CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 137(FIN) "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives; extending the termination date of the Board of Nursing; extending the termination date of the Board of Veterinary Examiners; extending the termination date of the Board of Parole; and providing for an effective date." 5:28:47 PM SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, SPONSOR, introduced the legislation. The bill would extend the sunset date of the Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives, the Board of Nursing, the Board of Veterinary Examiners, and the Board of Parole from their current sunset dates of June 30, 2025. The 2024 audits of the Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives, the Board of Nursing, and the Board of Veterinary Examiners each recommended a six-year extension. The audit for the Board of Parole recommended a four-year extension. He noted that Kris Curtis would review the audits and the department was available for questions. KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, reviewed the audit recommendations for each of the boards beginning with the Board of Veterinary Examiners (copy on file). The audit found the board to be serving the public's interest, conducting meetings in an effective manner, actively amending its regulations, and effectively licensing veterinary professionals. The audit also concluded that board related cases were not consistently investigated in a timely manner, two board members were serving with expired terms, and one board seat had been vacant for 31 months. The audit recommended a six- year extension of the board. Ms. Curtis directed members' attention to page 6 of the audit showing the schedule of licensing activity. As of January 2024, the board had 716 active licenses and permits. The board's schedule of expenditures was located on page 8 of the audit and as of January 2024, the board had a surplus of $200,000. There were three audit recommendations beginning on page 11. The audit recommended the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (CBPL) create procedures to ensure the regulations for occupational boards were presented to the boards for final review and approval before they were made effective. The audit found the final version of the veterinary and client relationship regulations omitted language the board had intended to be enacted. She explained it was due to changes made by the Department of Law that were intended to be inconsequential. The second recommendation was for the governor's Boards and Commissions director to work with the board to identify interested applicants to fill board seats in a timely manner. The third recommendation was for the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) commissioner work with policy makers to improve the recruitment and retention of investigators. Ms. Curis next reviewed the audit findings for the Board of Parole. The audit recommended a four-year extension, which was half of the eight-year maximum allowed for in statute. She reviewed the conclusions beginning on page 8 of the audit (copy on file). The audit found that board staff positions that had been added based on criminal justice reform continued to be funded despite the subsequent repeal of the reforms. The main criminal justice legislation, SB 91, was passed in 2017 and it awarded the board four additional hearing officers and one additional criminal justice technician, for an annual recurring cost of $591,000. The positions helped the board effectively cope with the increase in its workload. She explained that most criminal justice reform laws were repealed in 2019 by House Bill 49 and as a result the board was decreased. She pointed to Exhibit 3 on page 9 of the audit report showing that the discretionary parole hearings returned to the level existing before criminal justice reform. The exhibit also showed that the number of parole revocation hearings were actually lower than prior to justice reform after HB 49 passed. Ms. Curtis elaborated that despite the decrease in workload, HB 49 continued to fund the positions. The audit questioned whether the positions continued to be necessary. Page 10 of the report showed the audit's conclusion that the Board of Parole approved parole in accordance with state law; however, the audit noted that parole was approved at a much lower rate than before criminal justice reform. Exhibit 5 on page 11 showed that on average, the board granted parole 63 percent of the time before 2017 compared to only 25 percent of the time after 2020. She relayed that the board could not provide a specific explanation for the decrease. Ms. Curtis reviewed the audit's three recommendations for improvements for the Board of Parole beginning on page 14. The audit recommended that the Department of Corrections (DOC) commissioner and the board chair work together to ensure all hearings were conducted in a confidential manner. The audit found that the Hiland Mountain Correctional Center was conducting preliminary revocation hearings at times in the general population area that was violating the offenders' rights to confidentiality. Second, the audit recommended that the board chair should ensure regulation changes occurred in a timely manner. The audit found that parole eligibility regulations had not been changed since 2015, despite significant statutory changes. She noted the recommendation was recurring from the previous audit. Third, the audit recommended the commissioner ensure fiscal notes for pending legislation reflect decreases as appropriate. 