ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 18, 2006
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 338
"An Act relating to applications, qualifications, and criminal
history and background checks for a certificate of fitness for
explosives handlers; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 93
"An Act relating to dentists and dental hygienists and the Board
of Dental Examiners; establishing certain committees for the
discipline and peer review of dentists; excluding the
adjudicatory proceedings of the Board of Dental Examiners and
its committees from the Administrative Procedure Act and from
the jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 93(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 295
"An Act adopting the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and
relating to fraudulent transfers of property."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 338
SHORT TITLE: CERTIF. OF FITNESS FOR EXPLOSIVE HANDLERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT, REPRESENTATIVE LYNN
01/09/06 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/05
01/09/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/09/06 (H) L&C, FIN
01/18/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 93
SHORT TITLE: DENTISTS AND DENTAL HYGIENISTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ANDERSON
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
01/28/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/28/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/02/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/02/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/18/06 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
SHARALYN "SUE" WRIGHT, Staff
to Representative Mike Chenault
House Finance Committee
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided opening statement on HB 338 on
behalf of Representative Chenault, one of the prime sponsors.
GREY MITCHELL, Director
Central Office
Division of Labor Standards and Safety
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
CLIFF HUSTEAD, Chief
Consultation & Training
Occupational Safety & Health
Division of Labor Standards & Safety
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 338.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Tom Anderson
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 93 on behalf of Representative
Anderson, sponsor.
JIM TOWLE, Executive Director
Alaska Dental Society, Inc. (ADS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 93.
GEORGE SHAFFER, D.M.D.
Alaska Dental Society, Inc. (ADS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 93.
RICK URION, Director
Central Office
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 93.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:21:48 PM. Representatives
Anderson, Kott, Rokeberg, Lynn, and Guttenberg were present at
the call to order. Representatives Crawford and LeDoux arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 338-CERTIF. OF FITNESS FOR EXPLOSIVE HANDLERS
3:22:59 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 338, "An Act relating to applications,
qualifications, and criminal history and background checks for a
certificate of fitness for explosives handlers; and providing
for an effective date."
SHARALYN "SUE" WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Chenault, House
Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) requested the
legislation and would therefore be presenting HB 338.
3:24:01 PM
GREY MITCHELL, Director, Central Office, Division of Labor
Standards and Safety, Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD), stated that he is in support of HB 338. He
informed the committee that the division licenses explosive
handlers in the state. There are currently about 170 licensed
explosives handlers in Alaska, and the Division issues 50-70 new
licenses each year. It is a three-year license. He stated that
the intention of the legislation is to create a system that
would allow the Division to check for national criminal records
of the applicants. [The background check] would also apply to
anyone renewing his or her license. He explained that " ... To
us it just made good common sense to do that, with the ...
concerns that are going around the country right now, and we
have these workers who are working in close contact with
explosives; we want to make sure that they don't have records
that would cause concerns for us."
3:25:21 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON informed the committee that there was a proposed
amendment, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Section 7 This act would not apply to people working
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of
Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration.
MR. MITCHELL stated that he was familiar with the proposed
amendment.
CHAIR ANDERSON explained that the proposed amendment would add a
new section and would address concerns of the Alaska Miners
Association.
MR. MITCHELL, in response to a question, stated that the
proposed amendment is designed to clarify that HB 338 was not
intended to extend to miners. He explained that miners are
covered under the U.S. Department of Labor (USDL), Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA) jurisdiction, and so the
department DLWD doesn't have any authority over them. He added
that the proposed amendment puts this into writing.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the proposed amendment would
exclude gravel extraction.
MR. MITCHELL responded that any mining covered under the MSHA's
jurisdiction would be covered.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG remarked that taking a cliff face down
to remove it and then reuse it seems to be covering both mining
and extraction. He asked if highway construction would be
considered mining because, in this area, they seem to be the
same.
MR. MITCHELL agreed that this is probably right, and that
certain projects would be so closely tied that it would require
certification in both areas.
