Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensing Board Composition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators reject amendment that would keep athletic trainer seat dual‑certified; original bill advancing to third reading
Summary
The Senate debated whether to add a single athletic trainer member to the Board of Physical Therapy or to preserve the board’s size by designating a dual‑certified physical therapist/athletic trainer; senators rejected the committee amendment 8–26 and advanced the bill to third reading.
The West Virginia Senate spent an extended period on April 2 debating representation of athletic trainers on the Board of Physical Therapy and rejected an amendment that would have kept the board’s current size by specifying a dual‑certified physical therapist/athletic trainer member.
A committee strike‑and‑insert amendment would have maintained the board’s size at seven members by codifying the long‑standing practice of appointing a dually certified physical therapist and athletic trainer (PT ATC) rather than adding an additional, separate athletic trainer member. The senior senator from the fourth offered that amendment and argued it would avoid increasing licensing board costs borne by licensees and would reflect historical practice. The amendment was opposed by the senator from Jefferson and several other senators who said athletic trainers sought distinct representation on the board and that a single dual‑certified member would not substitute for a dedicated athletic trainer representative.
Floor debate included several extended exchanges: the senator from Jefferson said the bill’s original intent was to place an athletic trainer on the licensing board because athletic trainers are licensed under the board’s oversight and requested direct representation. The junior senator from the fifth strongly opposed the amendment, saying athletic trainers wanted their own voice and that a dual‑certified member would not adequately represent their interests. Supporters of the amendment contended adding membership increases expenses for all licensees and that the board historically has included a PT ATC who could serve both roles.
After roll‑call voting, the clerk announced 8 yeas and 26 nays; the presiding officer declared the amendment rejected. The bill as originally written (adding an athletic trainer member) was advanced to third reading.
The transcript record includes questions on board composition, references to the current composition (described on the floor as five physical therapists, one physical therapist assistant and one citizen member), assertions that the fiscal note was zero, and repeated concern about representation and potential conflicts of interest if a dual‑certified member were relied upon to represent athletic trainers exclusively.