5:35:19 PM Representative Tomaszewski referenced Exhibit 5 and thought Ms. Curtis had stated that the board had not responded to the specific finding. He observed a written response from the board stated that the finding presented an inaccurate comparison. He asked for detail. Ms. Curtis responded that the board could find no explanation or reason. She noted that the board's response letter stated that they did not believe the finding was an accurate representation. The board believed that all discretionary parole hearings were unique and could not be compared. She disagreed with the interpretation in that the data was from the Board of Parole and it was presented to the public to show the rate at which parole hearings were occurring. In previous sunset audits where a change in the rate parole was being approved was observed, the board had been able to provide an explanation. For example, two cycles back, there had been a change in the rate because there were fewer providers in the community; therefore, there were less available services for offenders and the board was not approving parole at as high of a rate as a result. She explained that in the current audit, the board had been unable to provide an explanation of why the rate had changed so dramatically. Representative Hannan looked at page 8 of the Board of Parole audit, which noted that the criminal justice reform legislation SB 91 added positions and the positions had been retained after subsequent legislation repealed most of the reform. She asked whether the positions had been filled with staff to the parole board or if only the money had been retained. Ms. Curtis answered that the board positions had been fully staffed. Representative Hannan asked if all of the positions were working for the Board of Parole versus in other DOC positions. Ms. Curtis responded affirmatively. She highlighted that the audit noted that HB 49, which repealed the reforms, also added another position. The audit noted that the admin position approved in the first bill had not been moved to the Division of Administrative Services after HB 49 was passed. She summarized that five positions had been added as part of SB 91 and one position had been added under HB 49. Additionally, the department transferred one if its other positions to the Division of Administrative Services. Representative Hannan thanked Ms. Curtis and noted she had a committee assignment already for next year's DOC budget. 5:38:37 PM Co-Chair Josephson asked it could be that DOC was so desperate for parole and probation officers that the department seconded (loaned) them out for general parole and probation work not exclusively for the board. Ms. Curtis answered that DOC had not told auditors that the positions were being used outside of the parole board in the general institutions. She did not believe the department provided any explanation. Co-Chair Josephson looked at page 11 of the audit and noted there was a change in Title 33 or 34 to the burden of proof, effectively the lens the board had to look through to make decisions. He stated it was an incredibly generous lens after passage of SB 91, favoring the defendant. He stated it had been repealed and brought back to the previous burden of proof, which was not as favorable. Additionally, under SB 91, even if someone did not apply for parole, it required applications to be completed for the individual. He thought it could explain a lot of the statistics in Exhibit 5. Ms. Curtis responded that she did not look at the burden of proof but, the audit looked at the impact of SB 91 and the fact that incarcerated individuals were eligible whether or not they applied. She noted that it had driven the number of hearings up. She elaborated that the change had been repealed by HB 49 and the hearings went back to the level that existed before the board was awarded the five positions. The auditors could not get and explanation for why the board needed to keep the five positions when its workload appeared to revert back to the level prior to being awarded the positions. Co-Chair Josephson referenced the audit's third recommendation pertaining to ensuring fiscal notes. He stated his understanding that the recommendation meant the [DOC] commissioner should cut the budget $591,000. Ms. Curtis answered, "That is what the law says." The audit included the criteria in recommendation 3. In the opinion of the auditors, the department did not follow the law when presenting the bill to reflect the decrease in its workload and decrease in staff. Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that if the department needed more probation and parole officers in the normal course of events, it should have just said so. He thought they were both saying the same thing. Ms. Curtis responded that she did not know. She explained that the department did not provide any explanation as to why it was necessary to retain the positions. She remarked that the department could have given auditors anything for evaluation. 