3:31:26 PM
CLIFF HUSTEAD, Chief, Consultation & Training, Occupational
Safety & Health, Division of Labor Standards & Safety,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), noted that
he would be representing the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA) and stated that it was never the intent to
include miners in the regulation.
3:32:12 PM
MR. HUSTEAD, in response to an earlier question from
Representative Guttenberg, stated that when explosives handlers
are dealing with gravel, it would fall under the MSHA's
jurisdiction. He explained that if it was for a logging road or
something of that nature, and "they" were using the fill
material to build road, then it would fall under the DLWD's
jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there was a connection
between having a "handler's license" and having a "business
license". He said:
One of the concerns that I hear from explosives
handlers is, oftentimes when they go out on a job ...
the [contractors] themselves don't have ... an
explosives license, and they want the handler to have
the license. And then it becomes an issue of
liability and who's carrying the liability insurance
for the event. So, sometimes you're just putting the
handler out of business, or not, but you're certainly
putting the liability on that person, and they don't
have control of the worksite.
MR. HUSTEAD responded that the blaster would only have to have a
business license if he/she owned the company. If working for a
company as an employee, he/she would not be required to have a
business license.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the 10-year "look-back" for
felonies is conforming to the federal standard.
MR. HUSTEAD answered that Alaska is the only state that has a
look back provision. He added that [OSHA] would like to expand
the look back provision to the rest of the nation, because the
individuals that it applies to will go from state to state, and
[OSHA] would like to know if the person has committed a felony
in another state.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how long it takes to get the
results of a background check.
MR. HUSTEAD replied that normally the results are received the
same day.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if this was for a fingerprint
background check.
MR. HUSTEAD confirmed that it is.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if the background check was for
any felony.
CHAIR ANDERSON commented that some felonies would apply more
than others, and asked how this would work.
MR. MITCHELL, in response to questions said that the 10-year
look-back period does apply to any felony, and there is an
appeal process. If the felony doesn't relate to a person's
ability to handle explosives safely, a person would be able to
appeal to the commissioner's office. He added that the
department does not have any regulations in place, because the
statute is new.
CHAIR ANDERSON commented that he would like to see "criminal
history" and the section regarding the 10-year felony look-back
provision removed, adding that he does not see the relevance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there is a provision for
current license holders to be "grandfathered in."
MR. MITCHELL replied that there is no such clause in the bill.
He explained that the [license holder's situation] would be
reviewed at the time of renewal. He said:
Let's say there's someone out there who has a felony
record ... within the last ten year, that's currently
got a blasters license; they ... would be denied and
then have to go through the appeal process ... to
maintain their license upon renewal.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said:
You're making the assumption that there is a
grandfathering by saying a current licensee wouldn't
have to apply for a new license ... or certificate of
fitness until it expired. There seems to be a little
ambiguity here about that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG added that usually there are transition
provisions when requirements are changed, and that he would like
to get a legal [opinion on this issue].
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said: "The way I read it, in Section 2, it
says: ... 'applicant for the issuance or renewal of a
certificate'. So, it seems to me that if you had a license that
was expiring a year and a half from now, that I don't have to
subject myself to fingerprints and a background check until I
come up for renewal." He asked Mr. Mitchell if this is correct.
MR. MITCHELL confirmed that this is correct.
3:41:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the amendment should be
expanded to cover the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
(ATF). He also asked how the department would verify if someone
already has a certificate in another state.
MR. HUSTEAD stated that the ATF mainly regulates the storage and
transportation of explosives, and the department does not
believe that it is necessary to add the ATF to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if ATF issues any type of
certificate of fitness.
MR. HUSTEAD answered that it does not; only the MSHA issues a
certificate.
MR. MITCHELL, in response to questions from Representative Kott,
stated that the number of explosives handlers is not growing
rapidly, and that the cost of the background check would be $35,
plus an additional $18 for the national background check. He
added that there may be a fee for fingerprinting, depending on
where the fingerprinting is done.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the applicant would need to submit
to a background check each time the license is up for renewal.
