Committee updates UPAK hearing procedures to clarify board briefing; staff cautioned on workload implications

The Licensure Committee approved amendments to R277‑212 clarifying notice and brief filing options when UPAK hearings recommend suspension or other long‑term sanctions. The change stems from concerns raised during recent 'deep dive' reviews that respondents had limited opportunity to address the board before final action.

Chair Carey proposed that, when a hearing report will be considered by the board, the executive secretary advise respondents of the anticipated board date and permit respondents to submit a written brief up to 10 days before the board meeting, with the UPAK attorney allowed five days to file a response. Carey said the motion was intended to address due‑process concerns that respondents felt removed from the board’s review. "This motion is being made to address that concern," Carey said, explaining the intent was to give respondents an opportunity to address the board in writing.

Legal counsel and staff noted potential workload and structural consequences: converting the board role to accept respondent briefs can draw the board toward an appellate posture and increase UPAK attorneys' drafting burden on short timelines. The committee discussed timing tradeoffs—short deadlines preserve board cadence but put pressure on counsel—and settled on the proposed deadlines; a substitute motion to approve draft 1 on first reading and forward it to the board passed unanimously.