Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519

04/24/2017 01:30 PM FINANCE

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:34:48 PM Start
01:35:52 PM SB83
03:49:26 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
Moved CSHB 222(L&C) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      April 24, 2017                                                                                            
                         1:34 p.m.                                                                                              
1:34:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Foster  called the House Finance  Committee meeting                                                                    
to order at 1:34 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair                                                                                             
Representative Jason Grenn                                                                                                      
Representative David Guttenberg                                                                                                 
Representative Scott Kawasaki                                                                                                   
Representative Dan Ortiz                                                                                                        
Representative Lance Pruitt                                                                                                     
Representative Steve Thompson                                                                                                   
Representative Cathy Tilton                                                                                                     
Representative Tammie Wilson                                                                                                    
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
Teresa  Holt,   Long-Term  Care  Ombudsman,   Department  of                                                                    
Revenue;  Denise  Daniello,   Alaska  Commission  on  Aging,                                                                    
Juneau;  Representative Matt  Claman, Sponsor;  Sara Perman,                                                                    
Staff,   Representative   Matt   Claman;   Sarah   Chambers,                                                                    
Department of Commerce, Juneau.                                                                                                 
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE                                                                                                    
Kelda Barstad, Health Program  Manager - Senior Disabilities                                                                    
Services,   Department  of   Health  and   Social  Services,                                                                    
Anchorage;  Kevin  McKinley,  Chair, Board  of  Barbers  and                                                                    
Hairdressers, Fairbanks; Christina  Carpenter, Department of                                                                    
Environmental   Conservation   DEC,   Anchorage;   Christina                                                                    
Carpenter,  Direction,  Division  of  Environmental  Health,                                                                    
Department   of   Environmental   Conservation,   Anchorage;                                                                    
Beverly   Harper,  Self,   Anchorage;  Lynn   Gattis,  Self,                                                                    
Wasilla; Rachel Lauesen, Attorney, Anchorage.                                                                                   
HB 222    LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS/NAIL TECHS                                                                                   
          CSHB222 (L&C) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with                                                                      
          a "do pass" recommendation and with a previously                                                                      
         published fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED).                                                                               
SB 83     PROTECT: VULNERABLE ADULTS/LONG TERM CARE                                                                             
          SB 83 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                     
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the day.                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 83(HSS)                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to the protection of vulnerable                                                                           
    adults and residents of long term care facilities."                                                                         
1:35:52 PM                                                                                                                    
TERESA  HOLT,   LONG-TERM  CARE  OMBUDSMAN,   DEPARTMENT  OF                                                                    
REVENUE,  explained that  the word  Ombudsman was  a Swedish                                                                    
word that meant representative  of the people. She explained                                                                    
that SB  83 amended provisions  of AS 47.62, related  to the                                                                    
Office  of   the  Long  Term  Care   Ombudsman  and  certain                                                                    
provisions of AS 47.24 (protection  of vulnerable adults) to                                                                    
ensure  alignment with  42 U.S.C.  3058(g) (Older  Americans                                                                    
Act  of   1965)  and   its  implementing   regulations.  She                                                                    
furthered that  the Older Americans Act  Reauthorization Act                                                                    
of  2016 created  new  regulations for  the  Long Term  Care                                                                    
Ombudsman program. The  federal Administration for Community                                                                    
Living reviewed  all states  for compliance  to the  new act                                                                    
and discovered  the two Alaskan  statutes out  of alignment.                                                                    
Regardless, the  Department of  Revenue (DOR)  believed that                                                                    
the changes were beneficial to Alaska's program.                                                                                
Ms. Holt  related the provisions  in the bill.  She reported                                                                    
that the  legislation aligned state and  federal statute and                                                                    
regulations  to  ensure  that   the  Ombudsman  only  shared                                                                    
resident   information  with   informed  consent   and  only                                                                    
obtained records, investigated,  and provided referrals when                                                                    
a resident was unable to  provide informed consent. The bill                                                                    
included  new  definitions   for  "resident"  and  "resident                                                                    
representative."  She indicated  that due  to a  conflict of                                                                    
interest,  the   bill  removed  the  option   for  mandatory                                                                    
reporters   to   meet   their  reporting   requirements   by                                                                    
submitting  reports to  the  office of  the  Long Term  Care                                                                    
Ombudsman. In  addition, the  bill clarified  the separation                                                                    
of the  role of Long  Term Care  Ombudsman from the  role of                                                                    
the  Department of  Health and  Social  Services (DHSS)  and                                                                    
allowed the  Ombudsman's office to  serve residents  in long                                                                    
term care facilities under 60 years of age.                                                                                     
Representative Kawasaki asked about  the language changes in                                                                    
sections  4 and  6 of  the legislation  that dealt  with the                                                                    
Ombudsmen's  ability to  share reports.  He asked  about the                                                                    
effects  of the  change from  "shall" to  a "may".  Ms. Holt                                                                    
responded   that   the   Central  Intake   Office   received                                                                    
approximately   250  reports   of  abuse   each  week.   She                                                                    
communicated  that   subsequently,  reports  were   sent  to                                                                    
different   agencies,   i.e.,   Quality   Assurance,   Adult                                                                    
Protective  Services, Licensing  for Assisted  Living Homes,                                                                    
and  the Long  Term  Care Ombudsman's  Office. The  language                                                                    
allowed  the  intake office  to  only  send the  Ombudsman's                                                                    
Office the reports that applied to the Ombudsman.                                                                               
Representative Wilson referred to page  1, lines 9 and 10 of                                                                    
the  bill  and noted  the  change  from "Centralized  Intake                                                                    
Office"  to "Central  Information." She  inquired about  the                                                                    
difference  and  wondered  whether  the  change  involved  a                                                                    
"centralized data  base versus  and central data  base." Ms.                                                                    
Holt deferred to the question to DHSS.                                                                                          
1:40:41 PM                                                                                                                    
KELDA BARSTAD, HEALTH PROGRAM  MANAGER - SENIOR DISABILITIES                                                                    
SERVICES,   DEPARTMENT  OF   HEALTH  AND   SOCIAL  SERVICES,                                                                    
ANCHORAGE  (via  teleconference), replied  that  Centralized                                                                    
Intake was a new name for  the intake department and did not                                                                    
refer to the registry or the database.                                                                                          
Representative  Wilson  noted  the  change  to  a  "resident                                                                    
representative."  She asked  about the  qualifications of  a                                                                    
resident representative. Ms. Holt  responded that the change                                                                    
only applied  to the Long  Term Care Ombudsman  and expanded                                                                    
the  list  of who  was  authorized  to grant  permission  on                                                                    
behalf  of an  elder  for and  investigation. The  provision                                                                    
included a power of attorney,  guardian, and a designee. She                                                                    
qualified that the elder can  appoint a designee only if the                                                                    
senior was their own guardian.                                                                                                  
Representative  Wilson pointed  to page  6, lines  4 through                                                                    
10. She read the following:                                                                                                     
     (b)    Notwithstanding    the    provisions    of    AS                                                                    
     47.62.015(c)(1),  the ombudsman  may obtain  medical or                                                                    
     other records of a resident of [AN OLDER ALASKAN WHO                                                                       
     RESIDES  IN] a  long term  care facility  in the  state                                                                    
     only with the  consent of the resident  or the person's                                                                    
     resident  representative  or   [OLDER  ALASKAN  OR  THE                                                                    
     OLDER  ALASKAN'S] legal  guardian or,  if the  resident                                                                    
     [OLDER  ALASKAN] is  unable or  incompetent to  consent                                                                    
     and  does not  have  a  resident representative  [LEGAL                                                                    
     GUARDIAN], only with a subpoena or court order.                                                                            
Representative Wilson  asked for  clarity. Ms.  Holt replied                                                                    
that  the language  only applied  to  retaining records  and                                                                    