MR. MITCHELL confirmed that this is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT expressed concern about the 10-year look
back.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that a felony is a serious issue,
and that explosives are dangerous. He expressed approval for
the way that the legislation is currently written.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if Section 1, Paragraph (5)
which says, "other information that the department requires",
includes interviews with applicants. He explained that he has
heard concerns regarding the length of time it takes to receive
a federal permit, adding that the application process for a
federal permit includes an in-person interview and can take up
to five months.
MR. MITCHELL explained that Paragraph (5) is part of current
statute, and was simply renumbered as a result of adding another
Paragraph (4). He stated his belief that the current
regulations ask for additional information from the applicant,
and that there is no intention of requiring an in-person
interview.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that committing numerous
misdemeanors is also inappropriate behavior, and that someone
may have committed a crime 10 years ago that was a misdemeanor
at the time, but is now a felony. He added that when he was in
the military, they would have people fill out the forms for a
background check and it would take anywhere from two to four
months, depending on the extent of the check. He stated that
oftentimes, even though there was nothing returned in the
background check that would indicate the person had committed a
crime, they would have field representatives go out and
interview neighbors. He asked what the reaction of the
department would be if they were to have a field representative
interview neighbors or friends and the representative discovered
that the person was known to do illegal drugs. He stated that
even if the person hadn't been caught, it [should] be a concern.
MR. MITCHELL responded that if those types of concerns were
brought to the attention of the department, they would have the
authority under current regulations to revoke the explosives
handler's license, and hold hearings concerning the allegations.
He explained that in this case, the background check would
consist of the Department of Public Safety contacting the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and asking it to check the
national criminal information system database for any criminal
history of the person in question.
CHAIR ANDERSON pointed out that on page two, line 24, it states
that, "The department may not find an applicant competent", and
commented that this means it's not a guarantee that the
applicant shall receive a certificate.
MR. MITCHELL confirmed that this is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that as used in the bill, the
term felony is both too broad and too narrow, explaining that it
does not include some misdemeanors that might show an inability
to control one's temper, while including some felonies that
would not affect one's ability to handle explosives.
MR. MITCHELL replied that this statement is fairly accurate,
adding that regulations are in the works right now, in an
attempt to firm up what a statewide background check looks for
in terms of misdemeanors. He commented that certain crimes,
such as domestic violence, should limit a person's ability to
have an explosives handler's license. Mr. Mitchell added that
this is designed to apply in a broad sense, and looks at
nationwide data.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this applies to fireworks.
MR. HUSTEAD responded that it does not, and that fireworks are
not considered "construction activity."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out AS 08.52.070, which reads:
Sec. 08.52.070. Persons exempt.
Persons employed in mining operations as defined in AS
27.20.061 are exempt from the provisions of this
chapter.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that because this language is
already in statute, he did not know that the proposed amendment
is needed.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that the legislation is only
regulating people who are licensed and looking for a legitimate
job in the industry. He added that the people who are "up to
mischief" would still be able to walk into a store and buy the
supplies.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that finger printing applicants
would be a good idea. He commented that he understands the
intent of the legislation, but feels that the current wording is
"overkill."
MR. MITCHELL replied that in addition to the "terrorist threat,"
the department is also trying to protect the public from those
individuals who may act recklessly. He added that it is a
"fairly big job" to make sure that the department is acting
responsibly when issuing licenses.
4:04:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said: "I don't know that it's up to us
to continue to ... punish somebody for something that they have
supposedly paid their debt to society for."
4:05:24 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that the proposed amendment would not be
offered in the committee, as the concerns are already addressed
in current statute.
4:06:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated that having spent his life
working in this industry, he agrees with Representative
Crawford, adding that he would prefer that any necessary changes
be made in the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CHAIR ANDERSON added that he agrees with Representative Crawford
in regard to, "how far do you take this."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD expressed concern about drafting an
amendment "on the fly," adding that he would like a chance to
work with the department to draft new language.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that the current felony
statutes are onerous in some areas, and HB 338 may conflict with
them. He added that it would be a good idea to look into this
although he is not sure how this would be done.
