S.B. 117 Occupational and Professional Licensing Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Uh, this is a, uh, basically a cleanup bill from ler. Um, I'm joined with by Mark Steinle, who with the, uh, asked me to, uh, run this bill. With the exception of one thing last year in running the cosmetology overview and piece, we inadvertently created a space where certain licensees went from one license to three licenses. We heard about that, like really quickly, quite honestly, you may imagine. And so we have fixed it in here, and, uh, as far as I know, they're, they're believing it's fixed. So thank you with that. That's, that's my presentation. If there are technical questions, Mr. Steinle will be able to handle those. Okay. Thank you. That concludes your presentation. That's it. Okay.

No, my question was on the last motion. It's Good.

Representative Dunnigan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we recommend favorably second substitute Senate bill oh one 17 That's in. Or would you like to speak to it? No, thanks. Okay.

Yes, I support this because it says in the highlighted provisions that it removes archaic terminology. So I'm supportive of that.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Um, I just, this takes me down memory lane just a little bit. So, back in the day, we used to have a thing called the Occupational Profe Professional License to Review Committee. And if you wanted to create a new license for new profession, this provision required you to go to that committee and beg and plead and make your case and pay a fee and bring a study and show us to why these people were crazy enough to wanna be regulated. Um, so over time, that has evolved. That process has evolved. First of all, the committee no longer exists. Second of all, we have the new Occupational Professional Licensure Review office. And so you can get them them to do it for free. You don't really have to pay them. You can go ask them for a, a review. And I think the, the final piece of this is that people just weren't doing it anyway. A lot of people would just show up on day one with their bill drafted, and they wanted to regulate horse massage therapy or teeth floating, or who knows what it was. Uh, those are actually real examples. So, and then we'd say to them, we'd say, Hey, did you know that you're supposed to have this reviewed by this committee? And they'd say, what committee you're talking about? And then we'd have to have an emergency meeting of the committee in the middle of the session to hear all these rushed together things. 'cause there's only 45 days, and I don't really know that any of them got a careful look. So, um, antiquated is probably a good word for this particular requirement, but I I do think it's archaic. Archaic. Is that what it is? Well, I think, can we just change that to antiquated be alright. But the, um, but the upshot of that is, is that we do have a much better system now to catch these and to help legislators make your case. So I, I don't know if we've had one recently, but, um, if your legislator wants to come and say, Hey, there's this profession that's currently not regulated, but for some reason they want to be, go, go talk to Jeff Shumway and LER and, and help him get you some data, and then come to convince us that it makes sense. So I, I do support this, but I just wanted to walk down memory lane just for a couple of minutes with Mark Steinle. Hopefully I got that pretty close to, right, right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, so committee members, this is, uh, is really a cleanup bill, 5,000 lines of code involved. We've worked on this for a couple of years. We actually thought we could get it done for last year, but quite honestly ran outta time in the drafting process. Um, and in the intervening time of last year, we had a cosmetology bill that we ran. Thank you Senator Vickers for that smile. Um, and, uh, we had one piece of that that we didn't grandfather in some, uh, current licensees. So the substitute pretty much deals with making sure that we grandfathered them in and they're not having to, uh, obtain, I think up to three licenses where before they had one license. Um, so basically that's the substitute.

Okay, that substituted bill is now before us. Thank you. Uh, again, there's 5,000 lines of code involved. This is really a technical like cleanup kind of thing. I'm gonna turn a couple of minutes over to, um, mark and let him, um, walk through, briefly highlight, and if you've got any questions, they're gonna go to him because he's worked on this extensively, Mr. Chair. Sure.

Go ahead. Thank you. Hello. Uh, mark Steinle, uh, director of the Division of Professional Licensing in within the Department of Commerce. Um, you've already discussed the substitute. This, this bill really is a true cleanup bill. We've tried to keep any controversial issues or significantly substantive issues out of it. Um, but once O-L-R-G-C started doing their work, they found a lot of more, a lot more archaic language to correct. So, um, I don't think we own all 5,000 lines of code in the reason they're in the bill, but, um, there are a handful of small substantive changes. But we have circulated this bill with all the interested groups we could think of, and I don't know of any remaining concerns. I'm open to Any questions, Mr. Chair?

Yeah, well, I'll, I'll move that. Uh, we recommend favorably, uh, SB one 17. So the motion before us is to move, uh, forward with favorable recommendation, Senate Bill one 17 for substitute.

Okay. I don't, did you wanna call the bill or, Yeah, so, Senate Bill 84, department

Senator Vickers. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, this bill came from the Department of Commerce and it does two main things. It creates a new fund, uh, for filing fulfilling data requests, and it requires the division of corporation commercial code to sell or license copies of filings received by the division. The fund is funded by fees that the division of corporation receives from f fulfilling data and requests and fees that Doppel receives for making lists of licensees publicly. The Department of Commerce is then required to use the money and the fund to pay the cost to providing subscription services, training, providing education relating to licensing and business entities among other uses. Uh, pretty simple in stature. Uh, it is important to the, to the, the division and the department. And, uh, with that I'm for any questions?

Thank you Mr. President. I would waive further summation and move that Senate Bill 84. Be read a third time.

Thank you. So second substitute, uh, Senate Bill one 17 is a, uh, truly a cleanup bill. Um, it's 5,000 lines of code. We've worked on it for a couple of years. Uh, I think we, uh, everything in there has, except for the one piece that we added, the grandfathers, some cosmetology license changes that we made last year and three 30 that we missed. Other than that, it is, uh, it is definitely a cleanup bill. So I'll be open for any questions. See, see no questions.

Thank you. I would move that second substitute Senate bill one 17 pass.

Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Blue in Aye. Brammer Aye. Us Aye. Comore Aye. As Camilla Aye. Fillmore Grover Harper Aye. Kinins Fillmore Aye. Ipson barn Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Aye. Stevenson Aye. Stratton? Yes. Vickers. Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams Aye. Second substitute Senate Bill one 17.

Senator Vickers. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, this bill does a couple of main things.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. If you all recall, uh, Mr. Speaker last year, we had a, a big cosmetology bill that changed a lot of different things this year. Uh, this bill, what it does is make some technical corrections and changes that, uh, just strengthened the overall bill that we did last year. So it doesn't really change the bill, just a couple things, but basically what it does is it removes pronouns so there's no confusion. Um, it updates the languages, uh, language to remove archaic terminology. It cr it, correct some typographical errors and it al but it also creates, uh, a legacy, a legacy cosmetology barbering license. We changed, uh, how the barbering works in the cosmetology bill last year. And so we just brought some of the terminology back 'cause there was confusion on what they should be doing or what the dividing line is, uh, for those, uh, professionals. And then it makes other technical changes. And so that's basically the bill. Mr. Speaker, Thank you, uh,

I'll waive van waive voting.