resident  representative  was  "all  inclusive."  She  asked                                                                    
Representative    Wilson    to   clarify    her    question.                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  did  not understand  the  paragraph.                                                                    
She did not  understand why the reference  to legal guardian                                                                    
was included  on line  8 and  removed on  line 10.  Ms. Holt                                                                    
pointed  to   the  definitions  page  [page   7,  line  10].                                                                    
Representative Wilson  emphasized that legal  guardians were                                                                    
appointed  by   the  court.   She  believed   that  resident                                                                    
representative  had   a  much   lower  threshold.   She  was                                                                    
concerned with  removing the language, "legal  guardian" due                                                                    
to the fact that the elder might  not be in a clear state of                                                                    
mind when appointing a resident representative.                                                                                 
1:45:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Holt replied that the  language was based on the federal                                                                    
requirements  and  that  it was  necessary  to  include  the                                                                    
language to  align with  the federal  law. She  offered that                                                                    
the provision  allowed the  Ombudsman's office  to disregard                                                                    
the  resident representative's  decisions  if it  determined                                                                    
the  representative was  not acting  in the  resident's best                                                                    
interest. Representative  Wilson did  not really  care about                                                                    
the  federal  regulations if  they  made  someone unsafe  or                                                                    
misrepresented. She  referenced page 6, lines  15 through 30                                                                    
and  deduced that  the long-term  care facility  "could make                                                                    
that determination."                                                                                                            
Ms. Holt  answered that  the section was  in reference  to a                                                                    
very  specific  situation.  She   explained  that  the  four                                                                    
circumstances listed in the section  were the only instances                                                                    
when the  ombudsman can  share the  information and  only if                                                                    
the older Alaskan was unable  to provide consent and did not                                                                    
have a resident representative.  She provided the example of                                                                    
a homeless  person who  ended up in  a facility  and pointed                                                                    
out  that  the  provision  was important  in  that  type  of                                                                    
situation. She noted  that the law was added  to federal law                                                                    
because  it  was a  problem  when  the ombudsman  could  not                                                                    
obtain consent.  She delineated that  the four  reasons were                                                                    
based on health,  safety, welfare, and the  best interest of                                                                    
the person.  The ombudsman was the  only official sanctioned                                                                    
to  make  the  authorization  and  the  decision  could  not                                                                    
conflict  with   any  evidence   that  the   resident  would                                                                    
disapprove   of   the    referral.   Representative   Wilson                                                                    
maintained concern over the legislation.  She asked what the                                                                    
current provisions were versus the  changes in the bill. Ms.                                                                    
Holt  relayed that  currently the  situation and  therefore,                                                                    
the provisions applied to a  very small number of residents.                                                                    
The ombudsman worked by talking  with residents of long term                                                                    
care  facilities  to  identify  and  assist  them  with  any                                                                    
issues.  The whole  matter of  resident representatives  was                                                                    
exclusively to help the ombudsman  obtain permission to work                                                                    
on behalf of a resident.                                                                                                        
1:50:04 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Guttenberg  commented   that  at  times  the                                                                    
fiscal notes were revealing. He  referred to the analysis on                                                                    
page 2 of fiscal note 2, FN2 (REV) and read the following:                                                                      
     Clarifies that the OLTCO may serve residents in long                                                                       
     term care facilities who are under the age of 60;                                                                          
Representative  Guttenberg referred  to page  4, line  13 of                                                                    
the  bill. He  noted that  the language  deleted individuals                                                                    
under 60 years of age. He  inquired where the language in SB
83 was  located that  ensured the ombudsman's  office served                                                                    
residents under  60 years  old. He  wanted to  reconcile the                                                                    
difference between  the fiscal  note analysis and  the bill.                                                                    
Ms. Holt  asked the  representative to further  clarify. Ms.                                                                    
Holt  explained   that  the  legislation  stated   that  the                                                                    
ombudsman can serve  anyone in a long term  care facility at                                                                    
any age in accordance with the federal law.                                                                                     
Representative  Guttenberg  cited additional  analysis  from                                                                    
the fiscal note. He read the following:                                                                                         
     Removes  the option  for  mandatory  reporters to  meet                                                                    
     reporting requirements  by submitting  a report  to the                                                                    
     OLTCO  and clarifies  the differences  in the  roles of                                                                    
     the   Long  Term   Care  Ombudsman,   Adult  Protective                                                                    
     Services,   and   (Health  Care   Services)   licensing                                                                    
Representative Guttenberg  expressed concerns  regarding the                                                                    
"flow of  reporting." He wanted  to ensure that  the reports                                                                    
were forwarded to the right  service provider and not "stuck                                                                    
in an  intake office." He  wondered how the flow  of reports                                                                    
was  facilitated. Ms.  Holt  explained  that Central  Intake                                                                    
disseminated  all of  the reports  for any  vulnerable adult                                                                    
over 18  years of  age to the  appropriate office.  The bill                                                                    
prohibited mandatory reporters from  providing the report to                                                                    
the  ombudsman's  office and  "count  that  action as  their                                                                    
mandatory   reporting."  The   direct  exchange   created  a                                                                    
conflict  with  the  ombudsman's  office  who  followed  the                                                                    
direction  of the  resident or  resident representative  and                                                                    
can only  undertake an investigation  by their  request. The                                                                    
legislation  clarified  that  the mandatory  reporters  were                                                                    
required  to  send their  reports  directly  to the  Central                                                                    
Intake Office.                                                                                                                  
1:55:10 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Gara asked  about the  number of  complaints the                                                                    
ombudsman's office  investigated in  one year.  She reported                                                                    
that her  office "opened" roughly  662 cases every  year for                                                                    
investigation. Vice-Chair Gara inquired  about the number of                                                                    
staff  employed in  the office.  Ms. Holt  replied that  the                                                                    
office employed  6 staff in total.  Vice-Chair Gara wondered                                                                    
what positions  were employed. Ms.  Holt responded  that the                                                                    
Office of the  Long Term Care Ombudsman was  comprised of an                                                                    
Ombudsman  and Deputy  Ombudsman, three  assistant ombudsman                                                                    
and  one intake  specialist. Vice-Chair  Gara asked  whether                                                                    
the office  was a  "stand-alone" within the  department. She                                                                    
answered that  the office operated  under the  Alaska Mental                                                                    
Health  Trust  Authority  (AMHTA)  and were  housed  in  its                                                                    
building. Vice-Chair  Gara inquired whether every  state was                                                                    
required by  federal law to  maintain an Office of  the Long                                                                    
Term Care Ombudsman. Ms. Holt  responded in the affirmative.                                                                    
She added that  the mandate was part of  the Older Americans                                                                    
Act.  Vice-Chair  Gara  asked  whether  there  were  further                                                                    
federal requirements  regarding the ombudsman's  office. Ms.                                                                    
Holt   indicated   that    although   no   further   federal                                                                    
requirements  were imposed,  there were  standards regarding                                                                    
visiting  every facility  every quarter.  She detailed  that                                                                    
currently  the  office  visited 18  nursing  homes  and  249                                                                    
assisted living homes licensed  to serve seniors. Vice-Chair                                                                    
Gara  asked  whether  the numbers  included  visits  without                                                                    
complaints. Ms.  Holt replied in the  affirmative. She added                                                                    
that the  office recruited and  trained volunteers  and that                                                                    
30 volunteers  assisted in the quarterly  visits. Vice-Chair                                                                    
Gara asked  what portion of  the paid staffs work  was spent                                                                    
visiting rather  than following up  on complaints.  Ms. Holt                                                                    
answered  that facility  visits  comprised approximately  60                                                                    
percent of the  work. She elucidated that  the more frequent                                                                    