5:42:11 PM Ms. Curtis reviewed the audit report for the Board of Nursing. The audit found the board was serving the public's interest, conducted its meetings effectively, actively amended its nursing regulations, and effectively licensed nursing professionals. The audit also found that board related cases were not consistently investigated in a timely manner and one board seat was vacant for an extended period. The audit recommended a six-year extension. There was licensing information on page 8 of the audit report (copy on file) and the audit also looked at the rate at which nursing licenses were approved. Page 7 summarized the review of the timeliness of license issuances. The audit found that 30 percent of the renewed licenses took over four months to be issued due to turnovers and vacancies. Page 8 showed why the board's workload increased. She explained that as of February 2024, the board had just over 27,000 licenses and permits, which was a 37 percent increase when compared to the 2018 sunset audit. She stated it was a huge increase in the number of licenses, which the board chair attributed to the increase of registered nurses in Alaska serving during the [COVID-19] pandemic. The board's schedule of revenues and expenditures was located on page 10 of the audit. As of February 2024, the board had a surplus of $3.4 million. The board was not planning on decreasing fees because they believed the number of licenses would naturally decrease as licensees did not renew. Ms. Curtis moved the audit's one recommendation on page 14. The audit recommended that DCCED commissioner or the board chair work with policy makers to improve the recruitment and retention of investigators. The audit looked at 35 nursing related investigations and found nine of the 35 had unjustified periods of inactivity. The nine audits were listed on page 14. She detailed that the delays were caused by turnover, vacancies, and the time to train new employees. Co-Chair Josephson pointed to the audit finding on page 7 that licensing delays had been caused by staff shortages. He asked if it was DCCED division staff and not board staff. Ms. Curtis answered that statutes authorized an executive administrator for the board and in addition DCBPL employed the following board specific staff: a licensing supervisor, eight licensing examiners, two office assistants, a nurse consultant, and two investigators. The specific board had dedicated DCBPL staff. Co-Chair Josephson asked if there were vacancies [that could be filled] so that applications could be processed faster. Ms. Curtis believed it was a result of the dramatic increase in workload. She elaborated that the pandemic had increased the workload significantly. She believed the board thought it would decrease naturally. The rate at which nursing licenses were being approved was found in the preliminary phase of the audit and auditors had looked into the issue in case there were complaints. The number was not as bad as auditors anticipated, they found that 30 percent were taking over four months. The main contributor being the increase in workload. 5:46:02 PM Ms. Curtis addressed the audit for the Board of Certified Direct Entry Midwives (copy on file). The audit found the board was serving the public's interest by conducting its meetings in compliance with state law and by amending its regulations to enhance public safety and approve the certification process. The audit also concluded that the board generally certified midwives in compliance with state law; however, documentation improvements were needed. Furthermore, the board did not audit compliance with certification renewal requirements in a timely manner. The audit recommended a six-year extension. The audit noted there had been a change in how midwives were certified. Starting January 2023, the board began requiring midwives to obtain their certified professional midwife credential for the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM). As a result, some board functions duplicate functions of the national organization. Prior to the change, midwives already had one of the highest license fees of any occupation. The change increased the cost to obtain and maintain state certification. Exhibit 3 on page 7 of the audit showed there were 41 certified midwives as of January 2024. Ms. Curtis relayed that the audit included three recommendations for improvement beginning on page 12. The audit determined that the Office of the Governor Boards and Commissions director should work with the Board of Certified Direct Entry Midwives to identify potential applicants to fill the board seat in a timely manner. The physician board seat had been vacant for a number of years. Second, the DCBPL director should improve training to ensure certifications were supported by adequate documentation and the board should adequately review applications before approval. Third, the audit recommended that the commissioner work with policy makers to improve the recruitment and retention of investigators. Co-Chair Josephson thought it felt almost like the direct entry midwives were coming before the committee every year. He noted the audit was recommending a six-year extension. He asked what the concern had been in the past five years that was less of a concern in the current audit. Ms. Curtis answered that in the past four cycles, the board had been awarded a two-year extension three times and a four-year extension once. She explained that the auditors had not recommended the two-year extensions; the legislature had reduced the recommendation several times. There were several times