Audit follow-up: Arizona chiropractic board slow to clear complaints; executive director says reforms under way

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee heard on January 2026 that the Arizona State Board of Chiropractic Examiners has begun a broad program of reforms but remains behind on key statutory timelines.

George Skiles, a partner with the contracted audit consultant, told the committee the December 2024 special audit produced 28 recommendations and that the January 2026 follow‑up found the board was implementing 25 of them while three remained unimplemented. "Our findings resulted in 28 recommendations to the board, and our initial follow‑up issued last month found that overall, the board is taking action to correct the deficiencies found in the special audit," Skiles said.

The audit raised several continuing concerns. Auditors reported the board received 59 complaints between Dec. 20, 2024, and Sept. 25, 2025, and — as of October 2025 — had not resolved any of those follow‑up complaints; 11 had been open for more than 180 days. Auditors also found failures to comply fully with open‑meeting law requirements: meeting audio files posted late or incompletely, agendas that did not correctly agendize executive session and an absence of consultation with the attorney general's open‑meeting law enforcement team.

Skiles also said the board's adopted policy for referring allegations of criminal wrongdoing did not mirror statute: the policy conditions referrals on a board determination of "evidence of criminal wrongdoing," while statute requires reporting of allegations of evidence of criminal wrongdoing within 48 hours. "Because statute requires all allegations of evidence of criminal wrongdoing and does not require that the board take action to find evidence prior to making a report, we concluded that the adopted policy did not fully address statutory requirement," Skiles said.

Alyssa Vanderveen, the board's executive director, told the committee the board has taken what she called a transformational approach to the audit findings. "Since our special audit, we have not viewed the auditor general's findings as a list of corrections, but a road map for transformation," Vanderveen said. She described staffing changes (two full‑time investigators and a dedicated intake officer), formation of an intake committee that includes the assistant attorney general, and a shift to a new licensing platform (GovCor) to provide a real‑time complaint dashboard.

Vanderveen said the board has adopted several written policies and training programs since October 2025 — including subpoena review processes, complaint‑handling timelines, guidance to limit broad subpoenas, a request‑first policy to limit unnecessary subpoenas, conflict‑of‑interest disclosures and a public‑meeting script that asks speakers to avoid naming patients or discussing personal health matters. She said an updated disciplinary sanctioning guideline is planned for adoption "later this spring."

Committee members pressed Vanderveen on governance and transparency. Senator Leach and other members questioned why the board had not consulted the AG's dedicated open‑meeting team after auditors recommended doing so, and why the board did not promptly inform the legislature about the chair's resignation. Vanderveen said the board had communicated with the governor's appointments office and that the chair resigned effective Dec. 31, 2025; she acknowledged an oversight in notifying the committee.

Members also raised a personnel dispute involving a board member, Dr. George Camacho. Vanderveen said the board removed his electronic access after repeated warnings that he had uploaded confidential investigative materials and patient files to AI platforms, and that he was offered the option to review materials in person to preserve confidentiality.

The committee also asked about costs and timing. Skiles said the original audit and the follow‑ups together cost about $194,000.

What happens next: auditors plan another follow‑up in summer 2026 to assess whether the recently adopted policies, trainings and technology changes produce sustained compliance with statutory timelines and open‑meeting requirements.