Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislation Penalty Restore topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Department of Public Health board presses lawmakers to restore disciplinary maximum reduced by recent legislation
Summary
At its meeting, the board reported outreach to legislative leaders after a recent law cut the maximum civil penalty boards can impose from $25,000 to $10,000 and urged further engagement with committee ranking members to seek a fix.
The Department of Public Health board reported it has asked the state Public Health Committee to reconsider a recent legislative change that lowered the maximum civil penalty boards may impose from $25,000 to $10,000 per violation.
The matter was raised during chair updates at the meeting, when the chair (identified in the record as Catherine) said the board sent a letter in December to the committee co-chairs, Senator Anwar and Representative McCarthy Vahey, seeking an opportunity to speak about the policy change. "We were disturbed, not happy about a change in legislation ... which reduced the maximum penalty we can impose from $25,000 to $10,000 per violation," the chair said.
The board chair told members that she, Doctor Wolf and Doctor Greene met with the Public Health Committee co-chairs and found them "very receptive," but that progress depends on engaging the committee's ranking members. The chair said she followed up by emailing the committee's ranking members, Senator Stomers and Representative Clarides Stitria, but had not heard back. "They made it clear to us that in order for us to be able to get something done on this, we really needed to get the ranking members of the committee ... involved," she said.
Why it matters: the change reduces the statutory maximum for all licensing boards that impose civil penalties, the chair said, and the board believes the reduction weakens its enforcement leverage. The chair told members the co-chairs supported helping the board seek restoration of the previous maximum but that time in the legislative session is limited and the committee's Republican leaders must be engaged to move any change forward this year.
Board members discussed possible next steps. Michelle Jacklyn asked whether the board had asked why the amendment was introduced late in the session; the chair reported that the committee co-chairs said the cut was part of a legislative compromise to secure a separate penalty provision directed at institutions, and that the reduction was applied across the board as part of that deal. Doctor Green added that the change appeared to stem from lobbying by a specialty group and subsequent negotiation between parties.
The chair asked board members with connections in relevant districts to reach out to the ranking members and offered to continue pursuing the matter in the next legislative cycle if necessary. The board also noted it is a busy session and that the timing may require continued work into next year.
The board raised the topic during the meeting's chair updates; no formal vote was taken and no draft statutory text or bill number was provided at the session.
