instructor, she/he can
hold a dual license which allows the person to both practice and
instruct in the skill. Lastly, the legislation removes the shaving
requirement from statute since it is neither taught nor tested.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if her questions concerning the
examinations should be addressed to Mr. Salik or to Ms. Reardon
[Director, Division of Occupational Licensing].
MR. SALIK indicated he could attempt to answer her questions.
Number 1935
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI understands manicurists would take a
course of not more than 12 hours, and the legislation specifically
says a person does not have to take or pass an examination. She
questioned, then, if it is basically an informational course.
MR. SALIK replied that is correct. He indicated there are
currently no statutory requirements for manicurists. The state has
not received such a volume of complaints that it believes full
licensure is necessary. Mr. Salik noted a lot of other states
require 600 or 800 hours of classes, training, internships, et
cetera. It is felt this might be somewhat severe, especially for
locations like Sitka or Ketchikan where the person in current
practice would have to close her/his shop to attend a $5,000 to
$6,000 eight-week course in Anchorage. Mr. Salik indicated the
cost of such a course would be approximate to that of a student
loan. He noted the class required by SB 51 is basically intended
to eliminate known problems such as use of dental cleaners. The
dental chemicals cost about $2 per gallon, Mr. Salik thought, as
opposed to a significantly higher cost for the correct ones.
However, the dental chemicals actually "eat away at your skin and
things." Mr. Salik indicated the concept of the 12-hour class is
that it could be taken in a weekend to avoid harm to a
practitioner's business, and would cover basic safety issues and
the possible concerns of the profession. Mr. Salik commented that,
for example, this is to instruct someone to avoid shaving down to
the point at which blood is drawn, and what should be done in case
there is blood or something along those lines.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted the legislation states that the
board will issue a license if a person submits documentation that
she/he has completed the course. Describing the example of someone
coming to Anchorage from Sitka for this course, signing in and then
leaving, Representative Murkowski asked what assurance she would
have that her manicurist has actually sat through 12 hours of
instruction. She questioned if there is a certificate of
completion or similar.
Number 2046
MR. SALIK answered that is correct. The intent of SB 51 is to
still maintain the direct oversight of the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers on the schools to ensure the schools will be taking
care of that. In turn, the schools would provide that to the
Division of Occupational Licensing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Ms. Reardon should join the committee
at the table and contribute where she feels necessary.
Number 2082
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), came
forward. She anticipates the department would be looking for a
certificate of completion - some evidence of graduation. Her
reading of the legislation is that the board itself would not be
conducting examinations. Acknowledging Representative Murkowski's
legal background, Ms. Reardon referred to new language on page 2,
beginning on line 26, "The board may not require an applicant for
licensure as a manicurist to take or pass an examination for the
field of manicuring.". Ms. Reardon indicated she thinks this would
still allow the schools to give an examination before completion of
the course is awarded. There is no examination available for
purchase to offer to a person who has completed the 12-hour course.
The national examinations available for purchase are for people who
have taken eight-week, three-month type courses.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to language on page 5, beginning
line 23 ["24"], "The board may not issue a license to a school of
manicuring if the school requires its students to complete more
than 12 hours of instruction or training before the school will
certify that the student has completed the school's manicuring
course for purposes of AS 08.13.080(b).". She questioned how this
new language fits with a beauty school eligible to receive [Alaska]
student loan monies, or if it fits: If a beauty school offers a
manicure course longer than 12 hours to its students, would its
ability to receive student loan monies possibly be jeopardized?
Representative Murkowski noted she is wondering if there is a
tie-in with student loan monies.
Number 2172
MS. REARDON answered that she needed to check with "student loan"
[Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE)] to see what
the rules are regarding school eligibility. She noted it is
conceivable the commission would require a beauty school to be
licensed through the Division of Occupational Licensing. Ms.
Reardon commented Representative Murkowski is the first person to
ask this question.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated she would be interested to know
because she sits on the ACPE and is aware there are beauty schools
for which students can receive Alaska Student Loans. Her concern
is that this legislation not go against the commission's
requirements for school eligibility.
