Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dietitian Licensure Compact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee advances dietitian licensure compact work but pauses on FBI background-check language
Summary
The House Executive Departments and Administration subcommittee considered House Bill 145, which would adopt a dietitian licensure compact and include criminal-history record-check provisions, and recessed the item after directing staff to revise background‑check language for FBI acceptance.
The House Executive Departments and Administration subcommittee took testimony on House Bill 145, which would adopt a dietitian licensure compact and add background-check requirements for dietitians. Lawmakers and stakeholders largely supported the compact but raised technical concerns about the bill’s background-check language, particularly how FBI criminal-history records would be requested and received.
Representative Grotta, sponsor of the dietitian compact, said many dietitians testified in favor of the compact and that the profession is distinct from informal “nutritionist” services. Kate Feiffel, a dietitian who said she works at Concord Hospital and represents the New Hampshire chapter of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, noted interest in being among early states to join the compact so New Hampshire could participate in commission rulemaking. “There is an incentive to be 1 of the first 7 states to pass the compact licensure. It gets you a seat at the commission to form the commission and be part of the rule making process,” Feiffel said.
The hearing focused on the draft compact’s paragraph concerning criminal history record checks. Department of Safety staff and OPLC representatives told the committee the FBI is reluctant to release some criminal-history results to a nondescript recipient and prefers a clearly defined title for the person or office receiving such information. Committee counsel and OPLC staff said they are working with the Department of Safety to provide language that the FBI will accept, and suggested separating the background-check text from the compact itself. One staffer proposed taking the background-check language out of HB 145 and consolidating it with similar language under other bills (notably bills cited as HB 82 and HB 85) so the statutory background-check rules are uniform across licensing statutes.
Committee members agreed that background checks are important for public protection and said uniform language across statutes would be beneficial. Representative Bailey said consistency across OPLC‑administered licensure rules would help streamline FBI approvals: “If you get the green light on that, I would like to think that that would speed things up for everybody else.”
The subcommittee discussed drafting two amendments: one to remove the background-check paragraph from HB 145 and place it in the consolidated background-check cleanup language, and a second to adjust compact text (for example, replacing the vague use of the word “office” with a narrowly defined title such as the director of OPLC or a compliance officer). Attorney Frey and OPLC staff were asked to prepare amendment language for the subcommittee’s next meeting. The subcommittee recommended continuing HB 145 to a later subcommittee meeting together with HB 82 and HB 85, where the consolidated background-check language will be considered.
No final vote was taken on the compact; committee members requested revised statutory language and an amendment package addressing the FBI background-check concerns before further action.
Stakeholders referenced at the hearing included the New Hampshire Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Concord Hospital; OPLC and Department of Safety staff participated in the technical discussion about criminal-history checks and the statutory phrasing the FBI will accept.