4:09:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that it might be better to move
the bill from committee and have an amendment drafted before it
is scheduled for its hearing in the House Finance Committee.
CHAIR ANDERSON replied that there are four committee members
with concerns, adding that it would be best to hold the bill
over.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, referring to Section 4, line 24, stated
that after further thought, "may not" clearly states that there
is no choice, adding that "shall not" would also be appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that he would work with the
sponsor to try and come up with different language.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that it would be difficult to make
the bill work for all the different situations that could
possibly come up.
CHAIR ANDERSON relayed that HB 338 would be held over.
HB 93-DENTISTS AND DENTAL HYGIENISTS
4:13:01 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the last order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 93 "An Act relating to dentists and dental
hygienists and the Board of Dental Examiners; establishing
certain committees for the discipline and peer review of
dentists; excluding the adjudicatory proceedings of the Board of
Dental Examiners and its committees from the Administrative
Procedure Act and from the jurisdiction of the office of
administrative hearings; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 93, Version 24-LS0384\G, Mischel, 1/31/05, which was
adopted as a work draft on 2/2/05.]
4:13:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 93,
Version 24-LS0384\I, Mischel, 1/12/06, as the working document.
There being no objection, Version I was before the committee.
4:13:49 PM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Anderson, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, informed the committee on behalf of
Representative Anderson that many of the concerns expressed by
the Alaska Dental Society, Inc. (ADS) and the Division of
Occupational Licensing have been addressed via Version I. He
explained that one of the concerns of the division was that in
the original version, the Board of Dental Examiners was given
far broader power than the division comfortable with. He added
that Jim Towle from the ADS would be able to explain the changes
in greater detail.
4:15:41 PM
JIM TOWLE, Executive Director, Alaska Dental Society, Inc.,
(ADS), stated that the ADS has worked extensively with the
division to address their concerns, adding that they are ready
to address any new concerns that the division may have. He
explained that the language in Version I has been modified to
ensure that the department staff involved in the investigatory
process work with the Board of Dental Examiners ("the board"),
and the board would not be empowered to act independently.
CHAIR ANDERSON commented that the CS was faxed to several
dentists, and his office did not receive any objections. He
asked if any members of the committee had received any calls
with concerns or objections.
4:17:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how the public feels about the
proposed "peer review" and how it has worked in the past.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked Mr. Towle to address the issue of having
"peer review" instead of review by a neutral entity.
MR. TOWLE replied that the public makes a complaint based on the
performance of dentistry, and a licensed professional would have
the background and working knowledge to protect the public. He
added that an untrained "professional investigator" would not be
aware of what goes on in a technical healthcare field.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if this is comparable to a doctor having
oversight on the Alaska State Medical Board, or a real estate
agent on the Real Estate Commission & Board of Certified Real
Estate Appraisers.
MR. TOWLE answered that this is correct. He added that someone
who has the training and background in the field would be
qualified to look at things like x-rays and tell if the care
given was appropriate, and that someone who doesn't have the
training and background would not be able to do this.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if by "background", he meant someone like
an occupational licensing administrator.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated his concern is that the
dentists who are reviewing complaints may know the party in
question, and asked if there would be a "blind system" set up,
so that the person performing the review would not know the
person he/she is reviewing.
MR. TOWLE responded that there is not a "blind system" in
statute, and the board would have to set this up.
CHAIR ANDERSON opined that the board should be able to deal with
these situations, adding that he would rather have a group of
dentists who have the knowledge than an administrator who is
unable to understand the situation.
4:26:03 PM
GEORGE SHAFFER, D.M.D, Alaska Dental Society, Inc., informed the
committee that he has served as chairman on the [Board of Dental
Examiners] and is currently on the executive council for the
Alaska Dental Society, Inc., (ADS). He stated that the premise
for the legislation was to maintain the professional standards
of dentistry. He explained that during his term on the board,
when a complaint was being made against a dentist, the board
would be required to make a decision based on a report from
department investigators, but would not be able to see any
evidence. He stated that the board would ask to see evidence,
such as an x-ray, and was told that it could not until an
initial decision was made and appealed; however, the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) clearly specifies that an
appeal regarding board action goes to the Alaska Superior Court,
and not back to the board.
