A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | June 30, 2016 | Chamber | Senate Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

[SOUND] Can the finance committee come to order we can get work done and move forward, let's see. First things first we have some pages today and if I mispronounce your name excuse me I will ask you to correct me, first of [INAUDIBLE] More from County Mt.Senator Chudri, Jake Waist, Arch dale Senator Tillman, LC district rocking him senator McInnis, Emily Fecker Sir. Raleigh Senator Berger, Cameron Ford, Kerry, Senator Berger. Sarah, I'm not gonna guess, it's Sarah help me ? >> Thank you Sarah. And->> So what was that answer? >> Repeat it again. you LAUGH] you've heard that Senator Davis and that's Rolly/g Senator Chudri thank you we're thrilled to have you here. Rachael Rucho most of the time [LAUGH] William Pitman con over Senator Wells [BLANK_AUDIO] Kayla Ashley Austin, reads the bill Senator Berger and Ron Davies Nolena, Senator Brian. We appreciate you all coming today and this week and helping us during a very busy time at the General Assembly. I hope and the senate hopes that you've enjoyed every moment it is an exciting time. And you'd meet the greatest people in the world here, not necessarily the elected officials, but all of the staff and fellow pages. Also we have before us the Sergeant in Arms who helped make this a successful meeting along with our staff, but John Inlow, Larry Hancock Hancock, Francis Patterson we appreciate it very much. >> Let's begin the first Bill. >> And that will be House Bill 7.28 amend laws pertaining to Chiropractic Board, that is offers of PCS, Senator Raben makes a motion that we accept the PCS for House Bill 728 for discussion. And we have Representative Conrad, and Representative Setzer here to help us explain this Bill and then we can->> Mr. Chairman If I may. >> Yes sir. >> Can I send forth an amendment before they start explaining? >> Okay. send it forth. Senator Apodaca we would like to have an amendment on house bill 728, and senator Apodaca, all in favor please say aye. Okay senator Apodaca please explain your amendment. that we can be aware of it prior to explaining this bill. Mr. chairman all this does is go ahead and takes the contracted board to $300 like the original bill was instead of 150. If they wanna pay 300 God bless them. I recommend it to you. Okay questions any questions members of the committee as to what that amendment does. >> Question >> Okay senator Tillman comment on the amendment. >> After chiropractor Association and my own chiropractor . I realize their is a lot of things coming up as far as new staffing they are gonna need as well as a move to another building, their members wont fist and it's a good amendment and I'm totally for it. >> Okay. >> Mr. chairman >> Senator Raben. >> Senator Tilman Words sent a chili up my spin.>> I didnt think I was able to do that to you senator Raven. I know somebody can, >> Okay >> We have the amendment before you it's been explained all in favor please say aye. Opposed no, ate ayes have it. All right. Representative welcome to the senate finance committee we are delighted to have you here along with representative Setzer. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Their were only really two sections in this bill that are from my original house bill. Section one just increased the number of days from 120 to 180 from a chiropractorclinical assistance to obtain a certificate of competency, just need to be a little more time their and thanks yo senator Apodaca that this change will be $300 and that is a great change it is very necessary and I would defer to staff to explain all the other changes in the bill. Relate to the realtors and other organizations. >> Okay.

