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

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD
BOARD MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 2009 PAGE 3
Dr. Armstrong invited Ms. Reitz, Mr. Yonadi, and Ms. Bockbrader to attend the
executive session.
OPEN SESSION
The Board resumed open session at 1:39 p.m. Dr. Armstrong stated that he had
previously approved the agenda for the afternoon as presented with the notation that the
Chair may modify the agenda due to timing constraints or extenuating circumstances.
REVIEW OF THE AUGUST BOARD MEETING MINUTES
The Board reviewed the minutes of the August 28, 2009 Board meeting. Ms. Staley
stated that there was a question as to whether the motion on page 22 was accurate as
recorded regarding the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Board Operations. She stated
that during todays Ad Hoc Board Operations meeting the question arose regarding
whether the paragraph number 5 which indicates a “two (2) year time limit” was
inaccurately recorded and should have reflected a one-year time limit on Board
investigations. Discussion followed wherein Mr. Lawrence stated that the question was
not whether the time limit should be one-year vs. two-year but rather whether any time
limit had been or even should be stipulated in statute. He stated that it has been
included within the language of HB 215, however, he felt that it was the understanding
of some of the Board members that a time frame has been implemented procedurally.
Mr. Lawrence further stated that there is a question as to whether incorporating this
language into statute would set the Dental Board apart from other regulatory boards.
Dr. Kyger stated that it was her impression that it is the recommendation of the
committee that the Board move forward in placing this in statute. Dr. Armstrong
indicated that it was the recommendation of the Board’s Assistant Attorney General that
this language NOT be supported as being drafted into statute. Dr. Kyger commented
that it was her understanding that a time limit regarding complaints is already included
in statute and although it is not recommended by the Board’s Assistant Attorney
General, the Board had decided that this was one area of HB 215 wherein a concession
could be made.
Ms. Staley stated that she was only seeking clarification on the motion prior to voting
to approve them. Mr. Lawrence stated that the Board had talked about the legislation
on several levels; things that the Board wanted in legislation which would be the
recommendations from the Assistant Attorney General, things that the Board did not
want in legislation which should be in rules, and they talked about procedures. Further,
he stated that everything that had been talked about in the meeting should not
necessarily be included in the legislation.