Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/16/1999 01:36 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
February 16, 1999
1:36 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Mackie, Chairman
Senator Tim Kelly, Vice Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Loren Leman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 53 "An Act relating to a state employment
preference for certain members of the Alaska National Guard."
-MOVED SB 53 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 51 "An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers,
manicurists, and cosmetologists; and providing for an effective
date."
-MOVED SB 51 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 53 - No previous action to consider.
SB 51 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Chris Nelson, Staff
Joint Committee on Military Bases in Alaska
Senator Tim Kelly
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 53
Mr. Bruce Gazaway, President
Alaska National Guard Enlisted Association
4420 Edinburgh Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 53.
Mr. Bruce Gabrys, President
Alaska National Guard Officers Association
10229 Baffin St.
Anchorage, AK 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 53.
Ms. Catherine Reardon, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, AK 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 51.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-3, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN MACKIE called the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee
meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. and announced SB 53 to be up for
consideration.
SB 53-EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE FOR NAT'L GUARD
SENATOR KELLY, sponsor, explained that this issue was brought to
him by the Alaska National Guard Officers' Association and the
Alaska National Guard Enlisted Association and was first introduced
as legislation in 1989. It was recently raised as an issue again
because the Alaska National Guard are running into problems with
recruiting and retention. He noted there is a companion bill
sponsored by Representative Morgan in the House.
MR. CHRIS NELSON, staff for the Joint Committee on Military Bases
in Alaska, stated in Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98), 429 soldiers left the
Alaska National Guard. When any organization loses people in mid-
career, they are losing people with institutional memory and
experience, the very best people. A suggestion from the leaders of
the National Guard Associations is to provide a three-point
incentive on the State's civil service exam to encourage Guard
members to maintain their active status. This also provides the
State with the opportunity to get employees into other state
service who are mature, disciplined, and team players. These
people are drug-free and meet all the other requirements the
military imposes on its work force. It's a win-win situation to
for the Guard and the State of Alaska to have these people continue
to serve in the National Guard and to seek employment with the
State of Alaska and other agencies.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked Mr. Nelson to explain how this would work.
MR. NELSON responded that typically an airman would enlist in the
Guard for a period of six years and an officer has an initial
obligation of about the same thing. SB 53 waits until someone has
been in eight years; at which point they have a commitment to the
Guard, have been through their basic and AIT training, their branch
officer basic course and advanced courses. These people will
typically be E5's and E6's and O3's and O4's. This is the
beginning of their most productive years for the Guard. At that
point, a lot of people who enlisted in the Guard when they were 18,
19, and 20 years old, have begun families and careers, which
pressures them to consider whether they have enough time for the
Guard. The Guard wants them to continue being part of their
family, as well, and also want to encourage them to have stable
employment. One of the ways to do that is to encourage them to
work for other agencies of the State. SB 53 provides a three-point
bonus for those veterans. To qualify for the bonus, they must be
active members of the Guard and must have served eight years.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked how much of an advantage that would be.
MR. NELSON answered that it is less than the five-point bonus given
to Alaskans who are combat veterans or who have been prisoners of
war, but it is significant enough to make it possible for members
to achieve employment.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said that veterans currently receive five points;
disabled veterans and prisoners of war received 10 points. He
asked if points accumulate for people who fit several different
categories.
MR. NELSON said, no, a person gets the highest number of points
they qualify for. He added that this bill would exclusively affect
people who have enlisted and served in the Guard exclusively.
SENATOR DONLEY asked what the total points available on an
examination are.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said they would find out.
Number 147
MR. BRUCE GAZAWAY, President, Alaska National Guard Enlisted
Association, summarized his position which he had also presented
in a letter before the Committee. He said he was a member of the
Guard for 18 years as an NCO. He sees SB 53 as a retention tool,
though three points is not an overwhelming endorsement. It is more
than a token, however, because it will make a National Guard member
stand out and give him or her a chance to get an interview. This
is an appropriate action for the State, because the Guard is a
State asset. This bill encourages midlevel management and skilled
technicians to stay on the job when there are lots of incentives to
leave, like the increased burden that military downsizing has
placed upon the average Guardsmen.