the visits the less problems the facility had.                                                                                  
Co-Chair  Foster   noted  that  Representative   Claman  and                                                                    
Representative Parrish joined the audience.                                                                                     
1:59:45 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Guttenberg    asked   whether    the   bill                                                                    
"significantly"  changed  how  responsive  the  system  that                                                                    
facilitated  meeting the  needs for  seniors was  or if  the                                                                    
bill was  simply a compliance  issue. He asked if  she heard                                                                    
concerns from seniors in regards to the legislation.                                                                            
DENISE  DANIELLO,   ALASKA  COMMISSION  ON   AGING,  JUNEAU,                                                                    
responded  that   her  office  had  no   problems  with  the                                                                    
legislation  that brought  the  state  into compliance  with                                                                    
federal statutes. She appreciated  the changes regarding the                                                                    
flow  of  reports  funneling   through  the  Central  Intake                                                                    
Office.  She   offered  that  the  provision   assisted  the                                                                    
commission to track the number of reports more efficiently.                                                                     
2:02:28 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.                                                                                        
2:02:45 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.                                                                                        
SB  83  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
HOUSE BILL NO. 222                                                                                                            
     "An Act relating to the  licensure of nail technicians;                                                                    
     and providing for an effective date."                                                                                      
2:03:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, read from a prepared                                                                       
     In  2015,  the legislature  passed  House  Bill 131  in                                                                    
     hopes of improving the health  and safety of nail salon                                                                    
     patrons.  House  Bill  131  outlined  new  regulations,                                                                    
     including  requiring  250  hours of  education  and  an                                                                    
     examination,  to become  a licensed  "nail technician".                                                                    
     Prior  to  the 2015  bill,  a  person could  receive  a                                                                    
     manicurist's   license  by   completing  12   hours  of                                                                    
     training,  though many  people received  a few  hundred                                                                    
     hours of  training in the  States before  practicing in                                                                    
     Alaska. In  2015, the  House made  an amendment  on the                                                                    
     House  Floor that  wrought  unintended consequences  on                                                                    
     existing  licensees that  would be  seeking renewal  in                                                                    
     The floor amendment added a  grandfather clause but the                                                                    
     grandfather  clause   was  unclear.  The   Barbers  and                                                                    
     Hairdressers  board consulted  with  the Department  of                                                                    
     Law  and   interpreted  the  new  statute   to  have  a                                                                    
     grandfather   clause   that  allowed   manicurists   to                                                                    
     practice for 2 years before  having to go back and take                                                                    
     training all over again.                                                                                                   
     House  Bill 222  seeks  to remedy  the onerous  renewal                                                                    
     process   enacted  by   the   29th  legislature   while                                                                    
     protecting the health and safety of Alaskans.                                                                              
2:05:06 PM                                                                                                                    
SARA PERMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, read from a                                                                     
prepared statement:                                                                                                             
     House Bill  222 amends  AS 08.13.030 by  clarifying the                                                                    
     grandfather clause,  which allows individuals  who held                                                                    
     a  manicurists'  license  prior  to  December  2015  to                                                                    
     forego  the  250  hours of  instruction  in  manicuring                                                                    
     required  of   new  applicants.  They  will   still  be                                                                    
     required to  prove 250 hours  of prior  work experience                                                                    
     as a manicurist.                                                                                                           
     The current rules for nail  technicians are outlined in                                                                    
     House  Bill  131,  which the  29th  Alaska  Legislature                                                                    
     passed in  2015. The House  Labor &  Commerce Committee                                                                    
     intended to  include a  grandfather clause  in statute.                                                                    
     The  bill was  amended  on  the House  Floor  to add  a                                                                    
     grandfather clause.  However, the Board of  Barbers and                                                                    
     Hairdressers  interpreted the  passed  bill  to have  a                                                                    
     temporary, confusing grandfather  clause. The following                                                                    
     is now  required of experienced manicurists  seeking to                                                                    
     renew their license:                                                                                                       
          • By August 31, 2017, proof of 250 hours of work                                                                      
          as a manicurist.                                                                                                      
          • By August 31, 2017, taken and passed a written                                                                      
          or oral examination.                                                                                                  
     After  one  renewal  period,  however,  an  experienced                                                                    
     manicurists is nevertheless required  to take 250 hours                                                                    
     of   educational   coursework   to  receive   a   "nail                                                                    
     technician"  license  after  a  two-year  grandfathered                                                                    
     license that  does not require  the coursework.  HB 222                                                                    
     seeks to  remove the  education requirement  for people                                                                    
     who were  already licensed  and working  under statutes                                                                    
     prior to December 31st, 2015.                                                                                              
     Requiring 250  hours of coursework, or  essentially six                                                                    
     weeks  to two  months  of fulltime  effort, could  mean                                                                    
     these  experienced, working  manicurists  might not  be                                                                    
     able  to work.  Many of  the individuals  who would  be                                                                    
     affected  are  "Mom-n-Pop"  business owners  or  single                                                                    
     mothers. Requiring  this training for persons  who have                                                                    
     been  practicing  successfully  for  years  could  have                                                                    
    detrimental impacts on their finances and families.                                                                         
     It  is  the  intention  of  HB 222  is  to  remove  the                                                                    
     unnecessary  burden of  educational training  hours for                                                                    
     experienced   manicurists   who  practiced   prior   to                                                                    
     December 31st, 2015.                                                                                                       
Ms.  Perman read the sectional analysis:                                                                                        
     Note: As  the CS HB 222  (L&) was adopted on  the first                                                                    
     hearing   before  opening   statements,  we   have  not                                                                    
    included an explanation of changes from version A.                                                                          
     Section 1 -  Amends the uncodified law of  the State of                                                                    
     Alaska by  adding a new  section of  legislative intent                                                                    
     that  the Board  of Barbers  and Hairdressers  allowing                                                                    
     license  applicants the  ability  to  use a  translator                                                                    
    during their required oral or written examination.                                                                          
     Section  2  -  Amends  AS 08.13.030  by  adding  a  new                                                                    
     subsection  (d)  that states  that  the  Board may  not                                                                    
     require 250  hours of instruction in  manicuring (under                                                                    
     AS  08.13.080(a)(4)) for  applicants who  hold a  valid                                                                    
     license to  practice manicuring that was  issued before                                                                    
     Dec.   31,  2015.   This,   in   effect,  defines   the                                                                    
     grandfather clause.                                                                                                        
     Section  3  -  Amends  Sec. 13(a),  ch.  27,  SLA  2015                                                                    
     allowing a person  who holds a valid license  on Jan 1,                                                                    
     2016  to  continue  practicing manicuring  until  their                                                                    
     license normally expires. Subsection  (1) states that a                                                                    
     person is allowed to renew  their license before August                                                                    
     31, 2017, if the  person meets preexisting requirements                                                                    
     under  AS 08.13  as it  existed prior  to Jan  1, 2016.                                                                    
     Subsection  (2) states  that a  person may  renew their                                                                    
     license  for an  additional  period  before August  31,                                                                    
     2019 if  the person submits  (A) proof of 250  hours of                                                                    
     satisfactory  work experience  and  (B)  has taken  and                                                                    
     passed  a  written or  oral  exam  under AS  08.13.090.                                                                    
     Section  4 -  Retroactively amends  Section 13(a),  ch.                                                                    
     27,  SLA 2015,  by section  3 of  this Act  to Jan.  1,                                                                    
