CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 244(L&C) "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Examiners in Optometry; and relating to optometrists." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Ms. Brakes explained this committee substitute provides for a new termination date for the Board of Optometrists and allows for statutory changes to enable the Board to "more effectively license by credential, update continuing education requirements" and bring the requirements in line with current practice and regulations. She detailed some of the changes such as the replacement of the state tactical exam with the National Board of Examiners and Optometry examination. Ms. Brakes referred to the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit report on the issue [copy on file] which supports the extension date proposed for the Board. She referenced page seven of the report which details the findings and recommendations of the audit. Ms. Brakes noted that page 15 of the audit report contains the Department of Community and Economic Development' response to the audit recommendations. She informed that SB 244 was drafted based on the findings and recommendations of the audit. Senator Green noted that the original bill included a requirement that the applicants submit a photograph with their application; however that requirement was omitted from the committee substitute. She asked for clarification about this change. Ms. Brakes responded on page seven of the audit report, Recommendation No. 1 recommends the Board rescind the application requirement of requiring a photograph of the applicant. She stated the drafters attempted to draft the legislation based on the audit recommendations, and, as the sponsor, "we wanted to put those out on the table for discussion and to let that work through the Committee process." She noted the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee reinstates the photograph requirement; however, it specifies photographs are not permitted to be forwarded to the Board at time of licensure. Senator Green asked if the photograph requirement is typical of all licenses. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Community and Economic Development responded that the Department "looked through all of the programs, as a result of this issue coming up. Approximately two-thirds of the 38 licensing programs do require photographs with the application; however, in most of those instances, it is not because of a statute or a regulation that requires it, but a board policy." She continued the requirement is on the application form which was approved by a Board. She continued that this particular wording stating a photograph should be submitted, but would not be "forwarded to the Board during the application process, is unique to this bill." Senator Green inquired as to the purpose of the photograph. Ms. Reardon responded the photograph is included in the file and is used for identification purposes. She qualified that the application is signed and notarized; however there are instances in which "people do try to pass themselves off as other people." She continued that some boards view having the photograph as "useful." She noted that photo identification is useful at exam check-in, to make sure that a "ringer" is not taking the test for the "correct person." Senator Green asked if the photograph is used for the issuance of a state of Alaska photo identification card when a person is licensed. Ms. Reardon responded that the Department only issues paper licenses printed on a laser printer that do not contain photographs. Senator Ward inquired as to "how many ringers have been used to take tests." Ms. Reardon responded she "is not aware of that happening" during the seven years she has been with the Department. She continued that "very rarely, if at all" can that Department prove that this has occurred. She continued that on the national level, there is "a lot of concern about that, particularly with the big professional exams," such as engineering. She noted there has been "an instance in Alaska in the last two years where a nurse applicant tried to pass herself off as an entirely different person." She detailed how this person "was caught" during the application process. She informed that "strange things" do happen. Senator Green asked if "we expect this language to start appearing in all licensure and renewals" for these various licenses or would this be better addressed in a separate statute. Ms. Reardon responded the photograph requirement is addressed in this particular bill because of the audit recommendation to remove "the board's ability to require photographs." She stated this is "not an effort to add photographs to the process, it is a reaction to the recommendation that the ability to require photographs be removed." She stated "there was discussion in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee about whether that was a good idea." Ms. Reardon summarized the language in the committee substitute is perhaps, "a compromise." She continued, "the recommendation to not require a photograph was to eliminate a potential opportunity for discrimination based on the photograph." She continued "there was some debate about whether it was necessary, whether that really was a significant risk," and this language is "a way of coming up with protecting against discrimination while retaining the ability to ask for photographs." Senator Olson asked if the Division is in favor of having photographs. Ms. Reardon responded that the Division supports the position of the Boards and "if a board feels this is important," then the Division would support "obtaining the photographs" for them." She voiced support for not submitting the photograph to the Board during the application review process as the current bill describes "to eliminate anyone's concern that that might be influential." Senator Olson asked if "there have been any complaints by minority groups that they have been discriminated against through the application period." Ms. Reardon responded she was not aware of any complaints. Co-Chair Kelly stated that one of the reasons not to include a photograph is just a "general sense" that the Board may make a decision based on a photograph. Senator Olson spoke of his experience as a member of the Board of Optometrists and stated it was "quite helpful" to have photograph as it made it easier to identify a person and easier to recall the person if their name came up at a later proceeding. He stated he "did not necessarily agree with the findings of the audit." Senator Ward asked if the Board could make a decision as to whether a photograph would be required. Ms. Reardon commented "boards review the application forms" so she would "look to boards for direction." Senator Ward clarified that if Board did not require a photograph, the Department would not object. Ms. Reardon concurred. Senator Ward clarified that if Board did want a photograph that also would be fine with the Department. Ms. Reardon concurred, stating "as long as it was not contrary to statute." Senator Leman voiced he did not agree with the audit recommendation, and he believes it is important to have photographs on file. He stated that the terrorist events of September 11, 2001 make him "realize what some people will go through to defraud and harm other people." He opined that requiring a photograph is appropriate. He continued "this language is not necessary because the policy of division has been to do this and if that is the boards policy they can continue to do that." He does not foresee a "problem with discrimination" as these people will interact with other professionals and the public in their profession. Senator Green stated the current language takes the decision whether to require photographs away from the Board and perhaps it would be more appropriate to let the Board make that decision. Co-Chair Kelly asked "if it is not the statute to let Board deal with this anyway." Ms. Reardon replied the current statute language authorizes such discretion to the Board. She suggested changing the language to clarify that the Board and not the Department make this decision. Amendment #1: This amendment changes the wording in Section 2, line 11 to reflect "the board may require.." instead of "the Department may require…" Senator Green moved for adoption. Co-Chair Kelly reiterated the change. There being no objection, Amendment #1 was approved. Senator Leman asked if the Committee should address this photograph issue through statute instead of through Board policy. He suggested removing a portion of Section 2 from the bill. He discussed the normal application process. Ms. Reardon clarified that photographs are handled varies among the boards. She detailed that some boards require photographs at different stages of the application process. She stated that the Optometrist Board has not been viewing the photographs during the application process. Senator Green stated this language should be addressed throughout all licensure boards. Co-Chair Kelly agreed. Senator Green suggested statutory language could be enacted to leave the photograph requirement up to the discretion of all boards. Ms. Reardon informed that the Department does have a statute, AS 08.01. under which something of this nature could be addressed. Co-Chair Kelly acknowledged this change could be done in this bill, and then addressed in a "more generalized statute" at a later date. Amendment #2: This amendment deletes Section 2 of the committee substitute in its entirety. Senator Leman moved for adoption. He stated if Section 2 were deleted, there would be no change to existing practice. There being no objections, Amendment #2 was ADOPTED. Senator Leman offered a motion to report CS SB 244 (FIN), 22- LS1267\J with a prior $17,700 Department of Community and Economic Development fiscal note from Committee. Without objection, the bill MOVED from Committee.