Lawmakers, OPLC weigh timeline limits for professional-licensing investigations; staffing and statute conflicts raised

A bill to set fixed timelines for the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification's (OPLC) complaint handling prompted debate over agency capacity, statutory conflicts and costs during a subcommittee hearing of the House Executive Departments and Administration committee on May 21.

Proponents said the measure aims to reduce long delays in processing complaints and keep boards informed; OPLC officials and multiple lawmakers warned the timelines could force OPLC to hire additional investigators and might conflict with a separate five-year statutory limitation period for bringing misconduct allegations.

OPLC General Counsel Nicholas Fry told the committee the agency calibrated a fiscal-note staffing estimate by comparing complaints opened to complaints closed and said the revised amendment would still require additional positions. "At the time the fiscal impact statement was written . . . we would need double the staff," Fry said, and after amendment the agency removed two positions from the original request but still seeks additional employees to meet the proposed deadlines.

Committee members and witnesses pressed specifics. The fiscal-note request described seven positions in the amended version discussed in the hearing — five investigative paralegals, one paralegal and an off-schedule physician investigator for the Board of Medicine — and committee members said those hires would carry a substantial recurring cost that likely would be covered by license-fee increases because OPLC is statutorily self-funded.

Several legislators, including Representative Grotta, said the bill risks unraveling the separation of functions enacted under House Bill 655, which shifted investigations into an enforcement division of OPLC so boards could remain neutral adjudicators. "If we say that the board has the discretion to instruct the office to discontinue the investigation, that is against the intent of separating the board from the decision making process of the investigation," Grotta said during discussion.

OPLC witnesses and other committee members suggested alternatives. Fry and others described stepped approaches already underway at the agency'customer-service letters, a hearings-guide for self-represented litigants, triage and prioritization practices'and said rulemaking or administrative changes should be tried before new statutory timelines. Some members said extending the 90-day investigation completion target (for example, to 120 days) might reduce the need for new hires.

Representatives from licensing groups such as the New Hampshire Association of Realtors also testified, saying current delays have practical consequences: members recounted complaints filed years ago that never reached adjudication and were dismissed under the existing statute of limitations. Bob Quinn, CEO of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, said the association supports more transparency and timelier status reports to boards even if full investigations cannot be completed in 90 days.

Subcommittee members said they will consider options including delaying statutory timelines, carving out specific boards with pressing needs, or deferring action to allow OPLC to implement process improvements. The subcommittee did not advance the bill out of committee but flagged three central issues for further work: the five-year statute of limitations in RSA 3 10 9 (paragraph 1), the 90-day completion requirement in paragraph 3, and whether and how boards should be able to dismiss an investigation under the proposed calendar.