AN ACT to amend and reenact section 11-28.3-06 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to rural ambulance board compensation.
Summary
SB 2358 amends North Dakota law governing rural ambulance districts by changing the compensation rules for board members. Under current law, directors and officers generally serve without pay, except that the secretary-treasurer may receive a salary set by the board. This bill adds authority for board members to receive compensation at a rate set by the board of directors.
The bill also retains existing limits on board composition and adds a conflict-of-interest safeguard: no more than two elected board members may be members of the licensed ambulance service serving the district, and those members must meet the statutory definition of a volunteer. The measure therefore updates governance rules for rural ambulance districts while preserving local control over board structure and eligibility.
Impact
The bill directly amends section 11-28.3-06 of the North Dakota Century Code, affecting the organization and compensation of rural ambulance district boards. It changes the default compensation framework for board service, allowing districts to pay board members if the board chooses, and it imposes a cap on how many board members may also be affiliated with the licensed ambulance service. The practical effect is to give districts more flexibility in recruiting and retaining board members while maintaining restrictions intended to preserve volunteer-based governance and avoid overrepresentation by service personnel.
Sentiment
The voting record suggests the bill was generally well received, especially in the Senate, where it passed unanimously 45-0. It also cleared the House with a substantial majority, 74-17, indicating broad support overall. The absence of committee transcript discussion suggests there was no recorded major controversy in the available materials, though the House vote shows some opposition.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the shift from unpaid service to compensated board service, which may raise concerns about public expense, governance incentives, or the appropriate role of compensation in volunteer emergency service districts. Another possible concern is the allowance for board members to be part of the licensed ambulance service, even with a cap of two and a volunteer requirement, which could prompt questions about independence and conflicts of interest. The recorded opposition in the House likely reflects one or both of these issues, but no committee debate is available to identify specific arguments.