Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/31/2024 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| EO 127 Eliminating the Board of Massage Therapists | |
| EO 129 Eliminating the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers | |
| EO 130 Eliminating the Board of Certified Direct Entry Midwives | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 31, 2024
2:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Chair
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator Forrest Dunbar
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Click Bishop, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
EO 127 ELIMINATING THE BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
- HEARD
EO 129 ELIMINATING THE BOARD OF BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS
- HEARD
EO 130 ELIMINATING THE BOARD OF CERTIFIED DIRECT ENTRY MIDWIVES
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SARA CHAMBERS, Boards and Regulations Advisor
Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview for EO 127, EO 129, and
EO 130.
PARKER PATTERSON, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on executive order
procedures.
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor
Alaska Division of Legislative Audit
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on EO 127, EO 129,
and EO 130.
ANNETTA ATWELL, Chair
Board of Massage Therapists
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on EO 127.
MICHELLE MCMULLIN, Chair
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on EO 129.
BETHEL BELISLE, Chair
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on EO 130.
ONICA SPROKKREEF, President
Midwives Association of Alaska
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on EO 130.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:34:51 PM
CHAIR JESSE BJORKMAN called the Senate Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 2:34 p.m. Present at the
call to order were Senators Gray-Jackson, Dunbar, Merrick, and
Chair Bjorkman.
^EO 127 ELIMINATING THE BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
EO 127 ELIMINATING THE BOARD OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS
2:35:36 PM
^EO 129 ELIMINATING THE BOARD OF BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS
EO 129 ELIMINATING THE BOARD OF BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS
2:35:36 PM
^EO 130 ELIMINATING THE BOARD OF CERTIFIED DIRECT ENTRY MIDWIVES
EO 130 ELIMINATING THE BOARD OF CERTIFIED DIRECT ENTRY MIDWIVES
2:35:36 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN announced the consideration of Executive Order
(EO) 127 Eliminating the Board of Massage Therapists, EO 129
Eliminating the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers, and EO 130
Eliminating the Board of Certified Direct Entry Midwives.
2:36:25 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Boards and Regulations Advisor, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED), Juneau,
Alaska, provided an overview for EO 127, EO 129, and EO 130. She
paraphrased the following statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The three executive orders being heard today propose
to shift regulatory decision-making from an appointed
board to management within the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development. As you know, the
governor has an ongoing interest in improving the
efficiency of state programs, and these executive
orders present the potential to further that goal.
Today, I'd like to address what the three executive
orders would accomplish and what they would not
change, as well as alleviate a few concerns we have
heard from the public since their introduction.
What the Executive Orders Will Do
First and foremost, these proposals will eliminate
each quasi-judicial board overseeing their respective
programsthe Board of Barbers and Hairdressers, the
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives, and the
Board of Massage Therapistsand move their decision-
making authority to the department. Under the current
delegation of the commissioner, that authority would
then rest with the Director of the Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing.
This proposed change reflects how 24 professional
licensing programs within the division are currently
managed, including many health care programs.
With efficiency as the governor's motive, this change
would reduce time frames for license application
review, ensure swift action when challenges to public
safety arise, and reduce wait times in adopting needed
regulations.
2:38:06 PM
MS. CHAMBERS continued her overview of EO 127, EO 129, and EO
130:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The executive orders are not condemnations of the good
work our board members perform; they reflect concerns
about how well the existing structures are serving the
state and opportunities for improvement.
The structure of the board as the decisionmaker
invites inherent delays. It's difficult to convene a
group of busy volunteers, including managing last-
minute schedule changes that could derail a meeting
and accommodating additional built-in delays to meet
public notice requirements. Board business may get
pushed weeks into the future if a quorum of the board
is unable to meet, unnecessarily drawing out the wait
to complete board business. We understand how
difficult it is for board members to cancel client
appointments or request time off as working
professionals; however, these conflicts impact a
board's ability to function, which cascades down to
impact people attempting to become licensed, existing
licensees awaiting board answers to questions, as well
as negative effects on public consumers.
Currently, the wait time for reviewing and adopting
regulations is more than doubled when a board is the
driver rather than the department. Looking at recent
history, a simple regulations change by the division
takes about four months, versus a year when a board
has requested a similar change. This impacts the
ability of qualified practitioners to enter the market
and suspends policy updates impacting licensed
practice.
