Bill would impose timelines on OPLC investigations; agency warns of staffing, statute conflicts

Sen. Howard Pearl introduced Senate Bill 185 to require the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) to add explicit time limits to how complaints are screened and investigated, a measure supporters say would give both complainants and licensees clearer information about case status.

The bill would require an initial OPLC staff determination about whether an allegation includes professional misconduct within 30 days. If OPLC finds a claim of misconduct, staff would have a defined period to complete an investigation and report back to the relevant board; if the investigation is incomplete, the board "may either instruct the office to continue with its investigation or make a final determination on the claim" within a set time after it receives the staff report.

Backlog, statutes and staffing

Proponents described the changes as a transparency and timeliness fix. "Senate bill 185 proposes to add timelines to the existing process in order to ensure transparency and to provide more timely resolution for all licensees under OPLC," Sen. Pearl said during the hearing.

OPLC officials told the committee they share the goal of timelier resolution but raised several operational and legal concerns. Deanna Juris, OPLC executive director, said the office has "operational concerns about how this would look, in terms of changing the structure of 3 10" and noted that the agency has been adjusting to a statutory restructuring of enforcement that occurred in 2023. Juris also flagged ambiguities in how the new language would interact with existing limitation periods and rulemaking authority under RSA 3:10.

Nicholas Fry, OPLC general counsel, walked the committee through existing limitation periods and the office's rulemaking authority and warned of potential conflicts that could prompt litigation. Fry outlined three existing statutory limitation provisions and noted that the longest-standing disciplinary limitation dates back to February 2015. "One potential concern is just how this new statute with a different limitation period would would interplay with that and the potential for, having competing statutes of limitation periods and how that could lead to the potential for litigation," Fry said.

Board members and public members also testified about large backlogs. Nina Gardner, a public member of the Board of Medicine, told the committee the board has a "very, very significant backlog of cases" and said OPLC has taken steps to triage and pre‑screen complaints; she and other board witnesses said the office needs more staff to meet any stricter deadlines. OPLC and board witnesses described an initial legal or "facial" screening that has removed many nonviable matters from the queue; Juris reported the office identified roughly 500 cases during that review that would likely have been dismissed under current legal standards.

Cost and implementation

Witnesses pressing for timelier resolution said the change would help consumers and licensees who currently get little or no status updates. Bob Quinn, CEO of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, called the bill "an off ramp" for relatively straightforward cases and said the Real Estate Commission had seen far fewer published adjudications in recent years because of OPLC delays.

But OPLC repeatedly warned that implementing statutory timelines without additional staffing would be difficult. Juris said the fiscal note had been revised after senate amendments but still contemplates adding investigative positions. Committee members and witnesses discussed an estimate of roughly six to seven additional enforcement staff in the fiscal note; Juris stressed that hiring depends on budget processes and on whether the office can recover costs through licensing fees and rule‑based fee changes.

Where the bill stands

Committee members asked whether the timelines would prevent new complaints from "jumping the line" ahead of older cases; Juris and board witnesses described a triage system that prioritizes urgent matters and those approaching existing limitation periods. Several lawmakers also asked whether the bill gives the board too much authority mid‑investigation; sponsors said the measure is intended to give boards information and an opportunity to act, not to displace OPLC's investigative role.

No formal action was recorded on the bill during the hearing. The committee scheduled follow‑up work‑session coordination with OPLC to address drafting, statute conflicts and fiscal implications.

Speakers quoted in this story: Sen. Howard Pearl; Deanna Juris, executive director, OPLC; Nicholas Fry, general counsel, OPLC; Nina Gardner, public member, Board of Medicine; Bob Quinn, CEO, New Hampshire Association of Realtors.

Ending

The committee indicated it will continue drafting discussions with OPLC staff and stakeholders to resolve statute-of-limitations questions and staffing and fiscal constraints before advancing any final proposal. The hearing record shows strong bipartisan interest in reducing delays, with sharp attention to how any new deadlines would be operationalized and funded.