Alabama Board of Pharmacy draws intense scrutiny: emergency rules, executive‑level settlement and allegations of retaliation
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters and board critics told the Joint Sunset Committee the Alabama Board of Pharmacy adopted emergency rules that they say violate statute, used board funds for an executive settlement and collected large attorney fees; examiners and the attorney general’s office disputed some board positions and called for follow‑up.
The Alabama Board of Pharmacy segment of the Joint Sunset Committee hearing was among the meeting’s longest and most contested. The transcript records multiple public complaints alleging unlawful emergency rulemaking, high attorney fees, a controversial settlement with a former executive secretary and retaliation against critics.
Multiple public commenters, including attorney Joseph Kreps, licensees and a former board employee who testified under oath, described a pattern: they said emergency rules adopted by the board in August purportedly exceeded statutory caps on late fees, obscured administrative nondisciplinary penalties from public records and were used to resolve or accelerate collections. Joseph Kreps told the committee that the board’s emergency rules “directly violate the new act that you passed last session,” and asked how much money had been collected under those rules.
A former board employee, Deidra Atkinson, and other public speakers said a settlement with a former executive secretary—described in testimony as roughly $300,000 including leave—was negotiated after an executive session, and that officials had generated a case number so elements of the matter would not be discussed in public. Atkinson said the board had not provided a charge letter referenced in the settlement and alleged investigators had performed unlawful inspections after May 2025 rules limiting unannounced inspections took effect.
Board witnesses acknowledged past problems but defended steps taken. Board leadership said funds remain under the board treasurer per statute and described an exemption obtained from a governor executive order that otherwise centralizes board funds. The board’s witnesses said they have since published financial information on the board website at the request of the governor’s office and had instituted HR oversight and payroll controls.
The board reported paying attorneys under contract $270,923.89 in fiscal year 2024: $239,138 to its general counsel and $31,785 to an attorney retained for specific litigation. Committee members repeatedly questioned the board’s legal and governance choices; the Examiners of Public Accounts said the board’s use of executive session and the stated reasons did not comply with the Open Meetings Act because the minutes showed deliberation of an action while in executive session.
Brad Chenoweth of the attorney general’s office told the committee his office supports the ability to give candid privileged legal advice in properly constituted litigation executive sessions but cautioned that deliberation and votes must occur in public. The AG’s office said litigation‑related executive sessions are appropriate if the discussion stays within the pending litigation topic and does not stray into impermissible subjects such as the performance of a public official who must file a statement of economic interest.
Several committee members said they would follow up: the examiners indicated they could examine complaint files and provide the committee with confidential summaries; members said they wanted the pharmacy board to return for follow‑up and to provide records about attorney invoices, the settlement and investigator operations. The transcript records no formal committee vote during this segment.
All parties told the committee they would continue to engage: some witnesses asked the committee not to allow the board to lapse; others asked lawmakers to take stronger oversight steps. Committee members repeatedly emphasized the need for transparency and adherence to Open Meetings rules.