Similarly, license applications may wait for several
weeks for members to review, only to be tabled for
consideration at a meeting that could be scheduled
several weeks into the future. This does not happen
with department-managed licensing programs.
Additionally, a staffing restructure initiated in 2022
and affirmed in the FY25 budget adopted by the state
legislature provides deeper programmatic support to
all licensing programssomething that did not exist
before and which previously contributed to turnover in
examiner positions.
2:40:20 PM
MS. CHAMBERS continued her overview of EO 127, EO 129, and EO
130:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The same is true for disciplinary matters:
Investigations requiring a board member review can
often take months, culminating in another protracted
process of discussion and final decision-making by the
board. Shifting this responsibility to the department
will allow investigators to seek input on practice
matters from a qualified practitioner only when scope
of practice is in question. Potential violations of
statutes or regulations that do not involve practice
matters can be managed by a staff investigator who is
familiar with the program, with a recommendation to
the director for final action. Investigative timelines
mandated by division leadership in recent years have
continued to reduce internal case management
turnaround times.
Regulation without a quasi-judicial board is a common
model across the United States: More than half of
Alaska's professional licensing programs are currently
successfully managed this way. When you look across
the US and its territories, there is no one dominant
model of regulation for these professions. Only about
half of the professions under the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers are managed by a board in other states or
territories. About two-thirds of massage therapy
programs are regulated by boards. And only 9 of 34
states that regulate direct-entry midwifery have
industry-led boards.
Shifting away from a quasi-judicial board opens
opportunities for the department to hear regular
feedback directly from licensees, the public, and
other stakeholders. The department is committed to
enhancing input from stakeholders, such as
establishing advisory committees, opening pathways for
electronic communication on proposals for change, and
holding forums and town hall meetings to seek ideas
and feedback on the regulation of these professions.
And, state law will still require the department to
seek and consider public input on regulations the same
way a board is required to do. The department strongly
believes in the need for a solid and transparent
bridge between licensees and staff if the executive
orders become effective, ensuring that people who have
been used to a board structure continue to have an
open line of communication on all matters affecting
their licenses and their practice.
2:42:46 PM
MS. CHAMBERS continued her overview of EO 127, EO 129, and EO
130:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Speaking of which, there have been many concerns
raised by stakeholders since the executive orders were
announced, so I'd like to assuage apprehensions about
what these orders will not do.
The changes made in the executive orders do not alter
the licensure or certification standards or practice
of any of the affected professions. The Administration
supports the practice of these professions and
reinforces that the proposal of these orders is in no
way a first step toward deregulation. Any change to
state law affecting any of these professions would
require action by the legislature, as it does now. Any
regulations change would require the department to
seek and consider public input, as the law mandates
and as the board does now.
If a situation arose and it did not have the practice
expertise required to make an educated decision about
an applicant, investigation, or regulation, the
department would continue to rely upon the advice and
wisdom of seasoned practitionersas it does now with
all programs. We have also confirmed with the
Department of Health that licensees who are currently
qualified for reimbursement by insurance and Medicaid
would continue to be covered, as they are now.
The time currently spent by staff to support
management of a board will be reinvested in improving
licensing turnaround times and increasing expertise
about the profession if there are any gaps as a result
of the reorganization. Division staff currently
receive training and education on matters that are
important to the program, and that will only be
enhanced going forward. A great example of this is the
training our staff currently receives on identifying
potential human trafficking red flags in license
applications and enforcement issues. Board members
currently share in this review, but they are not the
only trained eyes on these issues when they arise,
which is infrequent. The training that division staff
receive on human trafficking would only be enhanced
when the executive orders go into effect.
2:45:02 PM
MS. CHAMBERS continued her overview of EO 127, EO 129, and EO
130:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The previous points apply to all three of the boards
proposed to be eliminated in the executive orders.
There are a few specific concerns, however, that are
relevant to two of the affected boards.
