Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124

04/17/2017 03:15 PM LABOR & COMMERCE

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

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 195 Out of Committee
           HB 222-LICENSURE OF MANICURISTS/NAIL TECHS                                                                       
3:43:27 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KITO announced  that the second order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 222, "An  Act relating  to the licensure  of nail                                                               
technicians;  relating   to  the  practice  of   manicuring;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
3:43:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  WOOL  moved  to   adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS) for HB 222,  Version 30-LS0803\O, Bruce, 4/17/17,                                                               
as the  working document.   There being  no objection,  Version O                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
3:44:15 PM                                                                                                                    
OWEN PHILLIPS,  Staff, Representative  Matt Claman,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature, on  behalf of Representative Claman,  prime sponsor,                                                               
introduced HB  222.  In  2015, he stated, 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 250 hours  of education and an examination  to become a                                                               
licensed nail  technician.   Prior to that  bill, a  person could                                                               
receive  a  manicurist's  license   by  completing  12  hours  of                                                               
training, though many people received  many more hours outside of                                                               
the state  of Alaska.  In  2015, he explained, the  House made an                                                               
amendment on  the floor that  brought unintended  consequences on                                                               
existing licensees seeking renewal in  2017.  The floor amendment                                                               
added  a grandfather  clause, but  the clause  was unclear.   The                                                               
Board of  Barbers and Hairdressers consultant  consulted with the                                                               
Department  of Law  and interpreted  the  new statute  to have  a                                                               
temporary  and confusing  grandfather clause.   Therefore  HB 222                                                               
seeks  to remedy  the  onerous renewal  process  enacted in  2015                                                               
while protecting the health and safety of Alaskans.                                                                             
MR. PHILLIPS  outlined what is currently  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,                                                               
take and  pass a written  or oral examination; after  one renewal                                                               
period,  however,  an   experienced  manicurist  is  nevertheless                                                               
required to take 250 hours  of additional coursework to receive a                                                               
nail technician  license after  the two-year  grandfather license                                                               
that  does not  require any  coursework.   He said  HB 222  would                                                               
remove  the  education requirement  for  people  who are  already                                                               
licensed and working  under statutes prior to  December 31, 2015.                                                               
He pointed out  that requiring 250 hours of  coursework, which is                                                               
six  to  eight  weeks  of  full-time  effort,  could  mean  these                                                               
experienced  working  manicurists  might  not be  able  to  work.                                                               
Affected  individuals include  small business  owners and  single                                                               
mothers, he continued.   Requiring this training  for persons who                                                               
have   been  successfully   practicing  for   years  could   have                                                               
detrimental impacts on their finances and their families.                                                                       
3:46:46 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  PHILLIPS provided  a sectional  analysis of  Version O.   He                                                               
said  Section 1  adds legislative  intent to  the uncodified  law                                                               
that the Board of Barbers  and Hairdressers allow an applicant to                                                               
use a foreign language translator  during an exam.  Currently, he                                                               
noted, the exam is only  offered in English, Spanish, Vietnamese,                                                               
and Korean.   Section 2, he explained,  clarifies the grandfather                                                               
clause by  stating that  the board may  not require  an applicant                                                               
applying  for or  renewing a  license  to complete  250 hours  of                                                               
instruction in manicuring if the  applicant holds a valid license                                                               
that was  issued on or before  December 31, 2015.   Section 3, he                                                               
stated,  amends  Section  13(a),   ch.  27,  SLA  2015,  allowing                                                               
manicurists  who hold  a valid  license  on January  1, 2016,  to                                                               
continue  practicing  manicuring  until  their  license  normally                                                               
expires.   [Paragraph]  (1) provides  that manicurists  can renew                                                               
their license before  August 31, 2017, if  they meet pre-existing                                                               
requirements under AS 08.13 as  it existed prior to January 2016.                                                               
[Paragraph] (2)  states that manicurists may  renew their license                                                               
for an additional  period before August 31, 2019,  if they submit                                                               
proof  of 250  hours  of satisfactory  work  experience and  have                                                               
taken and  passed the  written or oral  exam under  AS 08.13.090.                                                               
Section 4, he  said, retroactively amends Section  13(a), ch. 27,                                                               
SLA 2015,  as amended by  Section 3 of this  Act.  Section  5, he                                                               
continued, sets an immediate effective date for this bill.                                                                      
MR. PHILLIPS added that the intention  of HB 222 is to remove the                                                               
unnecessary   burden  of   education  and   training  hours   for                                                               
experienced  manicurists  who  practiced prior  to  December  31,                                                               