MR. GAZAWAY said that our nation has become increasingly dependent
on the Guard and Reserves, sending them to help out in situations
like Hurricane Mitch. Too often when they come back, they have a
hard time finding work.
MR. BRUCE GABRYS, President, Alaska National Guard Officers
Association, said he recently retired as a Lieutenant Colonel with
five years of active service and 15 years in the Alaska Army
National Guard. He said he sent a letter recently to Senator Kelly
supporting SB 53. Most jobs for state application generally have
a possible score of 100 points. A preference of three points is
less than what is given to veterans, but those are veterans that
served during a period of war, not necessarily those participating
in combat.
He explained that the National Guard role is much different now
than in years past. The active Army cannot make any major
deployment without getting some support from the National Guard
where air craft, vehicle mechanics, and material handlers are now
located. The Guardsmen will go individually or as a unit, but it
many cases, it's a voluntary call-up. Because of that, they don't
share some of the same benefits they would get under full
mobilization.
MR. GABRYS said the three points is not intended to compete with
the service that's provided by those who did perform during a
period of war or were a POW or had a service related disability.
That three points recognizes the service they provided to both the
State and the nation. The National Guard in Alaska is being called
upon more and more frequently to support our natural disasters in
the State.
He clarified that the three point preference does not force the
selecting supervisor to hire that particular Guard or veteran, but
only assists the applicant with preference points in ranking high
enough to get an interview. The selecting supervisor can then
select from the top five categories. Assuming 100 is the maximum
number of points, a disabled veteran would have 110 which would be
the top category and it would work down from there. If a disabled
vet scored 90 on the test, he would have a score of 100.
Number 208
SENATOR KELLY asked if under the definition of a federal veteran,
a person would have to serve at specific times, for instance WWII,
the Korean War, Vietnam, or Desert Storm, in order to be qualified
as a veteran.
MR. GABRYS answered he thought that was correct and he thought the
State's definition would be a period of service before 1976, the
Vietnam era.
SENATOR KELLY responded that there are almost no veterans left from
WWII and Korea that are in the labor market.
SENATOR DONLEY said he didn't see these dates in the statute.
SENATOR KELLY said it was somewhere else and he was surprised that
Desert Storm isn't included.
MR. GABRYS said the 1976 date was Vietnam and he thought the window
should have been opened again for Desert Storm.
SENATOR KELLY commented that the youngest guys, if they went to
Vietnam, would be about 43 now and there aren't as many preferences
in play now as there were 20 years ago.
SENATOR DONLEY asked to find where the dates are defined.
SENATOR KELLY said they would find it.
MR. GAZAWAY said he thought the dates were defined in federal
legislation and he thought Desert Storm was covered. The
definition allows for people who served in a direct capacity.
SENATOR DONELY said he wanted to see where the State rule referred
to the federal rule.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced a recess at 1:55 p.m. to allow for a fire
alarm. He called the meeting back to order at 2:10 p.m. and noted
that the same quorum was present. He stated that Senator Donley's
question had been answered.
SENATOR KELLY moved to pass SB 53 from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 51-LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS
CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced SB 51 to be up for consideration
SENATOR KELLY said the bill was introduced at the request of the
Board of Cosmetologists. The only controversy within the bill
appeared to be the licensing of manicurists and what training they
require.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that the sponsor of SB 51 was actually the
Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee.
MS. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing, said her staff provides the staff support to the Board
of Barbers and Hairdressers. She agreed that the primary issue in
SB 51 is the licensing of manicurists.
Less controversial items include changing the term "cosmetologist"
to "aesthetician" throughout the statute; this is why the bill is
so long. This is a request of the Board which says that the term
"aesthetician" is much more common in other parts of the country to
mean skin care which is what cosmetologists are in our statute.
Using the term "cosmetologist" has been confusing to people who are
coming in from other states, leading them to think that's a
hairdresser license and applying for the wrong kind of license. SB
51 has no other impacts on her division or fiscal impacts.
The next item is the creation of a temporary license, which is
different from a temporary permit. The temporary license allows
people to continue to practice between the period that they
complete their training and passing the exam. Depending on what
town you are in, there could be lag-time before the exam is
offered. This provision allows the temporary licensee to operate
under the direct supervision of another licensed person and was
also proposed by the Board.