First, the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers has,
multiple times, over more than a decade, identified
needed changes in statute or regulation that would
either improve policies relating to the professions
they govern or clarify persistent questions that are
creating confusion in the industry. With limited
exception, they have failed to act on these major
policymaking needs from industry. The board has
frequently needed to reschedule or cancel its publicly
noticed meetings due to a lack of quorum. On multiple
occasions, more than a dozen members of the public
have gathered to engage with the board, and the board
has not shown up. Without the requirement of a board,
the department could have moved forward in reviewing
these matters and taken appropriate steps to address
industry concerns. The board has, over several years,
and across multiple rotations of members, failed to
perform the work delegated to it by the legislature.
Not only is this persistently not responsive or
responsible to the needs of industry and the public,
but it is a drain of staff time and resources that
could be spent more productively, particularly on
getting people to work in Alaska.
2:46:35 PM
MS. CHAMBERS continued her overview of EO 127, EO 129, and EO
130:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Moving quasi-judicial decision-making to the
department will also protect the integrity of the
process. Within the last year, the Board of Certified
Direct-Entry Midwives has not been able to address
certain application and investigation issues because a
majority of board members had a legal conflict of
interest with the subject--either because the board
member was their employer or had internal information
about the case. The board was required to remand a
matter to an Administrative Law Judge to settle the
matter for them, resulting in the case taking nearly a
year and costing more than $7,000which will be paid
by licensees. This situation is no fault of the
individual board members; it is the result of the
structure of a board of market participants that
oversees a very small number of their peers. By
governing a pool of only 54 licensees and permit
holders, it is inherently difficult not to run into
conflicts of interest in application and disciplinary
matters. Conflicts requiring the board to shift its
responsibilities to the Office of Administrative
Hearings will only create more expenses for a program
that costs licensees approximately $3,000 to enter the
profession as a fully certified midwifea fee that
must be paid again upon renewal of certification every
other year.
2:48:00 PM
MS. CHAMBERS continued her overview of EO 127, EO 129, and EO
130:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Also specific to this board is the inability of the
Administration to fill the physician seat, which has
been vacant for more than two years. A lack of
qualified applicants has made this extremely
difficult. This and other concerns have been brought
to the legislature multiple times in the last decade;
one of the last four recent legislative audits
recommended the legislature look at alternative
methods of regulating this profession.
Again, this is not a critique of the individual board
members or of the profession of direct-entry
midwifery, which the Administration supports. It is a
flaw in the statutory structure of this particular
board. The Administration wishes to express our
respect for the professional expertise and willingness
to serve offered by all board members and our desire
to gain that benefit going forward through more
efficient and appropriate means.
To close, the purpose and expected outcome of the
executive orders are to improve the regulatory
efficiency of the affected professions without
sacrificing public engagement or safety.
2:49:26 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted that this is the first time executive
orders (EO) have been heard in the Senate Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee and inquired about the process of
disapproving an EO.
2:50:10 PM
MS. CHAMBERS replied that an Assistant Attorney General is
online to answer this question.
2:50:26 PM
PARKER PATTERSON, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska, answered questions on
executive order procedures. He asked for clarification that
Senator Dunbar was referring to the procedure for disapproving
an EO.
2:50:59 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR replied yes. He acknowledged that the legislature
has the power to disapprove EOs and requested details on the
disapproval process.
2:51:35 PM
MR. PATTERSON answered that with regard to committee actions, he
would defer to Legislative Legal Services. He explained that in
order to disapprove an EO, the legislature needs to introduce a
special concurrent resolution within 60 days of the regular
session. This must be approved by a majority of the Legislature
during a joint session. He added that the EO becomes law unless
action is taken by the legislature.
2:52:37 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR pointed out that EOs are before the committee
without a corresponding special concurrent resolution;
therefore, no action can be taken. He asked if the intention is
to move the EOs out of committee without recommendations.
2:53:06 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN explained that when hearings are complete, the
committee will produce a report with recommendations. Following
this, any legislator can draft a special concurrent resolution
to veto the EO.
2:53:57 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if members of impacted industries were
questioned regarding the elimination of the boards in question.
2:54:28 PM
MS. CHAMBERS answered no. She explained that the EOs are a
launching point for these discussions.
2:54:51 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked Ms. Chambers to elaborate on her experience
with DCCED and her work with the various boards.
2:55:11 PM
MS. CHAMBERS answered that she joined in 2011. Over 11 years,
she served as Deputy and later Division Director for the
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing.