2015, and  to extend equal  opportunities to individuals  who may                                                               
have a difficulty with a language barrier.                                                                                      
3:49:17 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 222.                                                                                   
3:49:33 PM                                                                                                                    
JEANNINE  JABAAY testified  in support  of HB  222.   She related                                                               
that she was  a former public member of the  Board of Barbers and                                                               
Hairdressers  and an  advocate of  House Bill  131 in  2015.   As                                                               
outlined  by  Mr. Phillips,  she  stated,  it was  [the  board's]                                                               
understanding that  for Alaska's nearly 1,000  current licensees,                                                               
those   250   hours  required   for   new   licensees  would   be                                                               
grandfathered hour for hour for the  hours they worked on the job                                                               
and  incurred  incumbently.     However,  the  [floor]  amendment                                                               
changed that  accidentally, she continued, and  [the board] would                                                               
like to see that fixed, which HB 222 would do.                                                                                  
MS. JABAAY recalled that regarding  the testing requirement, [the                                                               
board] was asked directly by a  legislator whether it came in the                                                               
Hmong language.   She said she doesn't remember  the exact answer                                                               
given by the decision, but it  was her understanding that it came                                                               
in nine languages and now it is  down to only four.  The State of                                                               
Alaska uses  the National-Interstate  Council of State  Boards of                                                               
Cosmetology,  Inc.   (NIC)  test,  she  continued,   which  is  a                                                               
proprietary  test  that  cannot   be  translated  or  interpreted                                                               
according to  the NIC  regulations.  A  person who  doesn't speak                                                               
one  of the  four  languages  outlined by  Mr.  Phillips will  be                                                               
unable  to understand  the questions  being  asked.   There is  a                                                               
large  population  of  licensees   in  Alaska's  nail  technician                                                               
industry who don't  speak any of those four languages.   She said                                                               
HB 222 would  correct that by allowing the test  to be translated                                                               
or interpreted  and would give  the board that discretion.   This                                                               
bill does a good job  addressing those things that are confusing,                                                               
she added,  and would bring House  Bill 131 back to  its original                                                               
intention  of  increasing  public  safety  without  removing  the                                                               
livelihood of the current 1,000 licensees.                                                                                      
3:51:36 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked  whether  Ms. Jabaay  said                                                               
she currently serves on the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers.                                                                  
MS. JABAAY replied  she served for four years and  her term ended                                                               
March 31,  so she is no  longer on the  board.  She said  she was                                                               
part of  House Bill 131  two years  ago and has  been approaching                                                               
legislators since January while she was still on the board.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  SULLIVAN-LEONARD inquired  whether  it seemed  at                                                               
that time  that 250 hours  of instruction was important  to teach                                                               
the safety  of instruments being  sterilized and the  safety with                                                               
patients or  whether it seemed  that maybe  it could have  been a                                                               
smaller field of time utilized for teaching manicurists.                                                                        
MS. JABAAY  responded that the  board spent  quite a bit  of time                                                               
debating the  number of hours.   Alaska had the lowest  number of                                                               
hours and only had 12 hours  of sanitation, she said, so not even                                                               
two  days of  bookwork  and no  testing.   But  the industry  has                                                               
changed, she  continued.  She stated  that the 12 hours  was back                                                               
from  the 1970s.    She  added,   ut  now  they're using  drills;                                                               
they're using  files, cheese graters; they  have ... transference                                                               
of   [acquired    immune   deficiency   syndrome]    (AIDS)   and                                                               
[Methicillin-resistant  Staphylococcus  aureus]  (MRSA)      [The                                                               
board] looked at the standards in  all the states across the U.S.                                                               
and found that 250 hours  brought reciprocity for the licensees -                                                               
they  could  take their  livelihood  from  one state  to  another                                                               
without being  overly burdened.   She noted that Alaska  is still                                                               
in  the bottom  one-third of  those hours,  meaning that  another                                                               
two-thirds  of the  states require  more hours  than does  Alaska                                                               
even after passage  of 250 hours.   The board felt it  was a good                                                               
number going  from 12  hours to  250 and  the legislature  at the                                                               
time agreed.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SULLIVAN-LEONARD,  regarding language,  said  she                                                               
wants to  know that a  manicurist understands what she  is asking                                                               
and  vice  versa.    She  asked  whether  that  came  up  in  the                                                               
discussions  when   the  board  was  looking   at  the  different                                                               
languages that it wanted to assist in accommodating.                                                                            
