Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Citations And Fines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Executive officer: citations down; board favors education and uses high fines sparingly
Summary
Executive Officer Ann (Anne) Sodrin told the committee the board has issued fewer citations since FY21–22 and increasingly resolves cases through education and orders of abatement. The board retains high fine authority (including a recent increase for some repeat mail‑order violations) but has rarely used top penalty levels.
Ann Sodrin, the board’s executive officer, summarized the citation, fine and appeals program and told the committee staff have increasingly relied on education and orders of abatement to secure compliance.
“There’s a spectrum when we talk about violations,” Sodrin said, explaining that outcomes range from education and letters of admonishment to citations and, in egregious cases, disciplinary referral. She noted recent statutory changes gave the board higher fine authority for certain repeat violations — for example, the board can assess larger fines for specified mail‑order repeat violations — but emphasized the board has used high‑end authority sparingly.
Sodrin walked members through data showing a decline in citations since FY21–22 and a rise in investigations closed with education as the outcome. She said that the compounding regulations effective Oct. 1, 2025, and a focus on education contributed to the shift in outcomes. The staff also described orders of abatement — measures that require a licensee to complete training, submit corrective plans or provide evidence of remediation — and explained that compliance with an abatement can result in reduced or forgiven fines.
The presentation covered the board’s appeal processes: 104 office conferences were requested during the reported period (many later withdrawn), and some matters are appealed to the Office of the Attorney General; staff noted the AG appeal process is lengthy but that many office‑conference cases are modified through the review.
Members asked about whether newly available higher fine authorities had been used; Sodrin said the board has rarely assessed the statutory maximums and generally relies on lower tiers (typical higher‑authority fines fell in the $10,000–$15,000 range where used).
A public commenter asked for explanation of notations such as “misuse of information” on citation records and whether that denotes privacy breaches, clinical misinformation or other conduct; Sodrin did not give a single‑line definition and the committee heard that the board will provide further clarification in future materials.
No immediate changes to citation policy were voted; the committee thanked staff and moved the material to the record.
