Madam Chairman and Committee Members:

My name is Dr. Brian Gale. My address is 2418 Coolidge Avenue,

Bismarck.

I am here to support bill # 1262 in the following manner:

I believe that there is a need for change in the Board system in North Dakota. There have been many instances of abuse of power and conflict of interest involving board members in this state. I’m sure you have heard the stories of the doctors, attorneys, police officers, cosmetologists, architects and other professionals. Some of them have been kept out of North Dakota. Others have been forced out of this state. And others have had their careers and lives ruined. There are way too many conflicts of interest and coincidences for so many people to be so unlucky.

When I called to have an application for a license to practice Podiatry sent to me I had to speak to the secretary/treasurer of the board. Not to a receptionist or administrative assistant. When the doctor came to the phone I was not greeted kindly. Instead the first question out of his mouth was, "Why do you want to come to North Dakota?" and several other questions to this effect. This is a standard way of greeting people who have called for an application over the years; even for natives of North Dakota. The exchange is designed to find out what city the applicant plans to practice in and if he or she will be an economic threat to a board member. The mentality of the board member is to keep competitors out.

I am here today to tell you that there is really only one problem with the Podiatry Board. There has been one very serious flaw in the year-to-year ongoing activity of this board. I believe that if this one correction is made that there is a chance that this board may still be able to serve a purpose to the public instead of being self serving as so many of these boards are in this state and in other states.

I have two suggestions that I would like to be considered as possible amendments to this bill. The first is that a committee or task force be formed to investigate the feasibility of having one board, which encompasses all medically related boards. This has been done in other states and works well for several reasons. This larger board would have the combined financial resources so that there can be an administrative agency that oversees all of the boards. This would result in efficiency and a much higher standard of quality in how the boards are run.

Then there’s the larger issue of competition. I came to North Dakota because I knew that there were very few doctors that had some of the specialized training that I possess. I have spent 12 years in training and another 11 years in practice. After investing almost 22 years of my life in the profession that I truly love to do, I am being told by my competitor down the street from me that I am incompetent and that I shouldn’t be practicing because I’m a danger to the public. There is something very seriously wrong with having a competitor sit in judgment of me or anyone else. With that concentration of power when the board president states that he "recused himself", it is laughable.

The Podiatry Board has had the same president for 17 of the last 23 years.

The statute reads "Members of the board who are doctors of podiatric medicine shall serve four-year terms arranged so that one term expires each year".

My interpretation and most others whom I have spoken to about this think that this sentence means that one of the board members should change each year. So the burning question then is why is it that when 12 board members should have been changed over the past 12 years, only 2 board members have changed over the past 12 years. And if we go further back in time I’m sure the numbers are even more ridiculous.

Now someone may try to argue that no one else wanted to be on the board. That is incorrect. When I was the state association president a few years ago, I nominated several podiatrists who were not on the board and had never been on it. There were 7 podiatrists who were willing to be on the board.

The way to fix the podiatry board is to enforce the term limits.

I would like to see an amendment of this bill that would allow for immediate replacement of any members of the current podiatry board who have been on it for more than 4 years in succession. There are currently 3 of the 4 who have been board members for at least 5 years. I would suggest that the board members not be allowed to be reappointed unless they have been off the board for a number of years or if there is no one else willing to be on the board.

I would also suggest that more people be added to the podiatry board such as two lay people and possibly another medical doctor. This removes the temptation from a board member to use their power and immunity to harass, torment and run a competitor out of town. Moreover, complaints instigated or submitted by an economic competitor should be carefully evaluated by an independent third party.

The law governing the boards is called "Administrative Law" not "Civil Law". Under state law board members have immunity while the defendant professional does not have the typical "due process rights". This is because these people serving on these boards are expected to be ethical and moral people. As a result the system can be severely abused if board members do not act ethically. Having no "checks and balances" allows too much temptation for some of the boards in North Dakota and too much freedom for certain unethical professionals to keep out or discipline their competitors for no other reason than they are financial competitors.

As Senator Porter has just told you, " The Podiatry Board is made up of 5 individuals with 4 members being Podiatrists and one medical doctor. This situation creates problems. You have competitors regulating one another. We do not have enough practitioners in the state to have a freestanding board."

If the board members had been changed when their 4-year term expired as the statute states they should be, I would have never had the problems with this board that I have for the past 8 years. If one person did not dominate this board for the past 23 years along with his hand picked board members coupled with the board member’s immunity for all their actions there would not be any problems with this board today. There is no accountability or "checks and balances".

In closing may I quote from Senator Andrist’s letter to Governor Schafer:

"I have been at war for years with our licensing system"

"I've tried a number of bill approaches, soundly defeated, in past sessions, but had decided to just give up until the flap with Dr. Gale arose"

"... the system is a smoking gun waiting to be abused."

I would be glad to answer any questions at this time.

Dr Brian Gale