(d)  Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the board may:   ('may' MUST be changed to 'shall')

(1)  disclose a complaint to the affected license holder;

(2)  provide to a complainant the license holder's response to the complaint,  if providing the response is considered by the board to be necessary to investigate the complaint; and (the highlighted portion MUST be removed AND replaced with the following wording: and provide for the complainant an opportunity for rebuttal to the license holder's response,)

1. John Clader, DVM of Pleasanton, veterinarian and owner of Chaparral Veterinary Center, who replaces Robert Lastovica, DVM of Fredericksburg. Good riddance!
2. David Kercheval of Grandview, director of marketing for Agricultural Workers Mutual Auto Insurance, is the new public Board Member, replacing Dawn Reveley of Blanco. 
3. David Rosberg Jr., DVM of Mason, veterinarian and owner of Hill Country Veterinary Hospital, who replaces Guy Johnsen, DVM of El Paso. Good riddance!
   

Language will be revised in §575.27 to further clarify the Board practice and procedure involving complaints against licensees and to remove subsections involving complaint logs, There is no reason to remove the complaint log from the rules. This an attempt to further limit the information that is available to the public. The Attorney General has twiced ruled against the Board withholding this information. Can't withhold it? Just delete it! Right, Mr. Helmcamp? I STRONGLY advise the board to vote AGAINST the removal of the complaint log. investigation of complaints, informal conferences, contested case hearings and contingency plans for Board members. The issue of investigation of complaints will be addressed in proposed new §575.28. The issue of informal conferences and contingency plans for Board members will be addressed in proposed new §575.29. The issue of Board procedure regarding contested case hearings will be addressed in proposed new §575.30.

Technical Changes

Throughout Chapter 575, numerous grammatical and technical changes will be made, such as replacing the term "Executive Director" with the term "Office of the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners" and replacing the term "Director of Enforcement" in some places with the term "Executive Director's designee." This gives entirely to much authority and discretion to the Executive Director. Why is this new term needed? This is my opinion anywhere these terms appear in this document. Also, statutory citation references will be updated and standardized to reflect current law and Texas Register formatting requirements.

§575.4.Conduct and Decorum.

(a) All meetings of the Board and its committees are open to the public unless such meetings are conducted in executive session in accordance with the Chapter 551, Government Code, or Chapter 801, Occupations Code.

(b) Each party, witness, attorney, or other representative shall conduct themselves [himself] in all proceedings with proper dignity, courtesy, and respect for the Board and all other parties. Disorderly conduct will not be tolerated. Members of the public shall not address Board members during meetings unless recognized by the Board's presiding officer pursuant to a published agenda item.  This leaves too much up to the imagination. Who decides what is “proper?” Now the Board is trying to take away the Public's ONLY opportunity to address those that judged their complaint by not being able to address Board members? They don't answer our questions, but the public would like to hope that they gave them something to think about anyway. This is a step in the WRONG direction. I STRONGLY advise the Board to vote against this wording. Persons seeking to position microphones, video cameras or other equipment for the purposes of recording Board proceedings may not disrupt the meeting or disturb participants.

(c) Attorneys and other representatives of parties shall observe and practice the standards of the ethical behavior prescribed for their professions.

(d) The Board's presiding officer may exclude from a meeting any person who, after being duly warned, persists in disorderly, abusive or disruptive behavior. So the Board's presiding officer COULD determine ANY behavior that he/she does not like is disorderly, abusive, or disruptive. Too broad of a power stroke. I understand that veterinarians are used to muzzling things, but come on......

§575.7.Presentation of Proposal for Decision.

(a) Notice of oral argument. All parties and the ALJ who has issued a proposal for decision shall be given notice of the opportunity to attend and provide oral argument concerning a proposal for decision before the board. Notice shall be sent by hand delivery, regular mail, certified mail - return receipt requested, courier service, or registered service to the ALJ's office and the parties' addresses of record.

(b) Arguments before the Board. The order of the proceeding shall be as follows:

(1) the ALJ shall present and explain the proposal for decision;

(2) the party adversely affected shall briefly state the party's reasons for being so affected supported by the evidence of record

(3) the other party or parties shall be given the opportunity to respond;

(4) the party with the burden of proof shall have the right to close;

(5) board members may question any party as to any matter relevant to the proposal for decision and evidence presented at the hearing;

(6) at the end of all arguments by the parties, the board may deliberate in closed session and shall determine the charges on the merits and take action on a final decision in open session.