MS. REARDON explained the reason for the language on page 5 is to
encourage schools to create these 12-hour courses. She noted the
legislation's success depends on schools responding to the demand
for these 12-hour courses. Ms. Reardon expressed her frank concern
that the few beauty schools in Alaska might respond by saying they
only offer the three-month course; if this happened, there would be
no place for people to receive the 12-hour course. Ms. Reardon
said there is not a lot of competition in beauty schools outside of
Anchorage. She commented, "I think the sponsor was probably
responding to some of my concerns that way by trying to give
further impetus to say that if you're going to do it, you have to
offer the 12-hour course because that's all the state is willing to
mandate that people take at this point." Ms. Reardon noted she
would definitely look into the postsecondary angle in order to
provide a better answer.
Number 2251
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to a one-page copy of an informational
flyer in the bill packet on Cimarron Tech Nail Artist School. He
noted it shows a cost of $3,350 for a 180-hour curriculum and
displays prominently on the bottom of the flyer that Alaska Student
Loans are available. He noted six weeks seemed like an awful long
time.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out all the things the students
are taught.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "This looks like it could be, I hate
(indisc.), (indisc.) in terms of education here." He questioned if
Mr. Salik had any further testimony "on the Senate Committee"
regarding these types of educational programs (indisc.) being
offered in the state.
MR. SALIK indicated the legislation's intent is to not jeopardize
the business of a nail technician who might own and run a salon in
a small community by requiring the person to leave for six weeks to
complete a course in a profession she/he has already been
practicing for a significant period of time. He noted the intent
is that that person probably already knows what she/he is doing,
but should have a refresher [course] on the possible dangers.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee had received testimony from any of the schools currently
providing this curriculum.
Number 2327
MR. SALIK answered in the negative, stating, "No ... I had only
spoken with them personally and I had tried to ask them to testify,
but they said that they'd prefer not, that they were okay with it.
... They were not happy that it was 12 hours but they thought it
was a step in the right direction. They still wanted to be able to
provide a further, longer course ... to anyone who'd prefer to
specialize (indisc.) such."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that there was nothing in the
legislation that an advanced certificate of manicuring could still
be provided, but it just couldn't be mandated by the student loan.
He indicated he wondered if that was what the provision in the
language referenced by Representative Murkowski meant.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI clarified that language is on page 5. She
reviewed the wording, "may not issue a license ... if the school
requires".
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO indicated, then, a person could still go to
the nail artist school for an advanced degree.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, however, the person could not get a
student loan for it.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed, and commented that the nail artist
school would not be licensed.
Number 2375
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented to Ms. Reardon that the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers would license the schools; therefore, they
would have to go through the licensing procedure in place now.
MS. REARDON indicated the board licenses all the schools covering
the disciplines - barber schools, hairdresser schools, and
skin-care cosmetology/esthetics school - and the board would also
be certifying the licensing of schools offering the manicure
course. She would anticipate that it is often the same school
offering the entire range of disciplines. The school would receive
one school license which indicates what subjects can be taught,
depending on the qualifying documentation provided to the division.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the legislation looks like more of a bill
intended to cut down abuse of the student loan program than
anything else. He questioned if this assumption is correct,
commenting he has not read the entire bill.
Number 2463
MS. REARDON answered she does not think that that was behind this,
explaining that most student loans for beauty professions are used
primarily for hairdressing, and nothing is being changed regarding
how schools of hairdressing operate. Ms. Reardon stated, "The
things that you have directed your attention to in this
conversation regarding the limits on schools were designed to try
to create 12-hour courses that people could take - to try not to
have onerous regulation coming down on existing small businesses
or..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 99-39, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. REARDON continued, "...(indisc.) schools from not getting -
being student loan-eligible anymore, that hadn't - actually, we
hadn't thought about the whole topic. But perhaps on page 5, I
don't know how the sponsor feels about it, but we could [have] said
something more like, 'The board will not issue a license to a
school of manicuring unless the school offers a manicure course ...
of 12 hours of instruction.' Something like that might work
because as long as they offer a 12-hour course they can also offer
a 260-hour course or something." The concern Ms. Reardon has, and
perhaps this was reflected in some of the sponsor's decision, is
that if some pressure is not put on [schools] to create the 12-hour
course, everyone will respond by only creating the 360-hour or
180-hour courses. Then, every manicurist in the state would have
to take one of those longer courses. Ms. Reardon does see why a
school want to offer a comprehensive course like the one described
in the bill packet; there is no harm in having a more complete
education.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned Mr. Salik if there had been any
testimony from "postsecondary education" on this legislation.