     Section 5 - Provides an immediate effective date.                                                                          
Ms. Perman summarized that the  intention of the legislation                                                                    
was  to   remove  the   unnecessary  burden   of  additional                                                                    
educational training  hours for experienced  manicurists who                                                                    
practiced  prior to  December  31, 2015  and extended  equal                                                                    
opportunity  for individuals  who may  have difficulty  with                                                                    
language barriers. She noted that  the fiscal note reflected                                                                    
an amount  of $5 thousand  for regulatory changes  that were                                                                    
covered in licensing fees.                                                                                                      
2:08:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Grenn  asked about the number  of people that                                                                    
would  be grandfathered  in.  Representative Claman  thought                                                                    
the  number  was  approximately  975.  Representative  Grenn                                                                    
asked whether the board agreed with the changes.                                                                                
KEVIN MCKINLEY,  CHAIR, BOARD  OF BARBERS  AND HAIRDRESSERS,                                                                    
FAIRBANKS  (via teleconference),  corrected that  the number                                                                    
of  licensed manicurists  was currently  944. He  favored HB
222. The bill  carried out the original intent  of the board                                                                    
in respect  to manicurist licenses and  protected the health                                                                    
and safety of Alaskans.                                                                                                         
Representative Guttenberg  cited the letter by  the law firm                                                                    
of Fortier  and Mikko dated  March 20, 2017 (copy  on file).                                                                    
The  letter  interpreted that  the  previous  bill's HB  131                                                                    
(Licensure of Manicurists/Hair Dressing)  [Chapter 27 SLA 15                                                                    
05/26/2015]  grandfathering  clause  intended  to  apply  to                                                                    
licensed manicurists.  He asked whether that  was the intent                                                                    
of  HB  222.  Representative  Claman explained  that  as  he                                                                    
understood   the   previous   bill  created   a   two   year                                                                    
grandfathering  clause  that  still  required  the  licensed                                                                    
manicurist to  take the 250  hours of instruction  after two                                                                    
years.   Initially,  a   written   test  in   lieu  of   the                                                                    
instructional hours  was instituted  as a  way to  solve the                                                                    
issue.  However,  the test  was  not  available in  multiple                                                                    
languages and  proved problematic  for some  manicurists. He                                                                    
added  that  provisions  in  HB   222  were  added  to  make                                                                    
interpreters available during the testing.                                                                                      
2:13:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Gara asked  about the importance of  250 hours of                                                                    
training. Mr.  McKinley answered  that most of  the training                                                                    
would   focus  on   aseptic  techniques,   skin  conditions,                                                                    
sterility, and  barely touched on  the health and  safety of                                                                    
the practitioner. He felt that  the 250 hour requirement was                                                                    
at the lowest  end of the typical  licensing requirement and                                                                    
was  not an  exorbitant expectation.  Vice-Chair Gara  asked                                                                    
why  the  state  was  not requiring  licensees  to  get  the                                                                    
additional training  and provide  a longer deadline,  if the                                                                    
training  was  important.   Mr.McKinley  believed  that  the                                                                    
requirement would be a hardship  for licensed manicurist and                                                                    
felt  that experience  should  qualify.  He elaborated  that                                                                    
many manicurist  were trained via apprenticeships  in a shop                                                                    
or school  and the practice was  acceptable. Vice-Chair Gara                                                                    
was  not convinced  work experience  met  the same  standard                                                                    
that training  provided. He was concerned  about safety. Mr.                                                                    
McKinley answered  that passing the national  exam for their                                                                    
next  renewal period  and work  experience were  accountable                                                                    
Representative Kawasaki asked  about the required schooling.                                                                    
He wondered  what the required  instructional costs  were in                                                                    
the state.  Representative Claman responded that  one school                                                                    
in Alaska offered the course for $3.5 thousand.                                                                                 
Representative  Kawasaki  inquired  whether  the  manicurist                                                                    
school  was  required to  obtain  a  license by  the  Alaska                                                                    
Commission on  Postsecondary Education (ACPE).  Mr. McKinley                                                                    
affirmed  that  the  school  had to  be  accredited  by  the                                                                    
commission.  He  contended  that   there  were  currently  3                                                                    
schools   in   the   state  costing   approximately   $1000.                                                                    
Representative  Kawasaki  maintained   that  there  were  no                                                                    
accredited  manicurist  schools  in   the  state.  He  asked                                                                    
whether the  board heard complaints regarding  violations of                                                                    
health and  safety. Mr. McKinley  responded that  health and                                                                    
safety  violations  were  forwarded  to  the  Department  of                                                                    
Environmental  Conservation  (DEC).  He specified  that  the                                                                    
board handled licensing.  Representative Kawasaki was trying                                                                    
to  establish  whether  any complaints  were  received  from                                                                    
"non-trained" nail  technicians. He announced that  he voted                                                                    
against the original bill. He  recounted that the reason for                                                                    
the original bill  was to prevent health  and safety issues.                                                                    
He wanted to see numbers  that proved the case. Mr. McKinley                                                                    
maintained  that the  instruction protected  the health  and                                                                    
safety of  the public  and also  increased the  skill level.                                                                    
Representative  Kawasaki   wondered  why  not   require  500                                                                    
instructional hours. Mr.McKinley thought  that 250 hours was                                                                    
a good medium point and a  jump from the 12 hour requirement                                                                    
to 500 was excessive.                                                                                                           
2:24:53 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Wilson   wondered   about  the   250   hour                                                                    
requirements. She stated that  pilots and school bus drivers                                                                    
were not required  to have that many hours.  She asked where                                                                    
the data  was derived  to justify  the amount.  Mr. McKinley                                                                    
was  comparing  the  number  of   hours  that  other  states                                                                    
required  for  licensure.   Representative  Wilson  wondered                                                                    
about  the number  of complaints  other states  received and                                                                    
whether that  was the  basis for  the 250  hour requirement.                                                                    
Mr.McKinley  relayed that  Alaskan practitioners  complained                                                                    
that  their  license was  not  valid  in other  states.  The                                                                    
increase  provided the  manicurist more  opportunity to  use                                                                    
their license  elsewhere. The increase was  centered more on                                                                    
the employment  factor and was  the basis of  comparisons to                                                                    
other states.                                                                                                                   
Representative Wilson  asked whether the increase  was based                                                                    
on  safety issues  or more  about  reciprocation with  other                                                                    
states. Representative  Claman explained that when  the bill                                                                    
was first  introduced the issue  was focused on  blood borne                                                                    
pathogens.  He  added  that  he did  not  know  whether  any                                                                    
complaints arose regarding health and safety.                                                                                   
Representative  Wilson  thought  that 2  issues  were  being                                                                    
discussed. She  noted the  school accreditation  issue which                                                                    
was a provision in the bill.  She requested to hear from DEC                                                                    
regarding  health   and  safety  violations.   She  pondered                                                                    
whether the  bill was solving  an issue or making  it harder                                                                    
and more  costly for an individual  entering the profession.                                                                    
She wondered  about costs for professional  interpreters for                                                                    
testing.  She  asked  who  was  paying  the  costs  for  the                                                                    
2:30:23 PM                                                                                                                    
Mr. McKinley  believed that the  discussion was  veering off                                                                    
track by comments  that the bill was  more about reciprocity                                                                    
over  health and  safety. He  voiced that  both issues  were                                                                    
important. Most  states required  300 hours  of instruction.                                                                    
He understood  that the  commission accredited  the schools.                                                                    
Representative  Wilson asked  which schools  were accredited                                                                    
by the  commission. Mr. McKinley  knew of 3  accredited nail                                                                    
technician  schools  but  not  their  names.  Representative                                                                    
Wilson  felt that  it  was imperative  to  find the  correct                                                                    