And staff would you help with the remainder of the bill, please? Identify yourself. >> I'm Chris Honors, lesly'g males division. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know how much detail you'd want me to get into based on the last time we heard these provisions but >> Short version >> Okay. So section two makes a variety of changes to the medical board including some changes to what's considered public records and then raises a couple of their fees, would increase the application fee for license to practice medicine from 350 to 400. And would increase the annual registration fee from $1.75 to $2.50. Will also allow the medical board entering to agreements with the North Carolina Medical Society Academy of physicians, assistants and positions health program to evaluate licensees of the board have been referred to the program along with few other changes Three applies to the Opticians Board. [UNKNOWN] apprenticeship requirement and intern requirement for licenture/g and would lower apprenticeship requirements for licenture from 3 and a half to two and a half years. It would also increase all of the boards fees and create four new fees mainly for Administration of an Optician in charge and then late fees for restoration of expired licences. And then section four would increase the Realestate Commission's application fee for new licences from $30 to $100 and would allow them by rule to increase that fee from 100 to $120 in $5 increments per year. and then would increase the real estate commissions' license renewal fee for from 30 to $45 and allow them to take that up from 45 to 60 by rule and $5 increments per year. This would all become effective October 1, 2016 except for the real estate commission which would become effective January 1, 2017. Okay, Members of the committee you've heard an explanation. Senator Apodaca you have a very curious look on your face. Please what is your question? >> Question is staff. >> Through the Chair. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Of course I would think of doing it no other way. >> [LAUGH] >> I assure you Mr Chairman I'm a little bit confused I thought real estate licenses run July 1st to June 30th so why would it be January 1st going up- >> Can you help us with that question? >> Senator Apodaca I'm not sure this was brought over from another Bill and The effective date in that one was January 1. >> Is there anyone in the audience from the realtors that might be able to explain that question? Come to the microphone up front and identify yourself and why you all are asking for an increase earlier than necessary [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you. Fred Moreno, deputy legal counsel with the Real Estate Commission. Senator Apodaca's correct. Our fiscal year is July 1st to June 30th. So actually we would not object to it being implemented as of July 1st of next year for the new licenses. as far as the application fees the reason, we're asking for an increase is it's never been changed. We're dead last in the country. Actually our license are subsidizing. It actually costs $100 for an application, we're charging $30. And for the renewable fees the $45 is actually what we're charging now. We don't have any plans to increase it. It's just suggesting the so that we wouldn't have to come before you if we just do that in the near future. >> Senator Apodaca, question? Do you want to have an amendment? Or? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> No impact. >> Okay. >> What you all think? >> Mr. Chairman, I'm I may be corrected if I'm wrong, but say someone comes in for a new licence you would not want the licence fee to be different for some people in their year and not others. I mean but we can quickly do an amendment changing until July one. >> If you would Senator, that'd probably be best. >> Okay, that's okay. All right. I think it's pretty clear to everyone what Senator Apodaca brought forth and again what the folks from the Realty Board, Senator [UNKNOWN]. Go ahead. >> Can I ask the Real Estate Commission representative a question? >> Would you please step back to the microphone? Senator [UNKNOWN] through the Chair you're welcome to ask your question. >> Yes sir. >> Thank you. Is there any potential in the future for the Real Estate Commission of North Carolina to change their broker's license from 12 months to 24 like all the other states around us? Since you mentioned a few moments ago that we're last in a position with another group of real estate commission or is there any conversation

fit there to make that change? >> Not that I'm aware of right now Senator, unfortunately our director is out this week on vacation, but I can find an answer for you in certainly let you know. >> Follow up question. >> I would certainly suggest that since again you did mention that we're fine to be alike some of our neighbors and this is a good thing I think for the folks that are in that industry only have to renew every other year versus to renew every year, save you guys some money and the general public as well. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. Senator Apodaca. >> Send forward an amendment. >> Okay. Senator Rabon has the amendment. >> I will read the amendment for Senator Apodaca. >> Okay thank you. I'll sign the good note but thank you. >> Do we need to go through the Chair to do Do that or can you or not. >> [CROSSTALK] >> Senator Apodaca's amendment on page 9 line 34 deletes January 1, 2017 and substitutes July 1, 2017. >> Okay, members of the committee you have heard the explanation from the amendment author senator Apodaca and Senator Ribbon. Any questions as to what this does? I think we find agreement there. Okay all in favor of approving this amendment, second amendment to the the H728PCS please say aye. >> Aye. >> Oppose nay. Ayes have it. All right. That should take care of that portion. Excuse me Senator Pate. >> Thank you Mr. Chair I have a question about page five and page six which is to do with the health program for medical professionals. >> Yes sir? [CROSSTALK] >> Is this the appropriate time- >> Yes sir it is truly is. >> On page six starting at line four It looks as if the subject is about medical personnel we were refereed to the PHP and the confidentiality of those records, and according to what the change appear to be it seems as if there is no way that someone like a district attorney or even a defense attorney would be able to have discovery of this records, is that correct? >> Senator Apodaca you have an answer to that? Do you wanna go to staff? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay, >> Who might explain that for us Chris? Okay. >> Well just based on language that's in here it does provide not subject to discovery subpoena or other means of legal compulsion for at least any person other than to board the program of their employee the consultants so I would say that anyone outside of that scope would not be able to get those records due to discovery. >> Senator Apodaca would you like to add to that? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I think if there were an action within the judicial system that they could still access those records, regardless of what it says in this bill. [BLANK_AUDIO >> Staff, anyone else wanna try this? >> I do not want to try this but I will be happy to look into it further and let you know. Senator Apadoca what do you say that we'll have that answer clarified before it goes to the floor? >> Fine with me but chat with Senator Pate >> Senator Pate is that acceptable to you or would you like to, we don't have the answer to your question right now but we can get it, okay I'm sorry We may have someone that can help us with this, would you identify yourself please? >> Mr chair thank you my name is Tom Ansfield I'm the Chief Legal Officer and also legislative liaison for the North Carolina Medical Board, I do have some insight into this if you would like. >> Well if you can help the answer send it to Senator Pate's question would be welcomed. >> Thank you sir, the provisions on this page do two things one is to make sure that position participants at PHP can get a copy of their records from the PHP but then also prevents third parties outside parties from getting those records from the PHP Folks who might want those records to be litigants in civil proceeding if there is a medical malpractice case for instance,

might seek to obtain those records by subpoena from the North Carolina positions health program and this would prevent that now there is still a provision here that says that if those records are otherwise available through another pathway, they could still be obtained and introduced into evidence but the litigant for instance in a medical malpractice case could not get those records directly from the physicians health program. >> Senator Pete. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, [COUGH] My thought was that if this person who is being assisted by the PHP, has some sort of behavior that could be dangerous to members of the public, and the person is going around without that information. being in the hands of anyone besides the PHP which as I understand from this amendment, would be impossible to get that message out. Is that the way this document's written? >> Can you help us with that question? >> I'm sorry, I was receiving some information, could you just restate that question for me? I was unclear about the aspect as to members of the public. >> If members of the public are in danger by some medical person who's being assisted by the PHP and they know information about what the dangers might be and it looks like to me that it's impossible to get it out of the PHP is that a dangerous situation too to the public? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Sir? >> Right, thank you Mr. chair so the are other provisions in the existing law and in this bill that require the position itself parental report to the medical board physicians who are dangerous to the public essentially. So you have your medical board to make sure that action is taken that could be public action that would be available to the public but what we propose and what I would advocate for is that physicians who need help be able to go to the physician's help program, get help if they are not practicing giving treatment, giving better, that confidential information should stay confidential but if they don't do what they're asked to do and they continue practice in their own safe, then the positions of our program has to tell the medical board about it and the medical board will act appropriately that's in protection for the public. >> Senator Pate. Do you need any personal further clarification on that? >> I'll try to find it Sir, thank you. >> Okay. All right. Senator McKissick. >> I'd just like to [INAUDIBLE] podium real quick. >> Yes Sir, your question through the Chair. >> Sure. And the Question is simply this. Why we would want to exclude the admissibility of this information in terms of it being used in a medical malpractice case? What would be the purpose of not going to allow that information to be use? Why wouldn't we Let a judge in a civil proceeding decide that issue? Why would it be written this way? >> Can you answer that question please sir? >> Certainly, so this information could be admitted in a civil proceeding or a criminal proceeding just not upon subpoena to the physician's help programs to get the records that way. So we want physicians to go to the program and part of the point for provisions in this Bill is to make sure that physician participants can get a copy of all their records so we want physicians to be both fully participating, getting the help that they need, and getting all the information they need, I need to make decisions about whether they are going to go to treatment and things like that. So the idea is to maximize participation which would protect the public and it doesn't absolutely mean that information can't be admitted to evidence in a civil proceeding. >> Senator McKissick >> A quick follow up Mr Chair. >> Follow up. >> Thank you Mr Chair so are you saying that if you were served with a discovery request rather than a subpoena, those documents will be produced or not. >> Sir. >> Thank you Mr Chair. >> So on line 24 of page 6 of the bill, says however this or this sub section shall not construed to make information documents or records otherwise available for discovery are used in a civil action, immune from discovery are used in civil action merely because the information documents are records were included as part of the physician health program assessment so this records would be available under discovery during To another pathway. >> Thank you. >> I did have one other question about another provision that was section three I guess the new standards issuance of licenses based

upon an internship program that seems to reduce by a year or so the current requirement is I don't know who would be appropriate to address that issue of where that came from. >> Which page are you on please sir? >> [CROSSTALK] Page six. >> Bottom of six. >> Section three. >> Section three, that's the [CROSSTALK] portion of this bill Opticians [BLANK_AUDIO] okay and do we have someone here from Optician Association?Identify your self please? >> My name is Jack Nicholson the attorney for the optician board And I think I saw Senator Curtis here earlier, there is he good. This was a provision that we had talked to Senator Curtis about, so he can certainly explain it but that's the basis for that being in the bill. Is that it's sort of an over provision about the period of time of an apprenticeship and the he asked us if we would be willing to shorten, we said we would and that's the reason it's in the bill. >> Mr. Chair, perhaps if Senator Curtis can help with the basis for shortening the time frame. >> Senator Curtis, can you help with the question? >> Basically, I felt that the requirements to give an optician license were just too severe, that they could get the training they needed in a shorter period of time. And so I just thought it was more reasonable to shorten it to this time because having been in practice in archaeometry, I know that they young people can get the skills they need in this period of time to serve the public. >> Last followup Follow up Mr Chair. >> Followup. >> And that is simply this so I can get right back to Senator Curtis. And that would be, is the board supportive of this change in reduction of the period of time of experience? >> I don't know if supportive might be the right word, they were willing to do it. So yes, based on I would say yes. They're supportive. >> They apparently agreed with the recommendation, is that okay with you? >> [INAUDIBLE] yes Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you sir. Okay any additional questions. Senator Hise, you have a comment? Before that, mostly of the folks with the lobbies, would you just raise your hand a moment please, lobbyists. I just see a couple. I think there're a few more out there. It all right. >> [LAUGH] Thank you.Senator Hise. What was your thought?