She explained her current position was created in 2023; in this
position, she works with close to 40 Boards to help them work
more effectively.
2:55:44 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN inquired about the complaint investigation
process and asked if the members of the boards in question help
handle these complaints.
2:55:55 PM
MS. CHAMBERS replied that the investigative process is directed
by the Division. She explained that the Division hires
investigators who are certified through a rigorous process. Once
the investigator has gathered information and worked with
parties to present a case, one or more board members review the
case and make a recommendation to their peers on the board. The
final disciplinary decision is made by the board.
2:56:57 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked if costs or other liabilities are incurred
when board members are not available to assist with this
process.
2:57:12 PM
MS. CHAMBERS answered board members who have the necessary
specialized expertise are typically available; however, when a
board member with the necessary expertise is not available, the
Division contracts with expert witnesses. She said that
currently, board members are involved in every investigation;
however, she opined that there is no need for board members to
review investigations that are not practice related. She
explained that the EO reduces the need for board members by
allowing non-practice related investigations to be reviewed by
staff. She stated that costs are expected to remain the same.
2:59:12 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN said that all three boards have expressed concern
that, should these boards be eliminated, industry members will
no longer be involved in crafting industry-specific regulations,
expectations, and standards. He asked if CVPL has experts in
these fields who can help craft regulations and standards.
2:59:49 PM
MS. CHAMBERS replied that currently, the ideas come from the
boards and the regulations are crafted by division staff. She
reiterated that the Department is committed to seeking out - and
listening to - industry input. She explained that when
industries without boards have outdated regulations, the
department hears this from the industry and is able to move
forward with the necessary changes in a more streamlined way.
3:01:01 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON expressed concern about the cost and asked
if the department would need to hire more employees to take on
the workload once the boards are dissolved.
3:01:24 PM
MS. CHAMBERS replied that the department does not anticipate a
significant change in costs; however, she acknowledged that this
may change depending on legislative changes and industry shifts.
She explained that in 2022, division staffing underwent a
significant restructuring that allowed staff to better
understand industry concerns and trends - and to synthesize what
they hear from board members and licensees. She stated that this
restructuring provides greater confidence in the division
staff's ability to successfully move forward with the changes
that will result from the dissolution of the boards. She
reiterated that there is no intention of cutting out industry
input and emphasized the value of listening to industry
concerns. She stated that fiscal notes are not a part of the EO
process.
3:03:13 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked what the budget is for each of the
boards.
3:03:31 PM
MS. CHAMBERS replied that the boards do not have individual
budgets as the division sets its own budget at the division
component level. She stated that she would get back to the
committee with the historical costs for the boards.
3:04:23 PM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Alaska Division of Legislative
Audit, Legislative Affairs Agency, Juneau, Alaska, testified by
invitation on EO 127, EO 129, and EO 130. She paraphrased from
the following statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The executive orders you are considering today
eliminate three occupational boards which are subject
to legislative oversight through the sunset process
outlined in statute. The sunset process includes an
audit prior to reauthorization. I have been with
Legislative Audit over 30 years and been directly
involved with the sunset audits of the boards you are
considering today.
As I understand it, you are considering whether to
object to the governors executive orders that
eliminate three occupational boards and move the board
responsibilities to DCBPL staff. Before discussing the
specific Executive Orders, I want to make sure you all
know that occupational boards are not funded with
general funds. Oc boards are funded via license fees.
Statutes require fees be set at a level that covers
the cost of regulating the profession. Therefore,
eliminating the boards will not results in savings to
the state's general fund.
And the other important point I want to make clear is
that any increase in regulatory costs that result from
these executive orders will be born by licensees.
When considering eliminating the three boards, I
encourage you to consider the impact on the quality of
the regulatory process, the impact on public safety,
and the impact on license fees.
3:05:43 PM
MS. CURTIS continued her testimony on EO 127, EO 129, and EO
130:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Timeliness and quality of regulatory projects
First, the impact on the regulatory process. As you
all know, occupational boards are staffed with
volunteers. Licensees that serve as board members
provide technical expertise that is needed to craft
regulations - and that expert assistance comes free of
charge. Moving the responsibility for creating and
amending regulations to DCBPL staff will make it less
likely that regulations will be changed as needed
because DCBPL is experiencing significant challenges
with turnover and retention. Further, moving the
regulatory responsibility to DCBPL makes it more
likely that technical expertise will need to be
procured which is a cost that would be borne by
licensees through increased fees.
