SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE April 4, 2000 1:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Jerry Mackie, Chairman Senator Tim Kelly, Vice Chairman Senator Loren Leman Senator Lyman Hoffman MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Dave Donley COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 296(L&C) "An Act relating to partnerships; amending Rule 25(c), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." -MOVED CSHB 296(L&C)OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 48(RLS) Relating to the free flow of people and the fair trade of goods and services across the border between the United States and Canada. -MOVED CSHJR 48(RLS)OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE BILL NO. 280 "An Act relating to licensing common carriers to dispense alcoholic beverages; and providing for an effective date." -MOVED SB 280 OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 297(L&C) "An Act relating to the licensing of chiropractors and to disciplinary actions against chiropractors." -MOVED CSSB 297(L&C)OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION HB 296 - No previous action to consider. HJR 48 - No previous action to consider. SB 280 - No previous action to consider. SB 297 - No previous action to consider. WITNESS REGISTER Mr. Pat Harmon, Aide Representative Pete Kott State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 296. Mr. Art Peterson, UCCUSL Uniform Law Commissioner 350 N. Franklin Street Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 296. Mr. Scott Petsel, Aide Representative Gail Phillips State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 48. Mr. David Gray, Aide Senator Jerry Mackie State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 280 and SB 297. Mr. Doug Griffin, Director Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Anchorage, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 280. Mr. Irving Bertram, Associate General Counsel Alaska Airlines Anchorage, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 280. Ms. Sharon Clark, Aide Senator Mike Miller State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented in SB 297. Ms. Catherine Reardon, Director Division of Occupational Licensing Department of Community and Economic Development P.O. Box 10806 Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 297. Dr. Morgan, President Chiropractic Society Anchorage, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 297. Ms. Mary Veale American Physical Therapy Association P.O. Box 240286 Douglas, AK 99824 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297. Ms. Karen Grafton, President Alaska Physical Therapy Association Anchorage, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 297. Mr. George Salmon Fairbanks, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297. Ms. Cheryl Sackett Fairbanks, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-13, SIDE A Number 001 HB 296-UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT CHAIRMAN MACKIE called the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and announced HB 296 to be up for consideration. MR. PAT HARMON, Aide to Representative Pete Kott, said HB 296 is the Uniform Partnership Act. Present statutes are seriously out of date and based on the 1914 version. Two things have changed over the years; one is that the individual concept in the 1914 Act is a partnership entity and the other is the way the default classification for businesses works. Now the default classification is a partnership. MR. ART PETERSON, Uniform Law Commissioner, stepped to the witness stand for comments. CHAIRMAN MACKIE stated that Mr. Peterson had been before this committee for many years for updating statutes. They all had a lot of respect for his knowledge and the work that he does on these. He asked if he could touch on the highlights of this and inform them of significant changes that may or may not have controversy. MR. PETERSON said he had a lot of materials from the National Conference. He said the original Uniform Partnership Act was enacted in all states except Louisiana. The partnership law of this country is the Uniform Partnership Act plus the court decisions interpreting it. When that Act changes, Alaska has to flow with it or we're going to be doing a number of business entities a great disservice. There are provisions in there for conversion from a regular partnership to a limited partnership and provisions dealing with limited liability partnerships. This has already been enacted in 24 states and four states have enacted the 1994 version without the limited liability partnership provisions that this bill includes. The revision reflects modern business practices and more than eight decades of court decisions and scholarly analysis in recognition of how business is done. The basic changes are the statutory statement of the entity concept of partnerships changing from the earlier version of the aggregate of individuals concept. The current law is a confusing mix of the two concepts and the bill before them clearly adopts the entity concept and the ramifications of that appear throughout the bill. The basic one being, when a partner leaves the partnership, it doesn't collapse as it does under current law. The partnership will continue and there are provisions for how a partner gets out, etc. The Department of Community and Economic Development had one concern that they presented in the House - changing annual reports to biennial. Another changes is the transition period from a five year period to a three year period. Everyone is agreeable with that. The bill carefully tracks the national version. CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that there were all "Do Passes" throughout the committee process and it passed 36 - 0 in the House. SENATOR KELLY moved to pass CSHB 296 (L&C) from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered. HJR 48-ACCESS ACROSS UNITED STATES/CANADA BORDER CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced HJR 48 to be up for consideration. MR. SCOTT PETSEL, Aide to Representative Gail Phillips, sponsor, HJR 48 relating to the free flow of people and fair trade of goods and services across the border between the U.S. and Canada. Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 calls for the implementation of an automated entry/exit control system to record all entries to and departures from the Unites States regardless of the person's nationality, regardless of the location of entry, and regardless of the method of entry. These controls are slated to be in place by March 2001. The resolution is specific to Canadians and the borders between the United States and Canada. Currently, if you are a traveler coming from Canada, you are required to stop at the U.S. border and show them your "papers." As you leave the country, you're not required to stop at the U.S. border crossing station. Under Section 110, all travelers would have to stop in both directions and fill out detailed paperwork regarding personal information and trip details. This would create quite a traffic jam at several of the border crossing stations. It also goes against years of cooperative agreements between the United States and Canada including the Shared Border Accord of 1995 and the Canadian/US Partnership Forum. The resolution is a variation of one passed by the Council of State Governments West late last year. HJR 48 specifically calls for U.S. Congress to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to provide for the exemption of Canadians from requirements of Section 110 at all land border crossing between the U.S. and Canada. As background, MR. PETSEL said, Canadians spent a total of $7.3 billion dollars in the United States last year. Bilateral trade between the countries was $397 billion in 1998. In 1998 with Alaska alone, Canadians traded a total of $492 million worth of goods. Other states have adopted resolutions of varying levels of support for the repeal of Section 110 or the amendment to exempt Canadians from Section 110 from the Act of 1996. Also, on the federal level, there has been a lot of actions in various Congresses of the past to either call for the repeal of Section 110 or the exemption of land border crossing from Section 110. A recent update from Congressman Young's office says that a bipartisan group is working right now on an agreement on how to approach the Section 110 issue with the interest of increasing our capacity at borders to facilitate the free flow of tourism and trade. He asked for the committee's support. SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass CSHJR 48(RLS) from committee with individual recommendations. SENATOR KELLY said that he has some trouble with this. He thought the U.S. should be strengthening its borders as opposed to weakening them. He didn't think that most of our Canadian friends would be a problem, but there were other people who get into this country through Canada. He probably wouldn't support this legislation. MR. PETSEL said the resolution does nothing to change the current requirements. It doesn't lessen them, but it doesn't add control requirements. In part, the resolution asks for support to exempt Canadians from land border crossings between the U.S. and Canada, not other borders and not other nationalities. There were no objections to moving the bill from committee and it was so ordered. SB 280-COMMON CARRIER LIQUOR LICENSE CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced SB 280 to be up for consideration. He said he introduced the bill on behalf of the committee at the request of Alaska Airlines and his staff, David Gray, would tell them what it does. MR. GRAY said Alaska Airlines has requested that the current licensing requirements for common carrier beverage dispensing licenses be modified for two reasons: first to simplify the requirements so that adding aircraft will not require an additional new application process involving filling out the application, supply and support exhibits, posting and publishing the application for the license. Alaska and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) agree that modifying the statute to simply obtaining additional common carrier licenses will reduce the clerical and administrative work for both Alaska Airlines and the Board and is, therefore, in the public interest. Secondly, Alaska Airlines would like the fees reduced. They currently have 89 planes and plan to add six or more aircraft each year. The growth of the Alaska Airlines fleet substantially exceeds the growth of its interstate flying. Since every aircraft must be separately licensed and every license costs them $450 per year (a $700 biennial, plus a $200 yearly license fee), the fees have become quite high and continue to escalate at a faster rate than its interstate fleet will escalate. Alaska Airlines only operates a small portion of its fleet on interstate routes on any given day. In addition, it should be noted that none of the other major airlines serving Alaska, with the possible exception of Delta, obtain Alaska liquor licenses because they don't operate interstate. Alaska Airlines believes they pay substantially more for the common carrier licenses than any other licensee in Alaska. It seems fair to reduce the fees to more accurately reflect the costs to the Board of issuing licenses and the interstate presence that Alaska Airlines actually has. If the proposed bill becomes law, they will still pay more in fees to Alaska than it pays to any other state. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if they have 89 or 95 aircraft after this year, if they currently have to license every one of them, even if they are not flying in Alaska because of the way the law was written. MR. GRAY said that was correct. Any plane in their fleet that may come into Alaska once within a year's time will have to have a full license. CHAIRMAN MACKIE commented that they were trying to bring their fees more into line with the number of aircraft they actually have flying in the State and asked how that would be done. MR. GRAY replied under the bill, 10 licenses would be the full licenses. After that, other planes would have a reduced licensure. In other words, the whole fleet would be licensed this way. Number 1209 MR. DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, ABC Board, said Alaska Airlines made a presentation to the Board last summer when it met in Fairbanks regarding this issue. He echoed Mr. Gray's comments and said the Board was sympathetic. They also raised concerns about how complicated it was to license all those aircraft even though the Board had done everything they could to streamline that process. The root of the problems is the need for a statute change. The statutes in Alaska regarding common carrier liquor licenses reflect needing to license every vehicle, airplanes, boats, railcars, and those types of things. This is just a growing pains issue for Alaska. MR. GRIFFIN said it would be a loss of revenue for the State, but the Board looks at the fairness issue versus what is a fairly small loss of revenue. The draft of SB 280 was presented to the Board when it met in February. They didn't take a position at the time and expressed interest in trying to tie the licensing to something versus the number ten that was picked out of thin air. They worked with Alaska Airlines to find something that in some way would reflect the number of planes that were actually flying within the state, for instance, during a given day. He said the Board would like to use a number that's used in terms of how many licenses they have to buy at full price that reflects the actual number of craft that fly in the State. That keeps it on par with other types of vehicles that are operating within the State. He concluded that they would support some kind of modification to the common carrier provisions in Title 4. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked Mr. Griffin if Section 1 allows for the Board by regulation to make some of those determinations, in terms of numbers. MR. GRIFFIN said section 1 by itself doesn't allow them to do that. They talked to Mr. Irving Bertram, legal counsel for Alaska Airlines, about taking a snapshot of a day in the life of Alaska Airlines in the State of Alaska and how many planes they actually had operating flying between points in Alaska on a given day. They picked January 1, the first day of a licensing cycle. They came up with 22 planes. The Board felt that they should license the number of planes that actually operate up here and if they bring in additional planes from within their fleet, it could still operate within that 22(or so) license. They would basically be licensing routes and the number of planes that operate on an average in the State. The difference in money between this bill and the original bill isn't that great. SENATOR LEMAN said on the fiscal note, the next to the last line says if the filing fee is waived for licenses after the first 10, an additional $16,000 in revenue would be lost every two years and asked if that was a discretionary action. MR. GRIFFIN answered that they were interpreting that to mean they would continue to pay the $200 application or renewal fee. For any licenses in excess of 10, the application fee is actually more than the license fee which seems a little at odds. This is assuming they are going to continue to pay a $200 fee for each license. If the $200 fee is also waived for any licenses greater than 10, there would be additional cost to the State. They are not interpreting it that way, however. SENATOR LEMAN said if there's any possibility it might be interpreted differently, wouldn't it make sense to clarify that. Is that something in regulation. MR. GRIFFIN answered that's a statutory thing. SB 280 doesn't alter the application fee. He thought it good to put on the record that the intent is not to have it waived. CHAIRMAN MACKIE said that certainly wasn't the intent of the sponsor and that's why they are talking about the other fee, not the renewal fee. MR. IRVING BERTRAM, Associate General Counsel for Alaska Airlines, said he has been the party negotiating to acquire and finance aircraft for the company for over 20 years. Alaska Airlines currently has a fleet of 89 aircraft and because of the way they establish routings, it's impossible for them to say with any degree of definiteness that they can keep one of their aircraft out of the State of Alaska or off an intrastate routing. They need to have the operational flexibility, if they have a mechanical, to substitute another aircraft. The result is they are continuing to operate more and more aircraft in Alaska, because they are acquiring more aircraft. On the other hand, the actual number of aircraft they operate on a given day has been about 16 - 18 to maybe 20, depending on which particular day of the year it is. That hasn't changed a lot, although during the summer they operate more aircraft. The intrastate routing doesn't go up as much as the interstate routing does. Their major competitors that serve Alaska don't really operate intrastate. So they don't obtain liquor licenses and he thought they avoided serving liquor on the ground and just serve in the air and escape licensing completely. There is a little competitive disadvantage at this point. He felt some relief would be if they obtained a liquor license for the company and had gone through all the application process, they should be able to license each additional aircraft by paying a fee. They hoped to provide the State with a reasonable amount of money to cover the administrative duties of the Board and to recognize their intrastate operations in Alaska where licenses are necessary. Secondly, they wanted to keep the costs to the company down so that as they continue to add aircraft and enhance their fleet, they can comply and continue to offer alcoholic beverage service on intrastate portions of their flights without being concerned that this is going to cost them a great deal of money. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked where the first 10 licenses came from in section 2 and he asked if it's more like 16 - 18. MR. BERTRAM replied that idea behind the number was to pick one that was high enough so Alaska Airlines would not be depriving the State of any revenue for anyone else. They thought they had more licenses than anyone else by quite a number and found that there wasn't another licensee that has more than 10 vehicles licensed. They are picking a number that is high enough to avoid providing a benefit to anyone else. CHAIRMAN MACKIE stated he thought they made a good case for fairness and streamlining the ABC Board's activities. SENATOR KELLY moved to pass SB 280 from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered. SB 297-BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced SB 297 to be up for consideration. MS. SHARON CLARK, Aide to Senator Miller, said this bill was introduced on behalf of the chiropractors. She said that SB 297 is an act relating to licensing of chiropractors. It amends the licensing statute for Alaskan chiropractors. Section 1 allows for a temporary permit to practice chiropractic in Alaska. It is for fifty days initially and may be extended by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. It is subject to the same terms and conditions of a regular license. This section also provides for a licensee who does not practice in the State to hold an inactive license. It also provides for a retired licensee. A person holding a retired license may not practice chiropractic in the State. They may apply for an active license subject to terms and conditions set by the Board. Section 2 provides new reasons why the Board of Chiropractic Examiners may refuse to issue a license in the State. These include a conviction of a felony or other crime that would affect the person's ability to practice competently and safely. Commission of crime involving the unlawful procurement, sales, prescription or dispensing of drugs, and attempting to practice after becoming unfit due to an infectious or contagious disease. Ms. Mary Vaele, American Physical Therapy Association, said the bill is fine. They don't have any complaints with registering local chiropractors, but have one question on the first page on lines 21 - 22 and the use of the term "physiotherapy." She explained that many other English speaking countries a physiotherapist is a physical therapist. So they would like to keep that terminology out of the chiropractic legislation. She said that she understands that this is an optional exam for the chiropractors. She doesn't think it is required for the rest of the chiropractors in the State. MS. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, explained the exams are set in regulation (under statute) for the regular full licenses. Therefore, the Board has the authority to chose the exam. There are five parts to the chiropractic exam; the physical therapy exam is one of those parts. The current regulations on exams do require for people who passed after a certain date..."12 AC16.037: An applicant must pass each subject of the following parts of the examination: the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners and the elected physiotherapy examination." Her understanding is that it is not regulation that they are requiring that physiotherapy examination section now. It doesn't appear in the statute because that just says, "The Board can adopt by regulation...." CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if that should be in the proposed statute or not. MS. REARDON said her personal opinion was that it should appear as it appears in the bill. SENATOR KELLY asked what physiotherapy was. He asked if it was addressed in statute. MS. REARDON responded that it is addressed in statute in that the definition of the practice of chiropractic in AS 08.20.900 includes the employment of physiological therapeutic procedures preparatory to and complimentary with the correction of the subluction. A further definition defines physiological therapeutic goes on for several paragraphs. She said it looks like it is the pushing, massaging, and maneuvering of someone to result in the subluction, which is out of alignment, being corrected. SENATOR KELLY asked Ms. Veale if she has training in this area. MS. VEALE said yes and added that her definition of physical therapy is different from a chiropractic definition of physical therapy. It's semantics, but the terminology concerns her. Number 2306 DR. LORAN MORGAN, President, Chiropractic Society, said there is concern with the use of the word "physiotherapy." In AS 08.20.120 the term "physiotherapy" is used by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners as the name of the test. To be synonymous across the board, they use the same terminology so when someone from Washington D.C., for instance, comes to Alaska and takes the test, they know what exact test they need to take. It's being consistent with the Board of Chiropractic Examiners terminology. He said it is now in Alaska statutes as a National Board of Examiners requirement - 12AAC16.037. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked him if he supports the bill. DR. MORGAN said yes. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked Ms. Clark if the proposed CS in their packet was the one that Senator Miller was offering. MS. CLARK responded that it is the CS that came about this morning on behalf of the Department. She said that Senator Miller has no problem with it. TAPE 00-13, SIDE B Number 2300 MR. DAVE GRAY, Aide to Senate Labor and Commerce, informed the Committee that a letter from Catherine Reardon suggested "clean-up" language. There was also a letter from the Attorney General suggesting taking out one phrase. The CS deals with those concerns which seemed legitimate. SENATOR LEMAN moved to adopt the CS version G/Lauterbach4/4. There were no objections and it was so ordered. MS. KAREN GRAFTON, President, Alaska Physical Therapy Association, said one of their main concerns is line 21 which says "physiotherapy examination." In April 1999, the State of Alaska Physical Therapy Board and Occupational Therapy Board resolved that the Board declared its unanimous opinion that physical therapy and physiotherapy were identical in meaning and that physical therapist and physiotherapist are identical in meaning. To name an exam "physiotherapy examination" within the chiropractic statutes opens up the door to confusion for the public. Worldwide, physiotherapy is physical therapy. The United State is the only country where they are titled physical therapists. Austria, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and Italy are all physiotherapists. She asked that the word "physiotherapy" be removed. In addition, AS 18.20.120, qualifications for a license, says "to have completed the exam by the National Board of Chiropractors". Her concern is that the locumpentum section is different than the permanent licensure section. She asked that the word "physiotherapy" be removed from line 21. SENATOR LEMAN noted that it was line 23 on the current version. SENATOR KELLY commented that they were getting caught up in semantics and asked if this door hadn't been open for years already. Haven't we been referring the physiotherapy examinations for several years in statute. CHAIRMAN MACKIE responded that was what the Department tells them. SENATOR KELLY asked Ms. Reardon if this wasn't just a status quo. MS. REARDON said it wasn't. MS. GRAFTON responded that she didn't see the word "physiotherapy examination" in the Chiropractic Practice Act. Currently, in her book page 3, says "the exam from the National Board of Chiropractors" which she has no problem with. She asked if the National Association changes the name of their exam, are they going to have to reopen the Practice Act to retitle the exam. MS. REARDON responded that was what the previous witness said about the standard license - "the exam of the National Association in regulation". So the word does not appear in statute, but it appears in regulations. But sprinkled through the actual statute, there are references to physiologic therapy. All that they achieve by removing this reference, is leaving the other four references to physiological therapy that are in the core definition of what is chiropractic. It doesn't fully resolve the issue. Also, if the committee chose to eliminate the term in this bill, she asked that they not take out the exam, because she thought the committee would want them to pass the exam. She supported saying, "the exams identified by the Board in regulations." SENATOR KELLY asked how long regulations have required passing a physiotherapy exam. MS. REARDON replied she thought that was relatively new, but the other references in statute have been there for years. MS. GRAFTON inserted that they have no problem with physiologic therapeutics as written in the current Act. They have a problem with the term "physiotherapy" which our State Board has stated and resolved is the same thing as physical therapy. SENATOR LEMAN said the examination of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners probably has within it as physiologic therapeutics. The next section says, "...has passed to the satisfaction of the Board parts 1 and 2 of the examination." He asked whether a part of that examination deals with physiological therapeutics and, if so, could that part of the examination be referenced. MS. REARDON explained the problem is that part is called the physiotherapy examination. That is why it is capitalized on line 23. There are five parts of the National Board. Part 1 covers basic science subjects, part 2 covers clinical subjects, part 3 is the written competency exam, part 4 is the practical exam, and the physiotherapy exam. SENATOR LEMAN asked if part 5 is the physiotherapy exam. MS. REARDON replied the information she has does not refer to the physiotherapy exam as a part. Again, that is why it is capitalized because they do not have a good name for it. SENATOR LEMAN asked what she thought of suggesting to them that they call it part 5. SENATOR TIM KELLY asked who had the name first, the chiropractors or the physical therapists. He said he thought the chiropractors did, and that seems to be the problem. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if it changes the scope of the work anyone does. MS. REARDON said it does not but the very important concept that anyone else can call him/herself a physical therapist or physiotherapist still holds. This bill does not allow chiropractors to call themselves physiotherapists. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if that issue was addressed a few years ago. MS. REARDON said she thinks that was the origin of the Alaska Boards of Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy's positions but those terms are synonymous to make sure nobody could call themselves a physiotherapist who was not a licensed physical therapist. She pointed out that is important to the Board. MS. BERNADETTE GILLET, representing the Providence Medical Center, made the following comment. "Just speaking in terms of differences between physiotherapy - physical therapy, that we have resolved that two are synonymous and, in speaking directly about that statement, it says the physiotherapy examination, as Karen just discussed, can be congruent with our language that describes about our profession of physical therapy. You ask who came first - the chiropractor or the physical therapist - but PT's came up in 1926 with the term 'physical therapist'. Chiropractic medicine started in 1895 with the 'chiropractor.' Those two differences split us and it maintains that with the way that this is stated. That's why we prefer to have this wording struck from that line." CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked the two groups if they could get together to resolve the differences. MS. GILLET replied yes. SENATOR TIM KELLY asked if he was referring to the physical therapists and the chiropractors. CHAIRMAN MACKIE said yes. He didn't think anyone wanted to change the scope of what they do, but they need to have consistency in our statutes. Number 2006 MR. GEORGE SALMON, Fairbanks Physical Therapist, agreed with Ms. Grafton's testimony that "physiotherapy" wording be deleted. He said there is a lot of confusion in the public about what physical therapists and chiropractors do. It opens the door for the public to start thinking of chiropractors and physical therapists. He thought they should call that part of the test "part 5." MS. CHERYL SACKETT, Fairbanks, agreed with Mr. Salmon and the need to remove "physiotherapy" and label the exam "part 5." SENATOR LEMAN said he had additional concerns. One on page 2, lines 4 - 13, the disqualification section, that they should consider being consistent throughout with health care providers as they update statutes. They have similar standards for dentistry, but he likes the wording in this bill better. It's a little shorter and has less repetition. His other concern was on page 3, line 21 where it appears to him that by deleting "after a hearing" the Board may impose a disciplinary sanction on a person without having a hearing. But in AS 18.08.075 it says they can't do it without a hearing. He thought it should be written so that the Board could refuse to issue a license without having to have a hearing. He suggested, "The Board may refuse to issue a license under this chapter, and after a hearing, impose a disciplinary sanction..." MS. REARDON responded that what Senator Leman said was fine. It's correct that the reason they are taking out "after a hearing" is because they want the Board to be able to deny without having a hearing first. It was their intention to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act which does apply to this Board's activities. It requires a hearing before taking disciplinary action. Senator Leman's suggestion is fine with her. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if that was a suggestion of the Attorney General. MS. REARDON answered yes. She added that this part of the bill is actually what the Division finds is the most important part. This increases public protection because it says the Board can deny licenses if you have done something wrong. As it is now, although the title of the section includes refuse to issue a license, they found the substance of this section would not allow them to deny licenses for very legitimate reasons. CHAIRMAN MACKIE said without the drafter there, they couldn't explain the language. MS. REARDON said probably what Senator Leman is referring to is the summary suspension option for discipline if there is a clear and immediate threat to public health. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked her to have her legal people look at Senator Leman's wording. Ms. Reardon indicated her agreement. He said the only issue remaining is the physical therapist's concern with the language. Senator Leman suggested using the wording "part 5" and eliminating "physiotherapy examination." He asked for comments from the Department. MS. REARDON replied that would be a wonderful solution except that it's not called "part 5" by the National Board, so that wording would not actually have a meaning. SENATOR LEMAN corrected her saying that he suggested part 5 in a note to the chairman and then put (physiotherapy examination). That really doesn't do much more than give a nod to the physiotherapist that their's is a separate entity different from chiropractors and not confuse the public. CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked what Senator Miller's thoughts were on this. MS. CLARK replied he agreed with what the chiropractors want and whatever Occupational Licensing thinks should be in statute. He is in agreement with the CS. SENATOR MACKIE asked them to work together and resolve the issue when it goes to the floor. DR. MORGAN inserted that the Chiropractic Board has already said that physical therapy, physiotherapy, and physiological therapeutic are all synonymous terms. He thought the physical therapists had said that as well. It is a name given by the National Board of Chiropractors, not of physical therapists, to fulfill that basic requirement in the State. If the term changes, he didn't know how to change it on a national level. SENATOR MACKIE said there is obviously a conflict and that's why he has asked people to get together and work it out. Otherwise it will most likely remain like the sponsor has it. SENATOR KELLY said he was sympathetic to the arguments of the physical therapists, but he thought that was irrelevant to the bill in front of them. They will continue to struggle through that until they can reach an agreement. SENATOR KELLY moved to pass CSSB 297 (L&C) with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN MACKIE adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m.