DR. SHAFFER stated that the legislation engendered by a desire
to make the process fairer and ensure that problems did not slip
through the cracks. [The bill] would give the board stronger
power by allowing it to impose heavier discipline than is
currently in the law, and also gives broader powers for minor
infractions such as fee disputes. The board is currently
overworked, and this would allow the board to appoint other
committees to investigate minor complaints, though the board
would be the final arbitrator to take action.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if this is similar to the Alaska Bar
Association (ABA).
DR. SHAFFER replied that all other professions in the state are
different than the ABA, adding that the bill provides for a
better way to define "checks and balances," allows the board to
deal with serious matters, and puts the board in charge of the
direction and consequences of investigations.
4:31:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, referring to page 4, line 4, of the
proposed CS, asked the significance of adding "clinical" before
"practice". Referring to page 4, [lines 12-15], he asked if "20
hours" was weekly, monthly, or yearly.
DR. SHAFFER replied that "clinical" was added to create fairness
in the investigations. He stated that it is easy to get a
license and then not work on a patient for many years, which can
then cause the license holder to fall behind with current
practice. He explained that adding "clinical" guarantees that
the license holder is currently working with patients. In
regard to the "20 hours", he stated that this is fairly
arbitrary and that it was meant to be 20 hours per week, which
would mean the license holder was working half time and staying
fairly current.
4:35:07 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON moved Amendment 1, to page 4, line 13, adding
"per week" after 20 hours. There being no objection, amendment
1 was adopted.
4:35:26 PM
DR. SHAFFER, in response to a question from Representative
Guttenberg, explained that the term, "private clinical practice"
was added as a way to guarantee independence for the people
making the decisions, and to ensure that the licensees were not
making certain choices out of fear that they might lose their
job.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, referring to page 3, line 11,
subparagraph B, asked how "threatens or compromises patient
care, has the potential to compromise patient care", differs
from "impairs a licensee's ability to practice safely".
DR. SHAFFER replied that this wording further clarifies the
definition. In response to further questions and comments, he
explained that "impairing" would require proof that harm has
been done, whereas "potential to compromise" means that there is
a drug problem or addiction that has serious potential to harm a
patient. He added that this gives the board the opportunity to
act sooner, instead of waiting until harm has been done. In
response to another question from Representative LeDoux, who
referred to proposed AS08.32.160(6)(c) and proposed
AS08.36.315(8)(d), he explained that having a difference in
physical and mental disability standards for dentists and
hygienists was an oversight and they should instead be the same.
He expressed a preference for wording that is more inclusive and
allows the board to monitor both professions.
CHAIR ANDERSON recommended that they use the wording on page 3,
lines [14-16], subparagraph (c), as the standard for both
professions.
DR. SHAFFER replied that the ADS has no problem with this
wording. Referring to the provisions pertaining to addiction,
he said that if a dentist or dental hygienist had a drug or
alcohol problem and was in rehabilitation, he/she should be able
to work something out with the board so that he/she is able to
continue working while in rehabilitation.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that he would prefer the
wording on page 8 [lines 25-26], which read:
(D) physical or mental disability that cannot be
overcome through an accommodation for purposes of
complying with this chapter;
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that they could try and combine
the language in proposed AS08.32.160(6)(c) with the language in
proposed AS08.36.315(8)(d). The resulting language might then
read something along the lines of:
physical or mental disability that threatens [or]
compromises [patient care, has the potential to
compromise patient care, or impairs the licensee's
ability to practice safely] unless such physical or
mental disability [can] be overcome through an
accommodation for purposes of complying with this
chapter.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether such language in both provisions
would work.
DR. SHAFFER said yes.
CHAIR ANDERSON referred to the aforementioned language as
Conceptual Amendment 2, and [although no formal motion was
made], announced that Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
4:46:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT, referring to page 10, line 4, stated that
he would like to have the language changed such that it would
read in part, "SHALL, By certified mail, send a copy", because
there is a 30-day requirement.