3:07:17 PM
MS. CURTIS continued her testimony on EO 127, EO 129, and EO
130:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Slowing down the investigative process and increasing
investigative costs
Next, is the impact on the investigative process. As
needed, board members are asked to help evaluate
complaints/evidence and provide guidance to
investigators. Again, these services are provided at
no cost. Without the assistance of board members,
expert assistance would need to be procured by DCBPL
which is a cost that will be borne by licensees. In
addition to increasing costs and, in turn license
fees, I expect the investigative process to be
significantly slower without the availability and
assistance of board members which increases the risk
to public safety.
3:08:25 PM
MS. CURTIS stated that the audit found a concerning lack of
performance at DCBPL, specifically related to the investigatory
process. She noted that the details of these are not typically
disclosed in an audit report, as the investigations are often
ongoing. However, with the boards in question, the oversight
process has been very important to public safety over the last
several years. She continued to paraphrase from the following
statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
DCBPL, like the rest of state government, struggles
with recruitment and retention. I caution against
shifting the boards' responsibilities to an agency
that, as audits have shown, should not take on more
responsibilities. Our sunset audits have highlighted
poor DCBPL performance including untimely
investigations, lack of appropriate response to
investigations, not completing continuing education
audits, and not processing licenses in accordance with
state law.
My final comment for your consideration is that the
legislative sunset process provides and opportunity
for legislators to consider the degree to which a
specific board is serving the public's interest,
including DCBPL's support to a board. These executive
orders remove that oversight process.
3:09:55 PM
MS. CURTIS stated that the Board of Direct-Entry Midwives is
subject to sunset audit this year and pointed out that the
previous extension was limited to two years because of
investigation concerns. She highlighted that the Governor's
office of Boards and Commissions is responsible for appointing
board members. She noted that, in some cases, board positions
have not been filled in a timely manner, leaving members in
positions long after they should have been replaced. She
questioned why boards and commissions was not taking action to
replace board members who consistently missed meetings.
3:10:59 PM
MS. CURTIS commented that the legislative sunset audit process
provides an opportunity for legislators to consider whether a
board is serving the public's interest. She pointed out that
this includes whether DCBPL is offering appropriate support to
the board. She stated that the audits have been critical of
DCBPL's performance over the past 7 years and added that the EOs
take away this legislative oversight process.
3:11:36 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON commented that Ms. Curtis's report answered
her questions and thanked her for her presentation.
3:11:45 PM
At ease
3:13:05 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN reconvened the meeting.
3:14:02 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN announced invited testimony on EO 127, EO 129,
and EO 130.
3:14:35 PM
ANNETTA ATWELL, Chair, Board of Massage Therapists, Fairbanks,
Alaska, testified by invitation on EO 127. She stated that the
current Board of Massage Therapists has unanimously agreed to
seek the legislature's assistance in overturning EO 127. She
asserted that the intentions behind EO 127 appear to be
respectable; however, she believes that eliminating the board
will fail to meet the stated objectives. In addition,
eliminating the board would potentially expand human trafficking
and prostitution in the profession and undermine the
professionalism that licensed massage therapists have worked
diligently to maintain.
3:16:50 PM
MS. ATWELL detailed what the board has done to shorten the
application process. This was done without prompting from the
department. She stated that if the board were eliminated, the
licensing process would become less efficient and licensing
costs would increase.
3:18:17 PM
MS. ATWELL stated that professional, vetted massage therapists
are able to recognize the signs of human and sex trafficking
when they show up during the application process and expressed
concern that division staff would miss these signs. In addition,
she expressed concern that the division of professional
licensing is understaffed and unable to keep up with board
associated responsibilities and cited multiple instances of
related web site inaccuracies or lack of updates, which were not
remedied, even after the issues were pointed out. She questioned
how they would manage the added duties, should the board be
eliminated. She expressed concern that the division would not
ensure that staff are educated on issues related to the
profession. She stated that, because board members are also
massage therapists, they are passionate about issues facing the
profession and reiterated their fervent desire that this EO be
stopped.