where an investigation had not been handled timely or appropriately on behalf of DCBPL. She expounded that it had posed a public safety risk. Often times, the details could not be published in the audit report, but it was important enough to recommend a short extension in order to ensure the public safety risk was rectified. The one year she had recommended a four-year extension, she had been very concerned about the high licensure cost. She worried it was presenting a barrier to the occupation; therefore, at the time, she recommended the legislature consider alternate forms of regulating the profession due to the high certification fee. 5:49:43 PM Ms. Curtis relayed that none of the other medical boards appeared to be interested, the legislature had not pursued the recommendation, and the board was willing to accept the high fees in order to regulate themselves; therefore, she did not make the recommendation going forward. The audit found that the investigative issues had been dealt with and it did not find any compelling reason not to recommend at least a six-year extension, but it did not recommend a full eight-year extension. Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony. JANETTE SCHLAEDER, CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF NURSING (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She shared that the board played a critical role in safeguarding public health and ensuring the highest standards of nursing in Alaska. She relayed that the board was due to vote in favor of the bill. She detailed that doing so would protect patients, support healthcare professionals, and strengthened the healthcare system. She thanked the committee. Co-Chair Foster moved to the next testifier. LEITONI TUPOU, CHAIR, ALASKA BOARD OF PAROLE (via teleconference), relayed that he was available for questions. Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony. Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the fiscal notes. BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, reviewed FN3 from DCCED, OMB component 2360. The note reflected what was already included in the governor's FY 26 budget including $62,200 for travel and $5,500 for services for a total cost of $67,700 funded by receipts collected by professionals. The fiscal note also reflected a $67,700 change in revenue. He provided a breakdown of the cost between the boards. He explained that $29,400 in travel was allocated to the Board of Nursing, $5,200 in travel for the Board of Certified Direct Entry Midwives, and $27,600 in travel for the Board of Veterinary Examiners. Services were broken down into $1,200 for board meeting advertising, $4,000 for training and conference fees, and $300 for board members attending meetings. Mr. Anderson reviewed FN2 from DOC, OMB Component 695. The funding shown in the note was already included in the governor's budget. The note included $1.849 million for personal services, $29,900 for travel, $26,700 for services, and $33,200 for commodities, for a total cost of $1,938,800 in general funds. The note included nine full- time positions. The legislation amending the Board of Parole extended the termination date. He noted that the departments were available online for questions. 5:56:40 PM Representative Bynum stated that the committee had just heard a bill extending the Board of Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors (AELS). He observed that the current bill looked like a cleanup bill to make extensions to current boards. He wondered why the eight-year extension for the AELS Board was not included in the bill. Senator Bjorkman replied that the sponsor of the AELS bill included the extension in his bill [SB 54]. He explained that he had taken on the task of drafting SB 137, which contained the remainder of the board extensions that needed to pass during the current session due to their summer [June 2025] sunset date. Representative Bynum saw that the AELS Board also expired [in the coming summer]. He thought they were hinging the extension of an existing board that provided an important function for registration of architects, engineers, and land surveyors on a bill. He thought it seemed a bit abnormal to make the extension of a board contingent on the passage of adding to the board. He asked if Senator Bjorkman would object to ensuring the AELS Board was protected in the event that SB 54 failed to pass. Senator Bjorkman replied that after a sunset date was passed, a board went into a wind down phase where a sunset extension was needed, or work needed to wrap up and its advisory and regulatory role was transferred back to CBPL. He explained that the Board of Direct Entry Midwives was in that exact position, and it was currently in the winddown year. Without an extension in the current year, the direct entry midwives would lose their professional voice in crafting regulation for their profession. He relayed that SB 54 had been extremely well vetted over the past three years. He noted that it had reported out of the House Finance Committee and was headed for the House floor. He did not find it necessary to include the AELS Board extension as a duplicative measure in the current bill, but it was up to the will of the committee. 