MR. SALIK answered in the negative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, his suspicions are not necessarily
confirmed in terms of the student loan program.
MR. SALIK indicated he believes some of the manicurists' curriculum
is covered during the barber/hairdressing program. He noted this
simply might be a further refresher. Most current barbers or
hairdressers already have a basic understanding of manicuring and
have performed some manicures.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG acknowledged Representative Brice's question,
commenting, "Before we beat this thing to death here for a minute,
but maybe we'll go back to it ...."
Number 0083
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he thinks they still need to beat a
little bit more. He asked what the basis was for the 12 hours. In
response to Mr. Salik's comment, Representative Brice said he
understands why, but questioned how.
MR. SALIK indicated the number of hours was set with the intention
that it be small enough to allow someone from a more remote
location to travel to Anchorage and complete the course over a
weekend, rather than having to close her/his shop for an extended
period of time. Mr. Salik further indicated other states require
between six to eight weeks, or similar.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted 20 hours is more than 12 hours but not
six weeks. He understands there has to be a certain level of
arbitrary decision; he is just wondering if 12 hours is enough. He
has heard testimony that there are some pretty invasive techniques
performed, referring to Mr. Salik's earlier comment about drilling
and drawing blood. Representative Brice noted fairly sharp
implements being stuck up through a person's cuticle; he pointed
out that is a question. However, Representative Brice said he also
would like to clarify a statement made by Ms. Reardon. He
indicated he thought he had understood Representative Murkowski's
comments until Ms. Reardon spoke. Representative Brice referred to
language on page 2 being added to current statute, "The board may
not require an applicant for licensure as a manicurist to take or
pass an examination for the field of manicuring." He believes it
was Ms. Reardon's testimony that this would not bar a school from
giving a test before a person receives her/his certificate of
completion. However, Representative Brice indicates he thinks this
would not allow a test to be required at all. He described the
scenario of someone taking the 12-hour course and using this
language to inform the school it expressly is not allowed to
require a test before giving out the certificate of completion.
Number 0192
MS. REARDON indicated she feels pretty comfortable saying the
intent of this language was to refer to back to the earlier
sentences of that section relating to the duties and functions of
the board regarding meetings and examinations. She indicated the
language Representative Brice referenced may not clearly reflect
this intent. If the committee is of the mind to "fine-tune" the
legislation through a committee substitute already, Ms. Reardon
thought the department would not have any problem with clarifying
that point: the board may not require a board examination but
schools may require examinations of their choice. She explained
the department does not want to offer a board examination because
it would have to write the examination and conduct it.
MR. SALIK said that was correct. The intent was not to require the
board to test, but the schools might require anything they would
like including a practical test. It would be the school's
requirement, not the board's, not the state's.
MS. REARDON noted perhaps additional wording regarding the 12-hour
limit on instruction - to the effect that the person has to have
successfully completed the 12 hours - would make the committee more
comfortable. She indicated this would provide some flexibility and
commented these are improvements to the legislation.
Number 0280
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated his preference would be to mandate some
type of examination, even if it was a practicum, so that the school
would have record that an individual actually took an exam in case
the person was audited for her/his conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated his agreement and a bit of remaining
concern with the 12-hour issue.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Salik, regarding the 12-hour course, if
there had been any testimony regarding the curriculum [necessary]
to train a manicurist.
MR. SALIK answered it was the intent to allow the board to define
the curriculum.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the issue is whether 12 hours is enough
time.
MR. SALIK indicated it was felt the definition of "health, safety
and hygiene" was of the proper breadth to allow the board to
determine the curriculum which would need to be covered.
Number 0359
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA questioned if there is an upper reasonable
limit of what could conveniently fit into a weekend if the intent
is avoid business disruption for those who would need to travel to
participate. She noted she could see the situation where the board
would select more items than would be effective to put into 12
hours, commenting that "to lock it onto that" does seem to
arbitrary. She asked if 12 hours was it.
MS. REARDON replied that, certainly, there was some arbitrariness
to 12 hours. She wanted to put an upper limit so that it wouldn't
be a huge number of hours and the sponsor cooperated. Ms. Reardon
is just not aware of very much research on this profession. She
would recommend against being specific in statute about the
curriculum, above and beyond the fact that it is health and safety
the state is concerned with. Her reasoning for this is that she
suspects there will be a lot more public comment from schools
during the regulation writing process. She said the schools are
pretty active interacting with the board about curriculum and
similar items. Ms. Reardon suspects the advent of acrylic nails,
with the possibilities of infection and other similar issues, has
been the impetus for licensing like this. If the curriculum is set
in statute, the statute might need to be revised in a couple of
years as different kinds of nails and products come out. Ms.