(c) Limitation. A party shall not inquire into the mental processes used by the board in arriving at its decision, WHY NOT? Why does this need to be a secret? nor be disruptive of the orderly procedure of the board's routines.

§575.22.Reinstatement of Veterinary Licenses.

(a) A person whose license to practice veterinary medicine has been cancelled or revoked, whether by voluntary action or by disciplinary action of the Board, may after five (5) years from the effective date of such cancellation or revocation, This should depend on the reason why the license was revoked! What if this person intentionally harmed patients? BAD change. petition the Board for reinstatement of the license, unless another time is provided in the cancellation or revocation order, or unless no provision was made in the order for reinstatement. This rule does not apply to licensees who let their licenses lapse for non-payment of renewal fees or licensees against whom a cancellation or revocation proceeding is not pending before the Board or in any other jurisdiction.

§575.27.Complaints--Receipt[ , Investigation and Disposition ].

(a) Complaints against licensees.

(1) All complaints filed by the public against board licensees must be in writing on a complaint form provided by the board and signed by the complainant. If a complaint is transmitted to the board orally or by means other than in writing and the complaint alleges facts showing a continuing or imminent threat to the public welfare, the requirement of a written complaint may be waived until later in the investigative process.

(2) The board may file a complaint on its own initiative.

(3) [(2)] Complaints by the board's enforcement section shall be initiated by the opening of a complaint file.

[(3) The board shall maintain a log of complaints to whom the board sends a complaint form.] Whats between the brackets is being removedThere is no reason to remove the complaint log from the rules. This an attempt to further limit the information that is available to the public. The Attorney General has twiced ruled against the Board withholding this information. Can't withhold it? Just delete it! Right, Mr. Helmcamp? I STRONGLY advise the board to vote AGAINST the removal of the complaint log.

(4) Anonymous written complaints will normally not be investigated, but may be investigated if sufficient information exists for the board to file a complaint under paragraph (2) of this subsection. [will be logged and filed for information purposes only.] Whats between the brackets is being removedThere is no reason to remove thecomplaint log from the rules. This an attempt to further limit the information that is available to the public. The Attorney General has twiced ruled against the Board withholding this information. Can't withhold it? Just delete it! Right, Mr. Helmcamp? I STRONGLY advise the board to vote AGAINST the removal of the complaint log.

(c) [(g)] Report to the board of dismissed complaints. The executive director or the executive director's designee [director of enforcement ] whats in brackets is being removedThis gives entirely to much authority and discretion to the Executive Director. Why is this new term needed? This is my opinion anywhere these terms appear in this document. shall ORALLY (my change – ORALLY advise the Board in OPEN session so the public can HEAR the disposition of their complaint.) advise the board at each scheduled meeting of the complaints dismissed since the last meeting. [The information will consist of a summary of the allegations, investigation conducted, reasons for dismissal, and file number.] Whats between the brackets is being removed This information should remain and be given ORALLY in OPEN session to the board.

§575.28.Complaints--Investigations. This is the new section. Notice the omission of the complaint log. See previous comments. Notice the other omissions as previously mentioned.

(3) Upon receipt of a complaint, a letter of acknowledgment will be promptly What amount of time is promptly? mailed to the complainant.

(4) Complaints will be reviewed every thirty (30) days to determine the status of the complaint. Parties to a complaint will be informed on the status of a complaint at approximately 45 day intervals.

(5) Upon receipt of a complaint, the director of enforcement, or their designee, This gives entirely to much authority and discretion to the Executive Director. Why is this new term needed? This is my opinion anywhere these terms appear in this document. will review it and may change "may" to "shall" like it was! interview the complainant to obtain additional information. If the director of enforcement concludes that the complaint resulted from a misunderstanding, is outside the jurisdiction of the board, or is without merit, the director of enforcement shall recommend through the general counsel to the executive director that an investigation not be initiated. If the executive director concurs with the recommendation, the complainant will be so notified. If the executive director does not concur with the recommendations, an investigation will be initiated

(6) The director of enforcement will assign an investigator to the complaint, and the investigator will send a request for patient records to the licensee. Once the investigator receives the patient records, the investigator will send a copy of the complaint to the licensee, along with a request that the licensee respond to the complaint in writing within 21 days of receipt of the complaint.