Representative Thompson  thought that schools  would address                                                                    
health and safety issues. He  was concerned about the amount                                                                    
of  instruction  required  to cover  the  issue  adequately.                                                                    
Representative Claman responded that the  goal of HB 222 was                                                                    
to  fix  the grandfather  clause  and  the exam  issue.  The                                                                    
issues regarding the content  of the educational requirement                                                                    
was addressed in the previous bill.                                                                                             
Representative  Grenn clarified  that the  original bill  HB
131, established the  increased educational requirement. Ms.                                                                    
Perman responded in the affirmative.                                                                                            
Representative  Grenn  ascertained  that HB  222  fixed  the                                                                    
grandfather   clause  for   manicurist  licensed   prior  to                                                                    
December 31, 2015  and allowed them to  continue without the                                                                    
250  hour requirement.  Representative  Claman replied  that                                                                    
the bill  granted previously licensed manicurist  credit for                                                                    
their prior work  experience and had to prove  that they had                                                                    
worked at  least 250  hours and were  also required  to take                                                                    
the exam.                                                                                                                       
2:35:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson  asked whether the  state reciprocated                                                                    
and  accepted  other  states licensure  of  250  hours.  Ms.                                                                    
Perman responded that manicurists  were required to take the                                                                    
Alaskan  exam.   Representative  Wilson  thought   that  the                                                                    
confusion  was in  the attorney's  letter. She  relayed that                                                                    
the  letter  reported  the  existence  of  three  manicurist                                                                    
schools  but none  were accredited  by  ACPE. She  requested                                                                    
verification  of  their  accreditation status.  She  worried                                                                    
that  the  schools did  not  offer  the advanced  curriculum                                                                    
recently required  by statue. Representative  Claman replied                                                                    
that  the letter  was referring  to  the currently  licensed                                                                    
manicurists and the  consequences if HB 222  was not adopted                                                                    
and  the   grandfathering  clause  was  not   corrected.  He                                                                    
reiterated   that  the   grandfathering  clause   allowed  a                                                                    
currently licensed manicurist work  experience count in lieu                                                                    
of the  250 hour  training requirement and  was the  goal of                                                                    
the  legislation.  He  thought  that  the  schools  lack  of                                                                    
accreditation   was    problematic   for    newly   licensed                                                                    
manicurists.    Representative     Wilson    deduced    that                                                                    
approximately   317   manicurists   would   still   not   be                                                                    
grandfathered in  with passage  of the  bill. She  wanted to                                                                    
gather  information  regarding  manicurists'  violations  in                                                                    
regards to  health and safety before  moving the legislation                                                                    
forward.  She  also  maintained her  concern  regarding  the                                                                    
manicurist schools lack of accreditation  and how that would                                                                    
affect the  317 manicurists' ability  to work in  the state.                                                                    
She thought  it was  vital to  obtain the  answers regarding                                                                    
2:41:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SARAH  CHAMBERS, DEPARTMENT  OF  COMMERCE, JUNEAU,  informed                                                                    
the  committee  that  the   three  manicuring  schools  were                                                                    
licensed  and accredited  with ACPE.  She  related that  she                                                                    
verified  the  information  with  the  division's  licensing                                                                    
examiner.  The  department  was prohibited  from  issuing  a                                                                    
license unless the school was  accredited. She revealed that                                                                    
there  were 99  investigations  of  barbers and  hairdresser                                                                    
licensees  in  the  previous  fiscal   year  that  ended  in                                                                    
punitive   action.  She   was   unsure   whether  any   were                                                                    
specifically against manicurists and  offered to provide the                                                                    
information. She detailed that  DEC conducted the safety and                                                                    
sanitation  duties  via  statute  as the  "experts"  in  the                                                                    
field. In the prior 2 years  DEC, due to budget cuts stopped                                                                    
investigating schools  and shops  for safety  and sanitation                                                                    
violations.   The   facilities   were  inspected   but   not                                                                    
specifically  the  manicurists.  She qualified  that  tattoo                                                                    
parlors  and   cosmetic  coloring  shops   inspections  were                                                                    
continuing.  The   division  did  not  have   the  statutory                                                                    
authority to inspect or investigate  and tried to fashion an                                                                    
agreement with DEC.  She noted that another  bill, SB 4 (Non-                                                                   
Chemical  Barbering; Hair  Braiding),  granted the  division                                                                    
and the Board  of Barbers and Hairdressers  the authority to                                                                    
perform  inspections and  investigations.  The two  agencies                                                                    
were  working  to  resolve  the  inspection  issue  until  a                                                                    
statutory change was adopted.                                                                                                   
2:44:23 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Guttenberg referred  to Ms. Chambers comments                                                                    
about inspections  and that DEC was  still inspecting tattoo                                                                    
parlors. He asked  who was carrying out  the inspections and                                                                    
paying  for  them.  He felt  that  health  inspections  were                                                                    
important  and   wanted  them  to  continue.   Ms.  Chambers                                                                    
responded  that the  DEC inspection  of tattoo  parlors fell                                                                    
under a reciprocal  agreement with the Board  of Barbers and                                                                    
Hairdressers.  The  division  was  billed  by  DEC  and  the                                                                    
board's   fees  covered   the  RSA   (reimbursable  services                                                                    
agreement)  between   DCCED  and  DEC.  The   tattoo  parlor                                                                    
inspections were  self-sustaining. Representative Guttenberg                                                                    
thought that the  part members were concerned  about was the                                                                    
health and  safety inspection. He  wondered why  DEC stopped                                                                    
the inspections  when the licensing fees  covered the costs.                                                                    
Ms. Chambers believed that  agencies "should follow statues"                                                                    
but understood  the nature of  budget cuts.  She recommended                                                                    
that  DEC  speak  to  the issue.  She  reiterated  that  the                                                                    
division was  attempting to address  the issue through  SB 4                                                                    
that granted  the board  authority to  carry out  health and                                                                    
safety  inspections.  She  characterized  the  situation  as                                                                    
being in "limbo."                                                                                                               
Representative Wilson asked if  the license fees were paying                                                                    
for the  tattoo parlor inspections why  the hairdressers and                                                                    
barbers  inspections weren't  being  carried out  by DEC  as                                                                    
well.  She asked  about the  number  of instructional  hours                                                                    
required for  tattoo artists licensing. Ms.  Chambers agreed                                                                    
with  her inquiry  regarding inspections.  She deferred  the                                                                    
question to DEC.                                                                                                                
2:48:26 PM                                                                                                                    
CHRISTINA  CARPENTER, DIRECTION,  DIVISION OF  ENVIRONMENTAL                                                                    
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ANCHORAGE                                                                    
(via  teleconference),   replied  that   since  FY   16  the                                                                    
department had  "significant" reductions in Food  Safety and                                                                    
lost 9 or  10 employees. The remaining staff  was focused on                                                                    
"high  risk"  facilities in  both  food  and sanitation  and                                                                    
eliminated some of the work  in the "lower risk" facilities.                                                                    
Representative Wilson  wondered why the RSA  funding was not                                                                    
enough  to  cover the  Food  Safety  program. Ms.  Carpenter                                                                    
responded  that the  Hairdresser and  Barbershop inspections                                                                    
did not  require a full-time  PCN (Position  Control Number)                                                                    
and  the  work  amounted  to  $5  thousand  per  year  on  a                                                                    
complaint basis  only. The remaining  staff were  shifted to                                                                    
high  risk facilities.  Representative  Wilson queried  what                                                                    
type of  complaints DEC received in  regards to manicurists.                                                                    
Ms.  Carpenter  was  unsure  and   offered  to  provide  the                                                                    
information at a later date.                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Gara queried  about the  severity of  complaints                                                                    
that were filed against manicurists  who did not receive the                                                                    
training.  Ms.   Chambers  did  not  have   the  information                                                                    