6:00:39 PM Representative Bynum asked if there was cause for concern when a board went into a wind down status and additional duties the board had to take on to prepare for wind down. The committee had heard earlier the [audit] recommendation was to extend the [AELS] board an additional eight years. He recognized there was hope that SB 54 would pass, but he was a bit worried that if the bill did not pass that it would create uncertainty for 7,803 licensees. He recognized that the legislature could come back in January to fix the issue. Senator Bjorkman replied that the question would be more appropriately addressed to the director of the CBPL. He relayed that it was not an uncommon position for boards to be in, albeit not a desirable one. He did not have many doubts that the other bill [SB 54] would pass, but it was up to the House. He stated it was up to the will of the committee to decide whether it wanted to add a duplicative board extension to the bill. He remarked that it would be an uncommon thing to do. There had been a bill in the Senate that sought to extend the Board of Parole and it had been taken out of the other bill after he introduced SB 137. He personally felt confident SB 54 would pass. He stated that if the committee wanted to amend SB 137 it was the committee's prerogative. 6:03:37 PM Representative Hannan stated that in her experience, the only thing being tweaked in a sunset bill was the date the board lived for, and sometimes multiple boards were included in one sunset bill even though they may have different extension dates. She elaborated that when a change of duty to a board was proposed, it ran as a separate bill. She would be very opposed to adding in the AELS Board extension to the current bill. She explained it meant there would be two bills dealing with the AELS Board in two different forms, one where the board would have expanded duties and membership and one with an extension of the board's sunset date. She stated the two bills were like oranges and tangerines they were related, but they were not the same flavor. She did not believe she could support blending the two together. 6:05:06 PM Representative Allard asked if adding the AELS Board extension to the bill would delay the processing of the midwives board extension. Senator Bjorkman replied affirmatively. Representative Allard emphasized that it was very important there was no delay. She had been working with the midwives and they needed the bill to pass. She encouraged leaving the bill in its current form. Representative Bynum reasoned that if the bill was amended it would have to return to the Senate for concurrence. He asked if that was what Senator Bjorkman was referring to. Alternatively, he wondered if Senator Bjorkman thought amending the bill would make it unlikely for the legislation to pass in the current session. Senator Bjorkman replied that the delay would occur because the committee would have to draft an amendment or a committee substitute to the bill and it would take longer to get out of the committee, which would delay when it would arrive for a vote on the House floor. Additionally, it would have to go back to the Senate for concurrence. 6:06:54 PM Representative Hannan MOVED to REPORT CSSB 137(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Bynum OBJECTED. He did not agree with the path forward. He thought the bill should be amended to include the AELS Board. He stated that the AELS Board would go into the sunset phase in less than two months, and he did not like the situation when there was a bill before the committee extending other boards and commissions. He had provided an amendment to add the language to the bill. He did not support moving the bill forward, when there was an administrative amendment available that could correct the problem. He remarked that the issue was no fault of Senator Bjorkman. He would be a no vote on the passage of the bill. He wanted to protect the board from unforeseen hazards that would result if SB 54 did not pass. He was merely trying to ensure the legislature was protecting boards and commissions. Co-Chair Schrage appreciated the concern; however, he believed both bills [SB 54 and SB 137] would receive bipartisan support based on conversations he had in the building. He believed making amendments to the bills would slow them down. He remarked that the legislative session was in its final days, and he would prefer to keep the bills moving on their way. He supported moving the bill in its current form. Representative Allard asked Representative Bynum was looking at offering an amendment. She would support him if so. Representative Bynum responded that the motion at hand was to move the bill from committee. He stated that if he wanted to take up an amendment, he would have to offer it on the House floor. He thought it did not sound like there was the will of the body even if he offered the amendment on the floor. He MAINTAINED the OBJECTION. [Note: a first role call was taken and voided.] A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Johnson, Galvin, Jimmie, Tomaszewski, Hannan, Schrage, Josephson, Foster OPPOSED: Bynum, Allard Representative Stapp was absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (8/2). CSSB 137(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with seven "do pass" recommendations, one "no recommendation" recommendation, and one "amend" recommendation and with two previously published fiscal impact notes: FN2 (COR) and FN3 (CED). Senator Bjorkman thanked the committee. 6:13:16 PM AT EASE 6:40:40 PM RECONVENED