(7) After the licensee's response to the complaint is received, It is my opinion that the complainant should have an opportunity to respond to the licensee's response. Otherwise, the licensee can make up any story they choose with NOBODY to dispute it. That is WRONG! further investigation may be necessary to corroborate the information provided by the complainant and the licensee. During the investigation, the investigator shall contact this should be INTERVIEW not CONTACT the complainant. Other persons, such as second opinion or consulting veterinarians, may be contacted. The investigator may request additional medical opinions, supporting documents, and interviews with other witnesses.

(8) Upon the completion of an investigation, the investigator shall prepare a report of investigation (ROI) for review by the director of enforcement, who in turn shall present the ROI to the executive director along with a conclusion as to the probability that a violation(s) exists.

(A) If the executive director determines from the ROI that the probability of a violation involving medical judgment or practice exists, the director of enforcement shall forward a copy of the ROI and complaint file to the board secretary and another board member this has always been the VP – why the need for more secrecy? (the "veterinarian members") who will determine whether or not the complaint should be closed, further investigation is warranted, or if the licensee should be invited to respond to the complaint at an informal conference at the board offices.

(B) If the probable violation does not involve medical judgment or practice (example: administrative matters such as continuing education and federal and state controlled substances certificates), the executive director shall forward the complaint file to a committee of the executive director, director of enforcement, the investigator assigned to the complaint, and general counsel (the "staff committee"), which shall determine whether or not the complaint should be dismissed, investigated further, or settled.

(C) If the veterinarian members determine that a violation has not occurred, the executive director or director of enforcement or the executive director's designee see previous comments, shall notify the complainant and licensee in writing of the conclusion and that the complaint is dismissed.

(D) If the veterinarian members conclude that a probable violation(s) exists, the executive director or the executive director's designee see previous comments, shall invite the licensee and complainant, in writing, to an informal conference to discuss the complaint made against the licensee. If the veterinarian members cannot agree to dismiss or refer the complaint to an informal conference, the complaint will be automatically referred to an informal conference. The letter invitation to the licensee must include a list of the specific allegations of the complaint.

(E) A complaint considered by the staff committee shall be referred to an informal conference if:

(i) the staff committee determines that the complaint should not be dismissed or settled;
(ii) the staff committee is unable to reach an agreed settlement; or
(iii) the licensee who is the subject of the complaint requests that the complaint be referred to an informal conference.

§575.29.Informal Conferences.

(a) The informal conference is the last stage in the investigation of a complaint. The licensee has the right to waive his or her attendance at the conference. The licensee may be represented by counsel.

(b) The board may be represented at the informal conference by an enforcement committee of the executive director, the veterinarian members and a public member of the board, the director of enforcement, the investigator assigned to the complaint, and the board's general counsel. The complainant ADD And the complainant's legal counsel! and the licensee and the licensee's legal counsel may attend the conference. Any other attendees are allowed at the discretion of the executive director. The executive director or the director of enforcement shall conduct the conference.

(c) Contingency. The board president shall appoint another licensee board member to assume the duties of the board secretary in the complaint review and informal conference process in the event the board secretary is unable to serve in the capacity set out in this section.

(d) Procedure. Subject to the discretion of the executive director,too much power – why is this needed?  the following procedure will be followed at the informal conference. The executive director shall explain the purpose of the conference and the rights of the participants, lead the discussion of the allegations of the complaint, and explain the possible courses of action at the conclusion of the conference. The licensee will be asked to respond to the allegations. The complainant will be allowed to make comments relevant to the allegations. allegations should be "complaint"Comments of the licensee and complainant must be addressed to the person conducting the conference and not to each other. In the interest of maintaining decorum, the licensee or complainant may be asked to leave the room while the other is talking with the committee. Why the need for secrecy? The enforcement committee members may ask questions of the licensee and complainant in order to fully develop the complaint record.

(e) At the conclusion of the informal conference, the enforcement committee shall determine if a violation has occurred. If the enforcement committee determines that a violation has not occurred, the enforcement committee, or their designee, see previous commentwill dismiss the complaint, and will advise all parties of the decision and the reasons why the complaint was dismissed.