available because the bill did  not address the topic. Vice-                                                                    
Chair Gara deduced that the  topic was addressed in the bill                                                                    
due to  the fact  that the  underlying question  was whether                                                                    
job experience  was as  good as  instruction time  to ensure                                                                    
the public's health and safety.  Ms. Chambers explained that                                                                    
"the exam  was the  great equalizer."  She relayed  that the                                                                    
board's  view was  that the  exam gauged  the education  and                                                                    
work hour  experience. She  delineated that  all manicurists                                                                    
had  to pass  the  national exam  to  renew their  licenses.                                                                    
Vice-Chair  Gara   was  unsatisfied  with  her   answer.  He                                                                    
asserted  that  if the  exam  was  the great  equalizer  why                                                                    
require  the  250  hour training.  He  wanted  to  determine                                                                    
whether the  public was  in danger  or whether  the training                                                                    
was  not  necessary  and  requested  answers.  Ms.  Chambers                                                                    
restated  that  the  purpose  of   the  legislation  was  to                                                                    
determine  whether  to  waive  the  250  hour  instructional                                                                    
requirement  for   a  renewal.   She  elaborated   that  the                                                                    
professional   board  decided   that  an   exam  alone   was                                                                    
inadequate.  She listed  the  instructional requirements  of                                                                    
the board's  various licensees:  body piercing,  1000 hours;                                                                    
tattoo  artists, 380  hours; and  hairdressers, 1650  hours.                                                                    
The question was  whether the exam was  an alternate pathway                                                                    
for the 250 hour educational requirements.                                                                                      
2:55:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Seaton  asked for  clarification regarding  the 250                                                                    
hours of experience. He thought  that the 250 hours would be                                                                    
required  as  well  as  the  exam  and  that  there  was  no                                                                    
alternative path. Ms. Chambers  clarified that currently the                                                                    
statute  required that  every manicurist  had to  obtain the                                                                    
250  hour  training and  take  the  exam. The  bill  allowed                                                                    
currently licensed individuals the  opportunity to use their                                                                    
work experience and take the  exam in lieu of the additional                                                                    
training.  Co-Chair  Seaton  asked whether  there  were  two                                                                    
different  licenses  for  manicurist. Ms.  Chambers  replied                                                                    
that prior to  the 2015 legislation there  were two separate                                                                    
licenses.  She   explained  that  the   advanced  manicurist                                                                    
license  required  250  hours  of  training  and  a  regular                                                                    
manicurist   license  required   12   hours.  The   previous                                                                    
legislation, HB 131, leveled the  playing field and elevated                                                                    
the  standards  for  all   manicurists  by  eliminating  the                                                                    
regular manicurist  license. The  new license is  called the                                                                    
"nail  technician license"  and  required the  250 hours  of                                                                    
education for all manicurist.                                                                                                   
2:57:24 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Ortiz    referenced   the    reduction   in                                                                    
inspections by DEC and the  funding for the inspection work.                                                                    
He inquired  whether DEC was collecting  the inspection fees                                                                    
when staffed at higher  levels. Ms. Carpenter clarified that                                                                    
DEC did  not collect fees  for the inspections,  the funding                                                                    
went through an RSA with DCCED.                                                                                                 
Co-Chair  Seaton  referenced  the discussion  regarding  the                                                                    
manicurists paying  the same  licensing fees  which included                                                                    
fees  for   inspections  but  were   not  included   in  the                                                                    
inspections.  He   asked  whether  that  was   correct.  Ms.                                                                    
Chambers   clarified  that   the  fees   paid  to   DEC  for                                                                    
inspections were  minimal and a  tiny fraction of  the other                                                                    
costs  for   the  licensing  program.  She   specified  that                                                                    
AS.08.01.065  required that  all  of  the different  license                                                                    
types were charged the same licensing fee.                                                                                      
Vice-Chair Gara  read the  original statute  which indicated                                                                    
that  manicurists  were  required   to  take  250  hours  of                                                                    
instruction and  pass a  written exam.  He believed  that if                                                                    
all of  the manicurists performed  their job safely  the 250                                                                    
hour requirement  was unnecessary. He wondered  how he could                                                                    
determine  whether a  manicurist was  functioning in  a safe                                                                    
manner. He asked  if the exam was the  great equalizer could                                                                    
the licensee still pass the  test while answering all of the                                                                    
questions related  to health and safety  wrong. Ms. Chambers                                                                    
was  aware  there  was  an overall  passing  score  but  was                                                                    
uncertain  how  the  amount  and  types  of  questions  were                                                                    
distributed. She  observed that  the general  question about                                                                    
trusting  a professional  was often  asked. She  exemplified                                                                    
the question  regarding how a  person knew their  doctor was                                                                    
safe. She offered  that it "boiled down to a  policy call of                                                                    
the  legislature setting  guidelines  in  statute and  DCCED                                                                    
carrying out  its duties of  following up on  complaints and                                                                    
carrying out inspections.                                                                                                       
3:02:24 PM                                                                                                                    
Vice-Chair Gara stated that he would not hold up the bill.                                                                      
Representative   Ortiz   asked   whether  the   prior   work                                                                    
experience  had  to be  performed  in  Alaska. Ms.  Chambers                                                                    
replied that  the work experience  applied to  the licensure                                                                    
from any state.  She explained that the  licensure allowed a                                                                    
manicurist  to apply  by  waiver,  which recognized  another                                                                    
state's license.                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  commented that  in reality  there was                                                                    
no  way of  knowing  whether a  professional was  performing                                                                    
safely  just by  testing or  requiring a  certain number  of                                                                    
hours for licensure.                                                                                                            
Co-Chair   Seaton  was   curious  about   the  answer   that                                                                    
experience from  outside of the  state counted and  a waiver                                                                    
process  was  in  place   recognizing  licenses  from  other                                                                    
states. He  wondered whether the  waiver could apply  to the                                                                    
in-state   manicurists   licensed    before   2015   through                                                                    
documenting  their hours  of work  experience. Ms.  Chambers                                                                    
responded that  currently an apprenticeship  program counted                                                                    
apprenticing hours  in lieu  of instructional  hours towards                                                                    
licensure. Co-Chair  Seaton restated his  question regarding                                                                    
waiving the  required educational requirements  for in-state                                                                    
practicing  manicurists.  Ms.  Chambers explained  that  the                                                                    
ability to use work accumulated  hours from another state to                                                                    
qualify   for   a   waiver  was   in   addition   to   other                                                                    
qualifications. She  clarified that the  instructional hours                                                                    
could also be taken outside of the state.                                                                                       
3:07:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative   Ortiz  clarified   his  previous   question                                                                    
regarding  the  eligibility  of work  hours  completed  from                                                                    
another state  qualifying for  the grandfathering  clause in                                                                    
lieu of instructional hours in  Alaska. Ms. Chambers relayed                                                                    
that in current regulation a  person could participate in an                                                                    
apprenticeship or required education  and take the licensing                                                                    
exam.  In  addition,  a  verified  manicurist  license  from                                                                    
another  state   with  the   requisite  hours   of  training                                                                    
qualified  for an  Alaskan license  via a  waiver. Currently                                                                    
work  hours only  count for  licensure in  an apprenticeship                                                                    
3:09:15 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony on HB 222.                                                                              
3:09:55 PM                                                                                                                    
BEVERLY  HARPER,   SELF,  ANCHORAGE   (via  teleconference),                                                                    
testified  in  support  of  the  legislation.  She  was  the                                                                    
mother-in-law  of  an  Alaskan  manicurist  with  a  12-hour                                                                    
license  prior to  December,  2015 who  spoke  English as  a                                                                    