>>Thank you Mr.chairman,I know we've worked for quite a while on the legislation to add sales tax to lobbying services. And I want to see about the ability to make sure that we could add this in may be your last meeting here as chairman for the finance committee. [SOUND] >> [LAUGH] >> We probably should take a vote of the lobbyist on that issue. Don't you guess? >>[LAUGH] >> [LAUGH] A good effort Senator Hise, maybe another year. We'll be back. >> Mr. Chairman, that's a long session item so you all get ready. You may want to be back next year raising your dues. >> [LAUGH] Okay. What we have before us, Senator Apodaca makes a motion for a favorable report on house bill 728 PCS as amended and rolled into a new PCS unfavorable to the original bill. Any questions or comments? >> Seeing none, all in favor please say aye. Say aye, >> Aye. >> Opposed nay. Ayes have it. Okay, thanks very much. And, who will handle that on the floor for you in the senate. >> Senator Crawvice. >> Senator Crawvice will handle that bill. Very nice. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Appreciate it, have a good day. Alright, let's go on. go into Senate Bill 742, Clarify PE Licensure. That is a PCS. Senator Brown makes a motion we accept the PCS on 742 for discussion. Senator Tucker is going to explain this bill and along with staff, we can hopefully enlighten the committee. >> Thank you Mr chairman staff explanation won't be necessary on this. I fully understand it. >> [LAUGH] >> That's a little scary there senator Tucker. >> Yes sir I understand. Thank you. Need a little chastisement there. I'm standing in stead here for my good friend who's a PE and a MAE Representative Arp what this bill actually does is provide greater flexibility in order to reach the requirements for the PE licence are met normally what happens and by the way this does does not

raise fees or diminish any requirements for the PE as Senator Hartsell says it is technical in nature.What it allows is generally the process is that you obtain an engineering degree and then you have taken FE right after graduation and then you have to go get four years of experience and then after that four years of experience senator Cook you have to take a PE test after four years. What this does is simply allow someone to go ahead and take the PE test after graduation when they're more or less in the academic mode and not having been out of school for four years, take the PE test, pass it and then obtain the four years of experience And then they'll get their PE license. Time frame is still the same, just changing the order and for me it's similar to South Carolina and Georgia. Some one can now get an engineering degree, go take the FE test in South Carolina, take the PE test, get their Four years experience and come back and get a PE license in North Carolina through resprocity. So what all this does is change the sequence and be able to get is as you graduate from school when you're in a more of an academic mode. I'll be glad to entertain any questions. >> All right. Members of the committee, no questions? We have a lot Oops. Senator Rabin. >> Thank you. The question relates to Senate Bill 545 which we passed over a year ago that gave a route for people to come out of the military and be licensed and I'm wondering, I couldn't find it in here In here any left up to that so there is none. >> Follow up >> Follow up would be acceptable to amendment later on to put a pack in there because if we don't have consonance between our bills then We're just, started going in different directions. There are ways that military could need this in a different kind of a way, still take the test and pass it on a go no go basis and be a professional engineer. >> For a moment could you for a moment explain more about what that bill did so that we all the members can understand and try to get the correlation [INAUDIBLE].>> That was the bill That was passed directing all licensure boards to have a system whereby if a person coming out of the military had the requisite skills and so forth or they could figure out the way to fit them into he program or tell them what they lacked to become whatever they Or happen to be and get licence without having go through all of the training again and take all the things again if they could demonstrate the skills, and one of the way is to do it that was offered to the licensure board was to say just give him a test if they dint pass the test, while have all the other things there If you really wanna be a military friendly state that which is part of the deal and I'm suspecting from this really that most of the licensure boards didn't pay much attention to that or anyhow. >> I think we have some clarity on that from staff, identify yourself please. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, I'm [UNKNOWN] from the legislative, Analysis division. The provision from last years Bill changed chapter 93B, the occupational licensing board statute and it applies to all occupational licensing board uniformly. This provision would in no way change that so the occupational licensing board would still be required to create a process whereby People could get the licence regardless of the change in this bill. >> Senator Raven, that help? >> Yes it does, thank you. >> Okay. >> Mr Chairman. >> Senator Apadoca. >> Question for Senator Tucker, if I may, how does this. >> Through the chair. >> Yeah absolutely through the chair. >> What period of time Time do this engineers had to go through to become a geek or I had to tell you something about six months all engineers I've met are kind of pencil pushers and I just wondered is there a training course for that? >> Mr Amass answer that. >> Oh you are more than welcome. >> Yes, I've heard Senator Apadoca characterize this individual as geeks Or dead from the neck up, and I don't think that's a correct characterization they just are very good mathematicians, statistical folks, they are able to design and build things that you and I can, we just sell them. So Mr chair that would be my response to Senator Apadoca. >> I think that was pretty good [CROSS-TALK]. Senator Meist is very good but he's a little geeky. Never mind. [LAUGH] >> Okay, I think that's about it. Senator Davies, you have a comment or a question? >> Yes sir, I do.