MS. REARDON said that in the past she has opposed licensing
manicurists, but the Board has traditionally supported licensing
manicurists. The Board is meeting in March and could comment on
the specific bill. Her Division's perspective of SB 51 is that
training required for a manicurist's license is carefully
restricted in the title and content of the bill, to be very
specific that it cannot exceed 12 hours of training and in health,
safety, and hygiene. She personally feels that is preferable to
previous proposals, because in prior years her concern was that
there were a lot of manicurists practicing right now without
licensure and potentially there would be a very expensive training
regimen set up where people would have to close their shop and go
to Anchorage for a couple of months, and spend a couple thousand
dollars to get a license. That might have a lot of real negative
consequences for small business people. She wasn't sure that the
public health and safety risk of incompetent manicuring was
sufficient to be worth that problem for business people. Since the
bill is directed toward health and safety, primarily concerns about
infections resulting from fake nails that are being put on
permanently. The Board members tell her that it possible to get
infections because the nail is covered for so long. If that is the
reason for government involvement in regulation of this profession,
it is appropriate that the training focus on the safety issues.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if she supported the bill.
MS. REARDON answered that she thought the Department would be
neutral on this bill, but she hadn't shown it to the Commissioner
for the official position. The Board has not seen this bill, but
she anticipates that they would support it.
Number 410
SENATOR KELLY asked if there was a section that said if you're an
instructor, you no longer have to get each individual certificates
and pay a whole new permit fee.
MS. REARDON replied that is the fourth aspect of this bill on page
5, line 9 of the draft CS. It says a person licensed as an
instructor is considered to be licensed as a practitioner, and,
therefore, they don't have to buy both the instructor license and
the practitioners license. The Department supports this provision.
She added that there would be a fiscal note relating to the
licensing of manicurists; however, since the draft says there won't
be a state administered examination, that would decrease her last
year's fiscal note. She would not collect the $55 fee to hire a
proctor to give the exam.
SENATOR DONLEY said that some states allow self-testing to avoid
the problem of the state offering the test only on certain dates.
He asked if the Board has a position on that.
MS. REARDON said she didn't know for sure, but would ask them.
From the Division perspective, it doesn't seem to be very
disturbing. In fact, it might be a good idea. She said a concern
might be if the exam givers are giving it to their own students.
She said she would find out and noted that taking the exam out of
the state's hands would also take out of the State's budget.
Number 450
SENATOR KELLY moved to adopt the CS to CSSB 51(L&C). There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there were any concerns about exploring the
self testing aspect.
SENATOR KELLY said he didn't understand how it would fit in this
bill.
SENATOR DONLEY explained that offering an exam in the private
sector would allow a person to take it right away instead of having
to wait two or three months.
SENATOR KELLY said he thought that was a different place than where
the bill started out. He doubted that anyone would fail the exam;
if they would pay the $3,000 - $4,000 to take the course, he
thought they would pass the exam whether they showed up or not.
SENATOR DONLEY said in a way it related to the intermediate
license, since the State only offers the exam at certain times.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said he thought it sounded more efficient to be
able to take the test when you are done with the course rather than
to have to schedule another trip out of town to take the test.
SENATOR KELLY suggested getting an opinion from the Board while the
bill moves to Finance.
MS. REARDON agreed to poll the Board and let the committee know
their position as soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that Ms. Janice Adair, Director, Division of
Environmental Health, had been available to testify in Anchorage,
but had to leave because of illness.
MS. REARDON explained that the bill requires the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) to inspect a shop when it first
opens. When a business changes hands, DEC is no longer able to
reinspect. Where municipalities are involved, more frequent health
inspections are occurring.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted the DEC fiscal note of $3,800 and which says
the Department does not currently inspect facilities covered by
this legislation, nor are they proposing to start an inspection
program. Regulations are self-implementing and, time permitting,
they would respond to complaints. However, they present a
relatively low public health risk.
SENATOR KELLY moved to pass CSSB 51(L&C) from committee with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE adjourned the meeting at 2:28 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|