Reardon expressed her lack of knowledge about nail issues, noting
perhaps that is why she hesitates to put anything in the law
regarding the curriculum.
Number 0500
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained he brings the issue up because he
carried a bill dealing with the subject a few years previously.
That legislation spoke of 300 hours; Representative Brice noted he
had to fight to get it down to 300 hours. He discussed that
former-Representative Cynthia Toohey had been a member of the
legislature at that time. She had her nails done and, as a nurse,
had treated diabetics who had to have manicures [pedicures] because
of the high risk of infection in the feet. Representative Brice
indicated former-Representative Toohey had been familiar with the
"more precarious" techniques associated with the profession. This
is where Representative Brice's concern comes from. Additionally,
as he recalls, few states offered less than 150 hours at that time.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned that beauty schools currently
touch on manicuring. The schools have this comprehensive program
teaching a person to cut hair, do nails and do some skin
treatments. He asked if this would mandate that these schools
dedicate a minimum of 12 hours, or if this would mandate that the
schools provide a whole different course. Representative Halcro
asked if the schools would still be able to incorporate manicuring
into their current curriculum.
MS. REARDON explained SB 51 sets requirements for a manicurist's
license. Currently, some manicurist training is being provided to
people getting hairdressers' licenses. She would think the schools
could require whatever manicure training they wished for the
hairdresser's license. Through regulation, the board has required
a certain amount of manicuring for a hairdresser's license. This
statute gives the board a lot of leeway - the board sets the hour
amount and the entire curriculum for barbering and hairdressing;
the statute contains very little specific detail about how the
state will license that. Ms. Reardon believes the board requires
1600 hours of training and a certain amount of different
procedures. She doesn't think manicuring is required of barbers
but is required of hairdressers. The required amount of manicuring
for hairdressers should appear in the regulations. Ms. Reardon
stated, "I would think that they could continue to do that, both to
meet the board 'regs' or to exceed the board 'regs,' if they chose
to - for hairdressers, just not for manicurists' licenses."
Number 0641
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG drew Ms. Reardon's and the committee's attention
to a March 25, 1999, letter or fax in the bill packet sent to the
Senate from Rosalyn Wyche, a member of the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers. He indicated the communication said the board agreed
with SB 51 except for the amount of hours manicurists should
receive and that they should be tested. The communication
recommends 300 hours and following the Milady textbook. The
chairman questioned Ms. Reardon about this.
MS. REARDON explained Ms. Wyche and another board member had missed
the last board meeting due to weather conditions. Indicating an
attempt to teleconference has not been successful, Ms. Reardon said
she believes Ms. Wyche based her letter on positions the board had
taken in previous meetings or years. However, at the March 22,
1999, meeting the board did discuss this very topic of hours and
Ms. Reardon observed it appeared the board felt getting licensing
this way is a good start and could be adjusted in future years.
Referring to the minutes of that board meeting, Ms. Reardon noted
a motion had been carried unanimously by the three members present
expressing the board's approval or support for the CS for SB 51, as
presented in Version G, the current version [CSSB 51(L&C)].
MR. SALIK indicated the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee, he believes, requested each board member be faxed
regarding this legislation. The responses are included in the bill
packet; Ms. Wyche's response [received 3/11/99] shows she was in
support of the legislation and had chosen not to provide further
comments. Mr. Salik commented he had spoken with Ms. Wyche after
the legislation passed the Senate; she was glad it had come this
far and had expressed the board was excited that at least they had
something in the right direction. Mr. Salik said the board is not
sure how far to go in that direction either. He compared this to
how the 12 hours was arrived at. Mr. Salik noted Ms. Wyche said
she personally believes more hours would be a better thing, but yet
the board agreed that 12 hours was a good step in the right
direction.
Number 0799
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how the issue of "grandfathering" was
being handled. He asked for confirmation that the practice of
manicuring by a hairdresser who has gone through a class requiring
250 to 300 hours of manicurist training would not be disallowed by
this legislation because the person hasn't taken the 12-hour
course.