second  language.   She  shared  that   her  daughter-in-law                                                                    
received  her renewal  letter stating  that manicurist  must                                                                    
have worked 250  hours, pass an exam, and take  250 hours of                                                                    
education in order  to renew her license.  She reported that                                                                    
she  called  the board  who  confirmed  the requirements  as                                                                    
written   in  the   letter.  She   contacted  the   national                                                                    
accrediting entity  that wrote the  exam used in  Alaska who                                                                    
told her the exam was  available in many other languages and                                                                    
used  in other  states. A  passing grade  of 75  percent and                                                                    
above meant that the manicurist  "met all level standards of                                                                    
competence."  She then  contacted Representative  Claman and                                                                    
related  that  the regulations  and  the  statutes were  not                                                                    
congruous. She explained  that HB 131 was  currently the law                                                                    
and  if  HB  222  was not  adopted  currently  licensed  and                                                                    
practicing  manicurist were  required  to pass  the exam  by                                                                    
August  and   then  attend  250  hours   of  education.  She                                                                    
discovered that two  of the manicurist schools  in the state                                                                    
offered 250 hours  of education during daytime  hours in the                                                                    
classroom only.  The school in  Anchorage charged  $3500 and                                                                    
one in  Wasilla charged $4000.  The schools were  not listed                                                                    
as accredited. She understood the  concerns of the committee                                                                    
but noted  that everyone  licensed to do  something probably                                                                    
had to  take an  examination; the exam  may not  be perfect,                                                                    
but it  was the best  that could  be done. She  stressed the                                                                    
importance   of  passing   HB   222.   She  indicated   that                                                                    
manicurists working for  many years and took  the exam still                                                                    
had  to obtain  the classroom  instruction. The  individuals                                                                    
that   had  already   taken  the   exam  had   proven  their                                                                    
competence. She  opined that the current  law contributed to                                                                    
"lining the  pockets" of  Glenda Ledford  [Glenda's Training                                                                    
Center] who owned the school  in Wasilla and was chairman of                                                                    
the board in 2015.                                                                                                              
Representative  Wilson asked  whether  the manicurists  that                                                                    
had taken  the test  in February  received the  results. Ms.                                                                    
Harper  answered that  the results  had been  received about                                                                    
one week earlier.  She clarified that the test  was given on                                                                    
March  17,  2017. She  elaborated  that  the long  lag  time                                                                    
between  taking the  test and  receiving the  results caused                                                                    
individuals  who failed  to miss  the sign-up  for the  next                                                                    
test date.  Some chose to  pay the  testing fee of  $250 and                                                                    
sign-up   again  without   knowing   their   results  as   a                                                                    
precaution.  Currently, the  process was  quite a  financial                                                                    
burden; some  of the individuals  were business  owners. She                                                                    
emphasized that manicurists did not  earn a lot of money and                                                                    
worked many hours each work.                                                                                                    
Representative Ortiz  asked Ms. Harper to  objectively share                                                                    
any anecdotal  information about  the quality  and relevancy                                                                    
of the  test. Ms.  Harper answered that  her daughter-in-law                                                                    
had relayed that  the test had been  very comprehensive. She                                                                    
knew that  the contents  of the  test related  to pathogens,                                                                    
sanitation, and anatomy. She  reported that her daughter-in-                                                                    
law took  the test  in Vietnamese and  others who  had taken                                                                    
the test in  Vietnamese and failed felt  that the Vietnamese                                                                    
language  in  the  test  was   not  clear  and  proved  very                                                                    
difficult  for  the  examinees.  She  spoke  to  an  English                                                                    
speaking manicurist's  with 20 years' experience  who failed                                                                    
the test and felt the test was "very difficult."                                                                                
3:17:47 PM                                                                                                                    
LYNN  GATTIS, SELF,  WASILLA (via  teleconference), reported                                                                    
she  had been  the bill  sponsor of  HB 131  when she  was a                                                                    
state representative.  She provided a history  of the issue.                                                                    
She explained  that for 8  years the board was  looking into                                                                    
offering a license that was  reciprocal. There were 47 other                                                                    
states that  offered licensure reciprocity. She  also stated                                                                    
that another goal was born out  of the desire for health and                                                                    
safety.  She emphasized  the  importance  of protecting  the                                                                    
public's  health and  safety. The  previous statute  did not                                                                    
address  the new  techniques in  nail beauty.  She spoke  of                                                                    
some of  the techniques that  had been improved  and changed                                                                    
over time. The board wanted  the statutes to reflect the new                                                                    
techniques  and  technology in  use  today  and changed  the                                                                    
licensing  name  to  nail technician.  She  had  sought  out                                                                    
feedback from nail  salons regarding HB 131.  She noted that                                                                    
those who  responded felt that  the regular  manicurist were                                                                    
not  adequately trained  and also  wanted to  incorporate an                                                                    
apprenticeship program  into licensure. She  summarized that                                                                    
the  small  nail businesses  wanted  the  health and  safety                                                                    
aspect  increased, a  grandfathering clause,  and a  license                                                                    
that qualified  as reciprocating.  She asserted  that boards                                                                    
were  advocates  for their  industry  and  decided what  was                                                                    
needed. The  problem with  HB 131 was  that the  House Floor                                                                    
adopted an  amendment "on  the fly."  She supported  HB 222.                                                                    
Some of the nail technicians  she had polled were very upset                                                                    
with  the  provisions  in HB  131  and  regretted  providing                                                                    
feedback.  She warned  that many  small nail  business "were                                                                    
hanging on  the line" due to  the error. She thought  HB 222                                                                    
made the appropriate correction.                                                                                                
3:24:24 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson  asked why  HB 131 required  a written                                                                    
exam  for  currently  licensed  manicurists;  some  of  whom                                                                    
practiced for  over 20  years. Ms.  Gattis relayed  that she                                                                    
personally  did  not  feel  the   test  was  necessary.  The                                                                    
manicurists  advocated for  the exam  requirement for  those                                                                    
that never had taken it  so that the license was reciprocal.                                                                    
The  manicurist  did not  want  the  provision to  apply  to                                                                    
practitioners who had taken the  test. She mentioned that HB
222  corrected the  error. Representative  Wilson understood                                                                    
that the grandfathering still required  everyone to take the                                                                    
3:26:52 PM                                                                                                                    
RACHEL  LAUESEN, ATTORNEY,  ANCHORAGE (via  teleconference),                                                                    
represented a  current licensed manicurist who  preferred to                                                                    
remain anonymous due to fear  of retaliation for retaining a                                                                    
lawyer. She supported  HB 222. The bill  impacted over 1,200                                                                    
licensed manicurists.  It was unclear  whether the  99 cases                                                                    
of violations  mentioned included manicurists.  She reminded                                                                    
the committee that  the board represented a  larger group of                                                                    
professionals. She  contended that  when HB 131  was adopted                                                                    
there  was  not  a  manicurist   or  representative  of  the                                                                    
occupation on  the board. She  also commented that  the ACPE                                                                    
website  did not  include the  three  manicurist schools  on                                                                    
their list  of accredited schools  and pointed out  that the                                                                    
accreditation  was   expressly  required  in   statute.  She                                                                    
thought there was  confusion about the meaning  of the bill.                                                                    
She explained  that if HB  222 did  not pass there  would be                                                                    
many manicurists that would not  be able to work and support                                                                    
their families.  The current law  required passing  the exam                                                                    
by August  31, 2017.  She declared  that the  bill corrected                                                                    
the issues and  solved the problem. The  bill was supportive                                                                    
of  protecting  the public's  health  and  safety while  not                                                                    
creating unreasonable barriers to  enter the profession. She                                                                    