If I may direct it to Senator Tucker. >> Through the Chair. >> Senator Tucker if say, I graduate from an accredited program. Program and I fail the test, does this bill prohibit me from entering into an internship or any kind of a program which would allow me to later take the test. >> Generally when people fail the PE test, most of them become orthodontics. >> [LAUGH] [LAUGH] >> We all need to go home here Senator Davis, no they can continue to take the test, there is a wait period as I understand it there is a wait period but that can re-take the test or become an orthodontist. >> Senator Tucker did you also include Bale Bondsman in that Description over failed PE's? >> No Sir that doesn't require any college at all. >> [LAUGH] >> Okay. So the cook. >> I've moved for February report. >> Okay. >> Thank you Sir. >> Probably a well deserved, let me give you the Motion you'd like to bring forward. You would like to probably move in favor of favorable report for House Bill 742 PCS and unfavorable to the original report. >> That's exactly right but it would be through the chair. >> [LAUGH]. Well done, all right, before you have that before you that motion, I'm not gonna repeat it again. Sure I could, all in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Oppose Nay. >> No. >> [LAUGH] >> Senator Davis, They can't take your license away, you're safe over there. >> Okay. Senator Tucker, you did an outstanding job, I'm very impressed with your knowledge in this area and you're welcomed to come back to the finance committee anytime. Thank you sir, senator Davis be handling it on the floor for me. [LAUGH]. All right. Members of the committee. Senator Alexander. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to direct this to the Chair. It's my assumption this may be our last finance committee meeting this year. I wanna say my personal appreciation to the Chair but particularly, huge appreciation to the staff for making the Chairs and the rest of us Look pretty darn good, I personally thank you for your hard work been a pleasure serving you folks and without the staff I promise you we cannot exist so thank you very, very much. >> I think that's an applause. [APPLAUSE] >> Well done. >> Mr.Chair. >> Senator Harrington. >> Thank you Mr. chair Mr.chair upon Senator Alexander comments that this is likely the last finance committee meeting for the year, with you not coming back next year my assumption will be this your last chance to chair a finance committee meeting. >> This may be the last opportunity yeah so I figured we take a pleasant halo to our obvious friends I just in a moment want to thank you. I have been serving on this committee since I was first started working [INAUDIBLE] and its been an honor and a pleasure to work in this committee. Thank you for your good work. >> Thank you its been my honor. >> Mr chairman. >> Senator Tillman. >> A couple of final comments. I noticed with interest when you asked all the lobbyists to raise their hands, I saw one and a half hands. [LAUGH]. I won't tell you who the half is but I saw one and a half, but since this may be your sworn solemn, Senator Rocho. You know I have tried my best to like you and and in spite of all that, I still do and I certainly respect you. [CROSS-TALK] Senator Tillman their is the right way and then their is the Tillman way so, okay. [LAUGH]. All right members of the committee >> Senator Rucho I would like to point of personal privilege. You want more time Hollar the aye's have it. I can hear it. [LAUGH]. Senator Raven. Senator Daniel. >> Mr. Chairman, is there a journal we can spread this on? >> Probably not, but the bad news is probably being heard. Made in China right now. [LAUGH]. All right. Members of the committee we adjourned and thank you for all of your good work. [APPLAUSE]. [BLANK_AUDIO]