MR. SALIK replied he believes this version does not grandfather
people in; these people would be asked to take the 12-hour course,
which would, at the very least, be a refresher for some. He
indicated he had done some research regarding other states and the
required hours vary greatly.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the state of Alaska requires 15 practical
[manicure] operations for a hairdresser's license and 180 wet hair
stylings and dryings. The chairman commented the regulation
reference is 12 AAC 09.160[(12)].
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wondered whether or not people with the
hairdressing license should receive some type of grandfathering and
not be required to go through the 12-hour class.
Number 0910
MS. REARDON clarified Representative Brice meant grandfathering in
currently-licensed hairdressers to receive manicurists' licenses,
not that hairdressers would be allowed to practice manicuring
without a separate manicurist's license. She noted the second
option would cover both existing and future hairdressers; Ms.
Reardon said it is just another option for dealing with that.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented the question arises that if to
receive a hairdressing license, a person has to go through a higher
standard of education and training. He thinks it only stands to
reason that that license should give a person the right to practice
manicuring on its own.
MS. REARDON said she doesn't think the bill does that at this time,
however.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Section 20, on page 8.
[Section 20 read:
* Sec. 20. AS 08.13.190 is amended to read:
Sec. 08.13.190. Failure to possess a license or
permit. A person who practices barbering, hairdressing,
manicuring, or esthetics [COSMETOLOGY], or operates a
shop, or operates a school of barbering, hairdressing,
manicuring, or esthetics [COSMETOLOGY], or teaches in a
school of barbering, hairdressing, manicuring, or
esthetics [COSMETOLOGY], without a license, temporary
permit, temporary license, or student permit and who is
not exempt under AS 08.13.120 or under AS 08.13.160(d) is
guilty of a class B misdemeanor.]
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted this is the penalty for failure to
possess a license or permit. She would bring this up in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee if this legislation had that referral:
she thinks there is a great difference between someone teaching or
operating a school without a license and this group of manicurists
who would only have to take this 12-hour health and safety course
without an examination. However, these manicurists would still be
guilty of a Class B misdemeanor if they fail to take this course
and get their licenses. Representative Murkowski commented this
does not equate. She recommended the examination of this and
removal or reduction of the penalties for at least the manicurists.
Number 1025
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted all occupational licensing infractions are
subject to Class B misdemeanors; it is a universal penalty. He
questioned Ms. Reardon regarding the last occasion someone in
Alaska was charged with a criminal misdemeanor for being out of
violation with his/her license.
MS. REARDON answered that it has not occurred in their memory.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if it is correct that all occupational
licensing infractions are generally subject to the Class B
misdemeanor.
MS. REARDON answered there are a few that might be Class A
misdemeanors. Mobile home dealers, unusually enough, might be
subject to Class A misdemeanors. Ms. Reardon added, "And also in
some philological reasons in some of the professions like medical.
If you practice without a doctor's license, I think it can work its
way up to maybe even a lower felony or something." She indicated,
however, the general penalty for occupational licensing infractions
is a Class B misdemeanor but there are quite practical difficulties
with applying that because the district attorney's office and the
police are pursuing many types of crimes. Therefore, the division
likes to have some penalty in statute to encourage compliance with
licensing even though it may never be enforced. The penalty could
be a different level, but Ms. Reardon feels there does need to be
some penalty. She referred to unsuccessful legislation introduced
several years previously by Representative Jeannette James which
would have given boards the ability to assess fines for unlicensed
activity; that legislation was unsuccessful for an unrelated
reason. Currently, boards have no statutory authority over
non-licensees. It is left to the criminal justice system to punish
people, but it is not happening.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted unless a person is on real estate
commission.
MS. REARDON indicated this was due to the chairman's previous
legislation [the previous session's HB 33].
Number 1118
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she would not have a problem with it
if the manicurist license actually meant something. However, at
this point no examination is required; the person simply has to
check in and pay her/his fees. Representative Murkowski expressed
that putting these people in the same class as a beauty school
teacher or operator does not make sense.
MS. REARDON commented there are other professions Representative
Murkowski would probably feel the same way about, although her
point is not invalid. Ms. Reardon indicated there are some
professions that basically only require a fee and signature. She
questioned if there were other types of lower penalties that would
be a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted there is a penalty for people
practicing without a license; he non-seriously questioned if there
is a penalty for those practicing with a license but who are really
bad, commenting he has received some really bad haircuts.