maintained that existing law did  not mandate the additional                                                                    
250  hours of  instruction  for individuals  who passed  the                                                                    
exam and had 250 hours  of work experience. She offered that                                                                    
DCCED interpreted  HB 131 in  the manner that  also required                                                                    
educational  hours. In  addition,  the  regulations did  not                                                                    
require the training.  She spoke with DCCED  who stated that                                                                    
in  order  for  them  to  change  their  interpretation  the                                                                    
legislature needed to change the law.                                                                                           
3:32:01 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.                                                                                        
3:32:59 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson  queried whether  the bill  was really                                                                    
an  interpretation problem  and if  the legislative  fix was                                                                    
necessary. Representative Claman deferred to Ms. Chambers.                                                                      
Ms. Chambers  responded that  DCCED forwarded  Ms. Lauesen's                                                                    
letter over  to the state's  attorney. She relayed  that the                                                                    
attorneys  at the  Department of  Law (DOL)  interpreted the                                                                    
law as  mandating the 250  hours of education  and disagreed                                                                    
with  Ms.  Lauesen's interpretation.  Representative  Wilson                                                                    
wondered whether  the interpretation applied  to manicurists                                                                    
who came  from out-of-state.  Ms. Chambers relayed  that the                                                                    
board  adopted regulations  that DOL  found consistent  with                                                                    
statute.  The  question  had to  do  with  the  transitional                                                                    
provisions  for existing  Alaskan  manicurists  and how  the                                                                    
application of  the transitional language that  was included                                                                    
in  HB  131 was  what  was  being  corrected  in HB  222.  A                                                                    
licensed manicurist  could use work hours  as an alternative                                                                    
3:36:02 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Wilson  presented a hypothetical  scenario of                                                                    
an Alaskan nail technician with  20 years of experience. She                                                                    
wondered whether  the manicurist  had to  take the  exam and                                                                    
the  250 hours  of  instruction while  someone from  out-of-                                                                    
state was  not required to  take the training.  Ms. Chambers                                                                    
deduced  an  informational  sheet or  chart  containing  the                                                                    
licensure pathways  would offer more clarity  and offered to                                                                    
provide it.                                                                                                                     
Representative Claman  reviewed that  if HB 222  passed, the                                                                    
250   hours  of   work   experience   substituted  for   the                                                                    
educational requirement  for currently  licensed manicurists                                                                    
but  the practitioner  would  still need  to  take an  exam.                                                                    
Representative Wilson  understood that  under current  law a                                                                    
manicurist from Hawaii with 20  years' experience could take                                                                    
the  exam and  receive  an  Alaskan license.  Representative                                                                    
Claman  was uncertain  about current  law  but affirmed  her                                                                    
understanding  under provisions  in  HB 222.  Representative                                                                    
Wilson maintained her concerns  about the difference between                                                                    
Alaskan   practitioners  versus   out-of-state  manicurists'                                                                    
requirement. She thought "it made no sense."                                                                                    
3:40:05 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms.  Chambers agreed  with  Representative  Claman that  the                                                                    
current bill addressed her concern.                                                                                             
Representative  Thompson stated  that by  August, 2017  some                                                                    
small shops would  be out of business. He  thought "time was                                                                    
of the  essence." He proposed  swift passage of the  bill in                                                                    
the House and the process expedited through the Senate.                                                                         
Representative  Kawasaki thought  that the  bill applied  to                                                                    
only  those  with a  license  prior  to December  31,  2015.                                                                    
Representative   Claman   responded  in   the   affirmative.                                                                    
Representative  Kawasaki relayed  his objection  to the  250                                                                    
hour mandate  in HB 131. He  was supportive of the  bill due                                                                    
to his concern that many  manicurists would be forced out of                                                                    
their job if the bill  failed. He agreed with Representative                                                                    
Thompson that the  bill must pass swiftly before  the end of                                                                    
session to protect jobs.                                                                                                        
Representative Guttenberg  asked whether  DCCED was  able to                                                                    
create emergency  regulations to extend the  timeline of the                                                                    
licensing changes. Ms. Chambers  responded that the timeline                                                                    
was set  out in statute  in 2015. She  needed to ask  DOL to                                                                    
determine  whether   the  department's   regulations  "could                                                                    
override statutory transition language."                                                                                        
Vice-Chair Gara  maintained that he had  underlying concerns                                                                    
with the bill  and did not receive  any answers. Regardless,                                                                    
he  advocated  moving the  bill  out  of committee  or  many                                                                    
qualified individuals would lose their license.                                                                                 
Representative  Wilson asked  about a  "valid license"  from                                                                    
another state. She read the  following from page 1, lines 13                                                                    
and 14 of the bill:                                                                                                             
     …if  the applicant  holds a  valid license  to practice                                                                    
     manicuring that  was issued on  or before  December 31,                                                                    
Representative  Wilson wondered  whether  a manicurist  from                                                                    
another  state  with  a valid  license,  regardless  of  the                                                                    
amount  of instructional  hours  required  qualified for  an                                                                    
Alaskan license.  Ms. Chambers indicated that  the provision                                                                    
only applied  to Alaskans.  Representative Wilson  read more                                                                    
of the  provision in the  bill on  page 1, lines  11 through                                                                    
     (d) The board  may not require that an  applicant for a                                                                    
     license  or   renewal  of  a     license   to  practice                                                                    
     manicuring  complete   250  hours  of   instruction  in                                                                    
     manicuring  from  a   school  of  manicuring  under  AS                                                                    
     08.13.080(a)(4) if the applicant  holds a valid license                                                                    
     to  practice manicuring  that was  issued on  or before                                                                    
     December 31, 2015.                                                                                                         
Representative  Wilson   wanted  to  ensure  the   bill  was                                                                    
correct. She wondered where the  statute designated that the                                                                    
language only applied to  in-state manicurists. Ms. Chambers                                                                    
responded that  the reference to AS.08.13  was the governing                                                                    
statutes  for Alaskan  licenses.  A person  had  to have  an                                                                    
Alaskan   license  in   order  to   renew  under   AS.08.13.                                                                    
Representative  Wilson  asked  for more  evidence  that  the                                                                    
statute  only applied  to Alaskans.  She  restated that  she                                                                    
wanted to avoid any unintended consequences from HB 222.                                                                        
Vice-Chair Gara  reviewed the fiscal impact  note from DCCED                                                                    
FN1  (CED) that  appropriated $5  thousand for  regulations,                                                                    
printing, and postage funded through program receipts.                                                                          
Vice-Chair  Gara  MOVED  to  report  CSHB  222(L&C)  out  of                                                                    
Committee   with   individual    recommendations   and   the                                                                    
accompanying fiscal note.                                                                                                       
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
CSHB222  (L&C) was  REPORTED  OUT of  Committee  with a  "do                                                                    
pass" recommendation and with  a previously published fiscal                                                                    
impact note: FN1 (CED).                                                                                                         
Co-Chair Foster  reviewed the agenda for  the following day.                                                                    
He recessed to a call of  the chair. He recessed the meeting                                                                    
to  a   call  of   the  chair   [Note:  the   meeting  never                                                                    
3:49:26 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 3:49 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB222 Additional Document Ltr to J. Maiquis and C. Spencer 4.19.17.pdf HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Additional Document Leg Meeting Minutes 4.19.17.pdf HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Additional Documents Letter to Manicurists 4.19.17.pdf HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Supporting Document Bev Harper 04.19.17.pdf HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Sectional Analysis ver O 4.19.17.pdf HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Sponsor Statement 4.19.17.pdf HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 222
HB 222 Additional Document - CH27SLA15 4.19.17.pdf HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 222
HB 222 Follow Up H FIN 4-26-17.pdf HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 222
HB 222 manicuring licensure flow chart 2017.pdf HFIN 4/24/2017 1:30:00 PM
HB 222