MS. JABAAY answered that the board  did not, and does not, try to                                                               
regulate people  being necessarily good  at their practice.   The                                                               
board  wants to  ensure that  [manicurists] are  safe, she  said.                                                               
When a  customer specifically  requests a  rounded nail  versus a                                                               
square  nail, that's  between the  customer and  the practitioner                                                               
and the  board thinks  that will get  regulated just  by commerce                                                               
and economy.  The board's  responsibility is to ensure that those                                                               
who  are licensed  by  the state  and governed  by  the board  to                                                               
practice can  do so safely.   [The board] felt that  12 hours did                                                               
not accrue  that safety, but 250  hours did, she continued.   So,                                                               
if [a  manicurist] uses an electric  drill and brings it  down to                                                               
the meat  the customer  will know  he or she  is protected  as an                                                               
individual because [the  manicurist] will know how  to respond to                                                               
that, but if  a customer doesn't like the paint  polish that [the                                                               
manicurist]  did, that  would be  between the  customer and  [the                                                               
manicurist]  to  determine.   The  board  doesn't try  to  govern                                                               
someone being good at their field, just safe at their field.                                                                    
3:55:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD  said that  was not what  she was                                                               
trying to get at; rather, she  was trying to clarify the issue of                                                               
communication.   She asked, "So, if  you're seeking communication                                                               
with regard to the testing aspect  of being a manicurist, and you                                                               
need someone there to help  make sure they understand the testing                                                               
based on different  languages, then how ... does  that pertain to                                                               
the business?    She added, "If English is not  a second language                                                               
for them, is there difficulty then in the workplace?"                                                                           
MS. JABAAY replied there probably  is going to be some difficulty                                                               
if English isn't [a manicurist's]  primary or secondary language.                                                               
The testing  would be  confusing and  so could be  the job.   She                                                               
said she  imagines that  commerce would regulate  some of  that                                                                 
[customers] who feel they don't  have good ability to communicate                                                               
with  their  practitioners probably  won't  go  back.   But,  she                                                               
added,  the board  would  hope  to govern  the  safety.   If  the                                                               
question  is  whether [applicants]  who  don't  speak English  as                                                               
their primary  or secondary  language should  be allowed  to have                                                               
their  tests  translator  interpreted, she  said  she  personally                                                               
believes they should,  and HB 222 would  allow that accommodation                                                               
so that [these applicants] are able to work in Alaska.                                                                          
3:56:52 PM                                                                                                                    
RACHEL  LAUESEN,  Attorney,  Fortier  &  Mikko,  P.C.  Anchorage,                                                               
Alaska, testified  in support of HB  222.  She said  she wrote an                                                               
extensive letter  to various representatives, has  also contacted                                                               
some senators, and has provided  supporting documents relating to                                                               
the flaws of House  Bill 131.  She stated that  Ms. Jabaay did an                                                               
excellent  job   explaining  the   history  and  intent   of  the                                                               
legislature behind passing  House Bill 131 as well  as the intent                                                               
of the board, but she thinks  it was misunderstood.  She said her                                                               
testimony today is in support of HB 222.                                                                                        
MS. LAUESEN noted  that she represents a  licensed manicurist who                                                               
wishes to  remain anonymous because  she has some  concerns about                                                               
retaliation.   She added that she  has spent quite a  bit of time                                                               
delving into  House Bill 131  and the legislative  history behind                                                               
it,  as well  as  the  history of  the  meetings  with the  board                                                               
reflecting the  board's intent.   She stressed the  importance of                                                               
passing HB  222 because of  the inherent flaws with  the existing                                                               
bill  and  the  threat  it  serves  to  this  group  of  existing                                                               
professionals.   There is  simply not enough  time by  August 31,                                                               
2017,  she explained,  for these  individuals to  pass the  test,                                                               
particularly where  many of them are  unable to take it  in their                                                               
native language; the  only language that is offered  for the oral                                                               
test is English.                                                                                                                
MS.  LAUESEN stated  it is  important  to clarify  that there  is                                                               
nothing in the legislation that  has passed that says individuals                                                               
with 250 hours  of documented work experience but  can't pass the                                                               
test are  then eligible for  a nail technician license,  but they                                                               
are  not  required to  attend  250  hours of  school  afterwards.                                                               
However,  she said,  that is  how the  Division of  Corporations,                                                               
Business and Professional Licensing  has interpreted it, and it's                                                               