MS. REARDON stated there is a very good point underlying that and
probably not one this legislation wishes to address: there is not
the authority, if this bill passes, for the state to remove
hairdressers', barbers', manicurists', or estheticians' licenses
for incompetence. The statute states the board can discipline a
licensee for violating the chapter but nothing in the chapter says
a person has to perform at any specific level. The chapter
requires a person to have a license and some other similar
requirements. A school might be required to teach certain things
and give certain records but nowhere does the statute specifically
require safe or competent practice. Therefore, the division cannot
cite anything in the chapter as being violated if a person fails
practice safely or competently. Ms. Reardon noted she has brought
this issue up in other settings. She thinks this is a bigger issue
for all of barber and hairdressing; it is not anything they are
exacerbating except that it is being expanded to another
profession. Ms. Reardon noted the other downside of solving this
issue is that if the division had enforcement abilities, it would
then want to enforce. This leads to the risk of a fiscal note for
realistic reasons. Currently, the division spends no money on
enforcement. Ms. Reardon indicated that if a person calls with a
complaint regarding a licensee's competence, the division expresses
sympathy, but since it has no enforcement ability, it incurs no
cost because no time is spent on the complaint.
Number 1305
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out this is where the division relies on
"the invisible hand and the power of the marketplace to sort out
the competent from the incompetent," noting he thinks that
basically works. The chairman indicated he wished the transition
issue to be addressed. He commented there are a large number of
people of Vietnamese background doing manicuring all over the West
Coast and in Alaska. These people have been in business for a
number of years without licenses or anything. The chairman
questioned if these people could receive the temporary licenses
until they take the 12-hour course or how that transition would
work. He asked what he would have to do if he was currently a
manicurist.
MS. REARDON indicated all current manicurists would have until the
legislation's effective date, September 1, 2001, to receive the 12
hours of training and obtain their licenses. Ms. Reardon expressed
her belief that if there is enough risk to public health and safety
to merit licensure and 12 hours of health and safety training for
this currently unregulated profession, not requiring existing
practitioners to take this 12 hours of training would belie the
concern about health and safety risk.
Number 1438
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it is the chairman's desire to take
Representative Sanders' advice and assign this legislation to a
very small subcommittee. The chairman indicated this does not
reflect negatively on Mr. Salik's efforts and that would be
communicated to Senator Tim Kelly. Chairman Rokeberg noted he is
concerned about the 12 hours. He indicated he would like also like
to receive some feedback from ACPE on how this fits in; the
chairman commented they obviously need an amendment in that area
just to clarify that and to make an examination is required before
someone is certified, with records of that examination, et cetera.
Additionally, they need to make sure the transition provisions are
acceptable. Chairman Rokeberg indicated it sounds as if they are.
He guesses it is this issue regarding the length of hours and how
it fits into "postsecondary."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented on the reference on page 5, line
7, to payment of a credential investigation fee for someone
entering from another state. She noted the person basically waives
into this licensure by proving her/his licensing in the other
state. She wondered whether this is the regular licensure fee or
if the person pays the license fee plus the credential
investigation fee and exactly what this is all about.
MS. REARDON indicated she would have to check.
Number 1575
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked how reciprocity with other states is
handled.
MR. SALIK indicated the legislation would create a temporary permit
for people who are already licensed in another state to allow these
people to practice in Alaska while obtaining Alaska licensure.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE thought the committee would also want to have
the discussion about people who have had course work beyond the 12
hours through other licenses.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he thinks that is one of the issues with
postsecondary education. He appointed Representative Brice as
chair of the subcommittee on SB 51 because of Representative
Brice's expertise regarding this legislation. The chairman
indicated the two female members of the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee, Representative Cissna, also of the minority,
and Representative Murkowski would serve on the subcommittee. The
chairman noted this is not a sexist recommendation; he indicated he
thinks "you of the fairer sex" have more expertise in this area
than "us dumb guys over here."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA mentioned she has never had her nails done.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that the subcommittee, in conjunction
with Mr. Salik and Senator Tim Kelly, expeditiously bring back a
slightly revised version so SB 51 could properly be sent to the
House floor in a proper way. [CSSB 51(L&C) WAS ASSIGNED TO
SUBCOMMITTEE]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1705
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 4:51 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|