(f) If the enforcement committee determines that a violation has occurred and that disciplinary action is warranted, the executive director, or their designee, see previous commentwill advise the licensee of the alleged violations and offer the licensee a settlement in the form of an agreed order that specifies the disciplinary action and monetary penalty. With the agreement of the licensee, why does the licensee have to agree? Please explain. the enforcement committee may recommend that the licensee refund an amount not to exceed the amount the complainant paid to the licensee instead of or in addition to imposing an administrative penalty on the licensee. The executive director, or their designee, see previous commentmust inform the licensee that the licensee has a right to a hearing before an administrative law judge on the finding of the occurrence of the violation, the type of disciplinary action, and/or the amount of the recommended penalty.

(g) Within the time period prescribed, the licensee must submit a written response to the board:

(1) accepting the settlement offer and recommended disciplinary action, or
(2) requesting a hearing before an administrative law judge.

(h) Additional negotiations may be held between board staff and the licensee or the authorized representative. In consultation with the board representatives, as available, the recommendations of the board representatives may be subsequently modified based on new information, a change of circumstances, or to expedite a resolution in the interest of protecting the public.

(i) The board representative(s) shall be consulted and must concur with any subsequent substantive modifications before any recommendations are sent to the full board for approval.

(j) Board staff may communicate directly with the board representative(s) after the ISC for the purpose of discussing settlement of the case.

(k) If the licensee accepts the settlement offer by signing the agreed order, the agreed order will be docketed for board action at the next regularly scheduled board meeting.

(l) The recommendations may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the board.

(m) If the board approves the agreed order with amendments, the executive director, or their designee, see previous commentshall mail the amended agreed order to the licensee and the licensee shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt to accept the amended agreed order by signing and returning it to the board. If a licensee does not sign an amended agreed order or does not respond within the fourteen (14) days, the complaint will be scheduled for a hearing before an administrative law judge. If the board rejects the agreed order, the complaint may be scheduled for a hearing before an administrative law judge, or the board may direct the executive director to take other appropriate action.

§575.60.Alternative Dispute Resolution.

(a) The board's policy is to encourage the resolution and early settlement of internal and external disputes, including contested cases, through voluntary settlement processes, which may include any procedure or combination of procedures described by Chapter 154, Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Any ADR procedure used to resolve disputes before the board shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 2009, Government Code, and any model guidelines for the use of ADR issued by the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

(b) The board's general counsel or their designee shall be the board's dispute resolution coordinator (DRC). The DRC shall perform the following functions, as required:

(1) coordinate the implementation of the policy set out in subsection (a) of this section;

(2) serve as a resource for any staff training or education needed to implement the ADR procedures; and

(3) collect data to evaluate the effectiveness of ADR procedures implemented by the board.

(c) The board, a committee of the board, a respondent in a disciplinary matter pending before the board, the executive director, or a board employee engaged in a dispute with the executive director or another employee, Why is the complainant not included in this list? may request that the contested matter be submitted to ADR. The request must be in writing, be addressed to the DRC, and state the issues to be determined. The person requesting ADR and the DRC will determine which method of ADR is most appropriate. If the person requesting ADR is the respondent in a disciplinary proceeding, the executive director shall determine if the board will participate in ADR or proceed with the board's normal disciplinary processes.

§575.62.Negotiated Rulemaking.

(a) Notice of a proposed new rule or amendment of any existing rule shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §2001.023 and §2001.024 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(b) The board's policy is to encourage the use of negotiated rulemaking for the adoption of board rules in appropriate situations.

(c) The board's general counsel or their designee see previous commentshall be the board's negotiated rulemaking coordinator (NRC). The NRC shall perform the following functions, as required

FEBRUARY 14, 2008

FIRE DEWEY HELMCAMP!

This man, the Executive Director of this 3 ring circus, has single-handedly set back this Board to the Dark Ages when it comes to accountability for the Board's actions in dealing with consumer malpractice complaints and in dealing with the public. In his 15 months as Executive Director, he has made sure that the Board is operating as a puppet for the TVMA and in increasing the unfairness to EVEN FURTHER protect guilty veterinarians, and he's far from finished with this diabolical subterfuge. This man is nothing short of the most despicable bureaucratic sycophant this Board has ever employed. Check back very soon for a FULL EXPOSE' on this evildoer's activities that puts:

ALL TEXAS PETS AT RISK!