I wish to seek some more advice.
In compliance with R4-19-705 of the AZ BON rules, which explicitly allow “Any person” to do so, I am currently considering filing one or more requests for AZ BON rule changes, which might well be of note in future legislation, as required by sunset rules to renew the AZ BON mandate. AZ BON rules list relevant state laws as:
“Adopted effective October 10, 1996 (Supp. 96-4). Former Section R4-19-705 renumbered to R4-19-704; new Section R4-19-705 renumbered from R4-19-706 and amended by final rule making at 9 A.A.R. 1288, effective June 3, 2003 (Supp. 03-2).”
In light of the Trujillo case, with which many Nurses (and a rapidly growing number at that) have taken a strong interest, and in consideration of my previous arguments that Amanda has been accused in effect of following AZBON rules to the letter in a fashion inconvenient to a physician and corporate interests, and in the context of a subsequently added complaint against Amanda, I seek your opinion regarding the following proposed AZ BON rule change requests:
- That AZ BON institute a credible and transparent mechanism to assess complaints to the Board for any potentially frivolous or malicious nature, overseen by a disinterested and credible figure, perhaps a judge. Such mechanisms are typical in court systems, both to lessen undue burdens on precious resources, and to ensure complaints are not used for harassment or calumny.
- That AZ BON institute a formal and transparent mechanism to oversee it’s Investigators and establish that their work is timely, credible and sufficient so that complaints do not exert an undue negative influence on the reputation and career of those considered innocent until proven guilty, and so that valid complaints are addressed without undue delay to best protect the public interest.
- That AZ BON no longer delete records of its investigations within ten business days of report of disciplinary action, as is current policy, so that transparency and accountability of Board activities may be enhanced consistent with other such worthy initiatives in AZ governance. Such records should remain available permanently, as deleting them may well protect investigators and Board members far more than anyone else.
- That AZ BON clarify its rules in light of a recent Psychiatric evaluation AZ BON ordered, within the currently wide discretion allowed it, apparently in response to an accused Nurse in good standing discussing unproven allegations against her openly, in a manner fully consistent with long-standing First Amendment rights, so that in reality and appearance, BON no longer risks appearing abusive and arbitrary. AZ BON also would most likely wish to appear abusive of the very concept of a psychiatric evaluation in the tradition of Orwellian tyranny.
- That AZ BON clarify its definition of “Credentials” in light of a recent written complaint it filed, suggesting that use of an “S” to indicate student status, an informal practice to my knowledge subject to no current public or private regulation, nevertheless somehow constitutes “misrepresentation” regarding the possession of an accreditation. AZ BON rules state: “Engaging in fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in taking a licensing examination or on an initial or renewal application for a license or certificate, ” constitutes unprofessional conduct actionable by the Board. A computer word search of the official AZ BON rules found no other use of the word “misrepresentsation.” I fail to see how this language in any way relates to the common and widely accepted usage of “S” or “SN” to indicate student status, whether accurate or not. As a Nursing educator long accustomed to the use “SN” title or equivalent in hospital documentation and elsewhere, I find this development troubling. One plausible explanation for this unusual situation seems to be that a Board operating without transparency might gradually come to have more confidence than familiarity as to its own written rules. AZ BON has also raised speculation as to the misuse of legal language to unduly bully the accused.
As AZ BON rules stipulate prompt written acknowledgment by AZ BON of written rule change requests and the subsequent permanent posting of all such requests in your State’s records, as such requests require more detailed explanation than that provided above, and out of a natural deference to a State Governor’s management of her own administration, I submit this information for your consideration and feedback.
Unlike AZ BON, as a private citizen I act under no rule as to how soon such filings might be submitted. A review of AZ records indicates that significant problems with AZ BON functions have been well understood since perhaps the 1980s: further patience with incremental self-directed change might well be considered unwarranted.
Thank you for you consideration in this matter,
Greg Mercer, MSN