DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

e Bo

KATIE HOBBS GOVERNOR

ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD 1740 W. ADAMS STREET, SUITE 4600, PHOENIX, AZ, 85007 PHONE (602) 364-1 PET (1738) FAX (602) 364-1039

MEMO

6/8/2024

Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board

Victoria Whitmore, ED, Arizona Veterinary Medical Examining Board

V.12. Proposed Modifications to Investigative Committees’ Process & Membership

ard staff is requesting that the Board consider our proposal to modify the current Investigative Committee (IC) process and membership by merging the two IC groups into one group which

would meet for a longer period of time each month (5-6 hours).

The new, expanded committee would still meet the statutory requirement to be consisting of

five members (3 veterinarians + 2 public members)

The “new” committee would be composed of selected members from both the A.M. and

P.M. IC.

Reasons for the proposed change:

o Tracy and | have long considered (and tried) ways to streamline and improve the IC

VICTORIA WHITMORE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

process. With Tracy soon moving out of state and working 100% remotely most of the time, and the knowledge that the soon-to-be hired new investigator will be on a long learning curve, we are eager to find efficiencies in the IC process, create more IC member satisfaction, and create a “super” committee of individuals who have proven to always be professional, prepared, and courteous to Respondents and Complainants. Tracy’s change seems to point to this timing to be the most diplomatic way to allow some members to gently retire from the IC who largely stick around to help Tracy because they so greatly value her.

We have long struggled with one or both of the committees at some point regarding some of the members’ ability to remain focused in the group discussions and questions to the Respondent and Complainant, and remember the statutes/ rules from month to month. The P.M. group has particularly struggled to stay on track and often takes over 2 hours longer than the A.M. group to complete the same number of cases. This is frustrating for other excellent members and for case participants who end up sitting around all afternoon.

Moving to one committee will be more efficient by saving Board staff the duplicate efforts of agendas, audio recordings, case file packets (they still want paper!) and managing quorum for 2 separate groups. Dealing with 5 people instead of 10 will lessen the huge workload that already exists.

e Tracy and | have drafted a suggested “new” committee membership based on a combination of these factors (by top priority):

(1) meeting participation and our perception of the completion of review of the case file materials;

(2) ability to professionally and succinctly communicate during the meeting;

(3) ability to apply the statutes and rules to the facts presented in order to propose specific suggested violations.

(4) member attendance record;

(5) length of IC service and/or previous Board experience (we think it is fairer to choose most who have been around the least amount of time to give others an opportunity, but this factor does not overrule the other needs);

e Proposed new committee membership:

Dr. Justin McCormick (PM) (Sept. 2021)

Dr. Jarrod Butler (AM) (Jan. 2021)

Dr. Stanley Rubin (AM) (Jan. 2024)

Ms. Carolyn Ratajack (AM Chair- public member) (July 2018) Mr. Gordon Bennett (PM — public member) (Jan. 2024)

ale er

e Proposed Alternates to be appointed to serve when needed: 1. Dr. Robert Kritsberg (AM) (has been on IC for over 15 years-former Board member) 2. Dr. Steven Dow (PM) (Sept. 2021)(former Board member){would like to stay on IC but said that people who have not participated as long as he has should be given preference) 3. Mr. Mike Booth (PM-public member) (Jan. 2023) 4. Mr. Seiler (AM-public member) (July 2019)

e Note that Amrit Rai, DVM, has resigned (as of 6/5/24) from the P.M. IC, as she expects to apply for Board membership. {Law requires an |C member resign if they apply for the Board}

e |have discussed the proposed plan with most of the current members. Everyone on the proposed new commiittee is willing to serve. Prior to the Board meeting | hope to have spoken to others to determine if they would be willing to stay on as alternates (which are also important, especially due to the small committee size).