an erroneous interpretation.  All  the existing legislation says,                                                               
she continued,  is that to sit  for the exam, an  applicant for a                                                               
nail technician  license must  have satisfactorily  completed 250                                                               
hours  of  schooling from  a  licensed  manicurist school.    The                                                               
legislature already previously determined  that 250 hours of work                                                               
experience  would  qualify somebody  to  sit  for the  exam,  but                                                               
somehow the  Division of Corporations, Business  and Professional                                                               
Licensing  has determined  that  to receive  the nail  technician                                                               
license even  with 250  hours of  documented work  experience and                                                               
with passing the exam, [the  applicant] still needs to afterwards                                                               
complete  250  hours of  schooling,  which  can cost  upwards  of                                                               
$4,000.    It  is  an  additional  step  that  was  not  required                                                               
previously  of the  holders of  the advanced  manicurist license,                                                               
she pointed out.   She recommended that HB 222  be adopted to fix                                                               
the many problems with [House Bill 131].                                                                                        
4:00:57 PM                                                                                                                    
BEVERLY HARPE testified  in support of HB 222.   She related that                                                               
she  has  a  close  family  member who  has  been  working  as  a                                                               
manicurist for  the last  five years.   This family  member would                                                               
have had the  total hours license prior to the  2015 deadline and                                                               
was notified  then that  she needed  to pass  a written  exam and                                                               
then  obtain education.    English is  not  this family  member's                                                               
first language,  and it  was confusing to  the family  member, as                                                               
well  as  to herself,  as  to  why  examination would  be  before                                                               
education since it is typically the other way around.                                                                           
MS. HARPE stated she did  research and worked with Representative                                                               
Claman, and  that she  and many others  noticed that  the statute                                                               
and regulations  simply did not  match up.   She said  the family                                                               
member  did  take and  pass  the  exam,  but  it was  a  terrible                                                               
financial  burden to  take  off 250  hours of  work  for the  in-                                                               
classroom education because in-classroom is  how it is offered in                                                               
Anchorage.   The cost is $3,500,  she noted, and the  person must                                                               
attend in-classroom during  the day every day, five  days a week,                                                               
until reaching 250  hours.  It is very burdensome,  she added, to                                                               
expect someone  who has  met all the  requirements, proved  to be                                                               
proficient  and competent  by  the testing,  and  passed all  the                                                               
safety  portions  to then  pay  $3,500  for education  for  which                                                               
they've already  proven they have  the information and  to forego                                                               
all income  for one and a  half months.  Ms.  Harpe expressed her                                                               
support for HB 222.                                                                                                             
4:03:36 PM                                                                                                                    
KEVIN  MCKINLEY,  Chair,  Board   of  Barbers  and  Hairdressers,                                                               
testified in support  of HB 222.  He said  the previous witnesses                                                               
did a good job explaining HB 222  and as chair of the board he is                                                               
stating support for the bill.                                                                                                   
4:04:21 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR KITO closed  public testimony on HB  222 after ascertaining                                                               
no one else wished to testify.                                                                                                  
CHAIR KITO held over HB 222.                                                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB222 Fiscal Note DCCED-DCBPL 4.14.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Supporting Document Bev Harper 04.10.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Supporting Documents-DCCED Letter to Manicurists 4.10.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Supporting Documents-Fortier and Mikko Letter 4.10.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Supporting Documents-HLAC 4.10.15 Minutes 4.10.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
HB 222
SB064 Sectional Analysis version J 4.11.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB064 Fiscal Note DNR-MLW 2.24.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB064 Fiscal Note DEC-SPAR 2.24.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB064 Sponsor Statement 4.11.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB064 Supporting Documents - DEC Fact Sheet 4.11.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB064 Supporting Documents - DOD Response 4.11.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB064 Supporting Documents - Uniform Law Commission 4.11.17.PDF HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB064 Supporting Documents-Letter of Opposition 4.11.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB064 Supporting Documents-Letters of Support 4.11.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB093 Sponsor Statement version O 4.14.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 93
SB093 Fiscal Note DOL-CIV 4.14.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 93
SB093 Sectional Analysis version O 4.14.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 93
SB093 Supporting Documents-CDIA Summary Statutes of Select States 4.14.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 93
SB093 Supporting Documents-Letters of Support 4.14.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 93
SB093 Supporting Documents-Power Point 4.14.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 93
SB064 Supporting Documents-DEC Response to DoD Supplemental 4.14.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
SB064 Supporting Documents-DoD Supplemental 4.14.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
SB 64
HB222 Supporting Documents-HB131 29th Legislature 4.17.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
HB 222
HB222 Sponsor Statement 4.16.17.pdf HL&C 4/17/2017 3:15:00 PM
HB 222