3:22:10 PM
MICHELLE MCMULLIN, Chair, Board of Barbers and Hairdressers,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified by invitation on EO 129. She said
she has been on the board for 7 years and has been chair of the
board for 4 years. She shared several issues that the board has
dealt with in recent years. She detailed the difficulties the
board has had when attempting to work with the division,
including issues with retaining a health inspector. She
expressed frustration with the lack of communication from the
Division and pointed out that the board relies on the Division
to communicate with other state departments, which often does
not happen.
3:26:02 PM
MS. MCMULLIN detailed several concerns about the current process
of appointing members to the board. She expressed frustration
that the Boards and Commissions has appointed people who do not
show up to meetings and give no advance notice. She stated that
several individuals have expressed interest in serving on the
board; however, they have not heard back regarding their
applications. She emphasized the importance of a health and
safety inspector to ensure that licensees are operating safely.
She stated that the board is not given the transparency and
communication that is needed for the board to do its job.
3:29:07 PM
BETHEL BELISLE, Chair, Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified by invitation on EO 130. She said
she has been a direct-entry midwife since 1989 and has been on
the board since March 2020. She shared her belief that the board
is needed and stated that the Board of Direct-Entry Midwives is
opposed to EO 130. She shared the board's position that to
eliminate the board would not be in the best interest of the
state, the economy, or public safety. With respect to meeting
quorum requirements, she said the board has met these
requirements at all but one meeting. She stated that,
financially, the board is "in the black" and licensees currently
pay $2800 every two years to be licensed. She added that, while
they are willing to continue paying this, there is concern about
increased costs if the board is eliminated. She emphasized that
if midwives cannot afford to pay for the license, there will be
fewer midwives in the state. She pointed out that midwives have
saved the state approximately $5 million. She expressed concern
that fewer midwives would mean less access to quality care. She
stated that she has been told on several occasions that the
division is unable to complete certain tasks due to a lack of
staffing.
3:32:12 PM
MS. BELISLE shared information regarding an application that was
initially lost by the Division and later cost the board $7
thousand. She acknowledged that the board has been giving
serious attention to the audit recommendations, which has
increased application processing times. However, she emphasized
that this particular application delay was due to
miscommunication at the department level, not at the board
level. She expressed concern that the rampant mismanagement and
lack of staffing will continue. With respect to efficiency, she
said that the board has been working on legislation that would
match the regulations to statutes - HB 175 (Board of Licensed
Midwives). She explained that this would streamline the
application and relicensing processes. She emphasized that the
board brought this issue to the department - the department did
not bring this issue to the board. She stated the importance of
a board of midwives who have the necessary expertise and
asserted that the board is doing a good job meeting the needs of
the state.
3:34:45 PM
ONICA SPROKKREEF, President, Midwives Association of Alaska,
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, testified by invitation on EO
130. She stated that the Midwives Association of Alaska opposes
EO 130. She said she has been a practicing midwife in Alaska for
over 12 years and department staffing issues have been a
continual concern during that time. She stated that department
staff do not understand the midwifery profession and added that
a great deal of time and money has been spent educating
department staff. She shared her understanding that the Board of
Direct-Entry Midwives does not currently have a licensing
examiner who is capable of helping the board. She shared her
belief in the importance of midwifery and stated that EO 130
would restrict the ability of Alaskan families to access
midwifery.
3:37:44 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN solicited questions from the committee. Seeing
none, and there being no further business to come before the
committee, Chair Bjorkman adjourned the Senate Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee meeting at 3:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| EO127.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 127 |
| EO127 Legal Memo-01.25.24.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 127 |
| EO127 Public Testimony received as of 01.31.24.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 127 |
| EO129.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 129 |
| EO129 Legal Memo-01.26.24.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 129 |
| EO129 Leg Audit Report 04.18.2018.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 129 |
| EO129 Public Testimony received as of 01.31.24.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 129 |
| EO130.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 130 |
| EO130 Legal Memo-01.23.24.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 130 |
| EO130 Leg Audit Report-10.14.2022.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 130 |
| EO130 Public Testimony received as of 01.31.24.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |
Executive Order 130 |
| EO127 Leg Audit Report-08.14.2023.pdf |
SL&C 1/31/2024 1:30:00 PM |