OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING - the Ohio State ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2009 PAGE 28 Dr. Kyger commented that the members just wanted Dr. Armstrong to testify from a unified position and just felt that the members were not there yet. Dr. Armstrong stated that the previous vote indicated that there was not a unified position. Dr. Wynn referenced an earlier discussion wherein it was her understanding that the next time that the Board could provide testimony on this Bill would be at the Senate. However, she stated that it was her understanding that the House could change the Bill that we currently have and vote. Ms. Reitz stated that the situation Dr. Wynn was referring to was highly unlikely. However, she stated that, as with the first introduction with HB 215, the Bill was introduced and most if not all of the testimony had been heard within seven (7) days. Ms. Reitz indicated that difficulty arises when the Board does not have a position ready to testify and this could/would be a similar situation. Mr. Jones commented that another downside to this situation is that without a Board position, the Board and its members cannot go forth and educate the Senators. Ms. Reitz concurred that was the same problem that the Board had initially with HB 215. Mr. Lawrence pointed out that there was no position to discuss should other members of the House contact Board members in this regard. Discussion followed wherein it was decided that those Board members who could remain at the meeting would continue their discussions regarding SubHB 215 rather than schedule a special meeting of the Board on a future date. Dr. Armstrong called a ten (10) minute recess. The Board returned to open session at 4:30 p.m. Dr. Armstrong, Dr. Howard, Dr. Leffler, Ms. Staley, Dr. Kyger, Dr. Wynn, Dr. Kaye, Dr. Wallace, and Ms. Naber were in attendance. Noting that a quorum of the Board was in attendance, Dr. Armstrong continued the discussion on the Board’s position of SubHB 215. Katherine Bockbrader, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, David Owsiany, J.D. and Keith Kerns, Esq., of the Ohio Dental Association, and Joseph Yonadi, Enforcement Supervisor and Malynda K. Franks of the Ohio State Dental Board were also in attendance. BOARD POSITION ON SUBHB 215 BACKGROUND/MISSION OF THE BOARD Dr. Armstrong began by stating that they would be using the document of his testimony to the House Health Committee as a guideline and proceed through it item by
OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2009 PAGE 29 item. He then asked if any of the Board members had any discussions regarding page 3 of the testimony regarding background of the Board, etc. There being none, Dr. Armstrong moved on to page 4. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-PRESIDENT AND VICE-SECRETARY Dr. Armstrong stated that the new version of the Bill eliminates the “Supervising Investigatory Panel” and includes language on the addition of the Vice-President and Vice-Secretary positions to assist in the investigation of complaints. Dr. Wynn reiterated on an earlier conversation during the Ad Hoc Board Operations meeting, by stating that it was her understanding that they want two (2) people, specifically Board members to review all the investigatory information. A brief discussion ensued wherein Dr. Leffler pointed out that this is already in effect with the Board and therefore has already been accepted in that the Board appoints both a Vice-President and a Vice- Secretary with the Vice-Secretary participating in investigations. ATTORNEY HEARING EXAMINERS Dr. Armstrong moved on to the next paragraph regarding hearing examiners. He stated that in SubHB 215 the number of hearing examiners has been reduced from the original mandate of ten (10), in HB 215, to five (5). Dr. Leffler commented that he felt the Board should fight for as few as possible due to financial considerations. Discussion followed wherein it was suggested to compromise by countering with two (2) positions based on the number of hearings the Board holds per year. Dr. Kyger commented that this is a negotiation and therefore she felt that by suggesting three (3) hearing examiners would show the legislature that the Board is willing to negotiate. Questions arose as to whether the current version of the Bill indicates that the hearing examiners are to be full-time employees of the Board and/or the qualifications required to be hearing examiners. Mr. Kerns expressed that these two (2) factors alone would suggest that the Board should request specific clarification regarding these points. Dr. Armstrong noted that the consensus of the members was to recommend three (3) part-time attorney hearing examiners. Ms. Bockbrader stated that she would take a look at the statute with regards to the “state classification” prior to final position statement being taken. Dr. Kaye suggested that the Board position on the rotation/dismissal/hiring of the attorney hearing examiner should be implemented by Board rule rather than statute. Ms. Staley suggested that the whole of 4715.037 be recommended to be implemented by Board rule. Further discussion regarding the hiring of the attorney examiners followed. Dr. Leffler questioned why this issue was becoming a Board function as opposed to something that the Ohio Supreme Court should be handling or regulating. Dr. Kaye
Page 1 and 2: OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETI
Page 29: OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETI
Page 37: OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETI

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING - the Ohio State ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?