DR. SHAFFER said he did not object to such a change.
4:48:31 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON referred to the aforementioned suggested change
as Conceptual Amendment 3. [Although no formal motion was made,
Conceptual Amendment 3 was treated as adopted.]
4:48:44 PM
RICK URION, Director, Central Office, Division of Occupational
Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic
Development (DCCED) informed the committee that he had shown the
bill to the Department of Law (DOL) and to his investigative
staff, both of which came back with unfavorable opinions of the
legislation. He explained that the premise of the bill was
based on misconceptions of past history. He went on to say that
last session, the legislature passed a bill that formed a new
office of administrative hearing officers, which solved many of
the problems that the department had. Mr. Urion explained that
the legislation that was passed set time limits on how long a
hearing officer has to act. He stated that the bill currently
before the committee takes dentistry cases out of this new
administrative hearing system, and so there would be no hearing
officer on dentist cases if this legislation passes. He
explained that the board would become the hearing officer and
from the board it would go to the Alaska Superior Court, and
suggested that the committee get a fiscal note from the superior
court.
MR. URION explained that there are 654 licensed dentists in the
state and for the last 10 years there have been 195 complaints.
He stated that this is less than 20 complaints per year, and
went on to say that 6 of these complaints resulted in licensing
action, 40 percent are closed with no action, and 30 percent
have "some" action. He stated that [HB 93] changes a system
that deals with six potential cases per year, and said he does
not think there will be good results. He added that 30 days is
not enough time to develop a case, stating that this is " ...
certainly not [going to] protect the public, that's protecting
the guilty party." He opined that to require the complaint
information be made available to the [licensee] would discourage
some people from making complaints, especially if they are
employed by the licensee. He commented that to suspend a board
member if a complaint is filed against them is unfair, adding
that it may be an unjust complaint. Mr. Urion opined that the
restriction on telephonic meetings for disciplinary actions will
result in more plane fares and will cost the board members more
money. He added that this will result in a higher licensing
cost.
MR. URION explained the system that the Alaska State Medical
Board uses, adding that this would be a better system for the
dental board to consider. In response to Dr. Shaffer's
comments, Mr. Urion stated that there have been two summary
suspensions in 10 years. He said that the department feels that
the current system is working fine, and remarked that he would
be willing to work with the dental community to find a system
that works for them.
4:57:49 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON stated that many of the concerns that the
Division of Occupational Licensing had previously were addressed
with the current CS, and remarked that the issues presently
being raised would be more appropriately addressed in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
5:00:35 PM
DR. SHAFFER, in response to comments made by Representative
Guttenberg, explained that when an accusation against a licensee
goes to court, the judge or jury would get to see all the
evidence involved prior to making a decision. Currently, the
board is required to make decisions without seeing any evidence.
He opined that the current situation lacks "fairness of law",
adding that this is the reason for making the evidence available
to the licensee. He stated that the "peer review" would offer
more protection to the public, as it allows patients to ask
other dentists whether or not certain behaviors are
questionable.
DR. SHAFFER, in response to questions from Chair Anderson,
agreed that this would be comparable to court cases where the
information must be made public. He explained that a few other
states have similar systems, adding that the majority of states
have dentists and [dental] hygienists on the state licensing
board, overseeing the entire investigatory process.
5:06:32 PM
MR. URION clarified that under the current system, when cases go
to a hearing officer, the hearing officer makes a decision which
is then sent on to the board. The board can then concur or
reject the decision. He added that the board is then able to
see all of the evidence, which is extensive and therefore may
discourage some people from serving as board members.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if, in regard to physicians, a
hearing officer is used for disciplinary proceedings or if the
case is heard by a panel of doctors.
MR. URION answered that the case goes to a hearing officer.
5:07:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report the proposed CS for HB 93,
Version 24-LS0384\I, Mischel, 1/12/06, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 93(L&C) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 5:09 to 5:10.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:11:02 PM.