Sponsor offers voluntary option to centralize board administrative tasks; regulated boards and providers warn of power shift

Senator Elliott, the bill’s sponsor, told the House committee that Senate Bill 227 is an 11-page “option” intended to help the Sunset Committee and struggling occupational licensing boards by centralizing administrative duties under an entity overseen by the Secretary of Workforce and led by an executive director. “The purpose of the bill is to give the Sunset Committee the option” to address recurring administrative failures—missing money, failure to post public notices and minutes—while leaving substantive rulemaking with boards, Elliott said.

Supporters framed the measure as targeted and permissive. Elliott said participation would be determined through the Sunset Committee and would require a separate legislative act to transfer any board’s administrative functions. He told members that the governor and the Secretary of Workforce support the approach as a way to professionalize purchasing, meeting notices and recordkeeping for small boards that lack full-time administrators.

But several board members and regulated providers told the committee the bill as written appears to do more than provide an administrative backstop. Jim Hy, who identified himself as representing the Alabama Private Investigative School and as president of its state association, said board rules that today read “by rule of the board” would be converted in the bill to “by rule of executive director,” concentrating decision-making authority in a single office. “Everything that says rule of board has been changed to rule of executive director. It’s one absolute power,” Hy said, warning that the change would remove a board’s ability to set differentiated fees and protections for small providers.

Jim Sasser, who said he is an attorney for the Alabama Board of Examiners (assisted-living administrator area), pointed to contract and procurement language he believes is vague and could prompt litigation if an executive director could terminate or refuse to renew contracts without clearer standards. “There have issue[s] … if somebody starts terminating or contracts that are already in existence, they’re asking for litigation,” Sasser said, urging the committee to clarify contract-compliance standards the bill currently lacks.

Jason Jones, owner of several home medical equipment businesses and chairman of the Alabama Home Medical Equipment board, said his industry performs work that is often invisible but critical—oxygen, ventilators and hospice equipment—and that the board’s licensing and brick-and-mortar inspections protect patients and Medicare funds. “When a hospice patient goes home for their final days, it’s us that puts the equipment in the home,” he said, adding that Georgia’s experience moving boards under a state department had created delays and reduced accessibility. Jones said the executive-director model had caused communication difficulties in that state and could invite fraud and operational problems if implemented here.

Elliott responded to those concerns by pointing to bill language that preserves board-adopted rules in effect at the time of transfer until an executive director amends them, and he reiterated that the bill is intended to address administrative functions such as purchasing and notice compliance rather than substantive regulation. He said fiscal and audit problems with some boards drove the proposal and that consolidation of administrative functions could reduce recurring irregularities.

The committee conducted a public hearing on SB227 but did not take a vote; the chair said the bill will return at the call of the chair for further consideration. Members indicated they wanted time to review suggested clarifications and reported concerns from board counsel and industry representatives.