Orrin Duffin / Warren Duffin — The witness identifies himself, says he is with the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses, and presents docket 24-1301-2501.
Josh Keyser — Senator Kaiser asked about the statutory five-year rolling average and the cash-balance threshold, then followed up by questioning why the cash balance fell to 16% and whether the proposed fee increase was the planned response to address that decline.
Cindy Carlson — Asked whether applications for physical therapist licensing have increased compared with prior years.
Mr. Gardunia — Was invited to testify online and asked to introduce himself for the record.
Jonathan Gardunia — Jonathan Gardunia, president of the Idaho Physical Therapy Association, said the association met with DOPL in October 2025 and supports the proposed fee change. He added that the association prefers increasing the fee over consolidating boards and wants to maintain an independent licensing board.
Brian Lenney — Senator Lenny asked Mr. Duffin whether the division had conducted a formal cost-benefit analysis for the proposed fee increase, rather than relying on conjecture. He then clarified that he wanted a formal, handout-ready analysis showing the expected outcomes if the fee is raised versus if it is not.
Brian Lenney — Senator Lenney is addressed during discussion of the docket, notes that it represents a 100% fee increase, and indicates he has a motion ready. He is then identified as making the motion to reject the docket, with Senator Zyterfeld seconding it, and later is recorded voting aye in the roll call.
Brian Lenney — Senator Lenney argued against the proposed fee increase, saying it was too large, lacked sufficient justification, and was unreasonable. He noted there were no rejected applicants and only a few complaints, suggesting title protection would be a better approach than raising fees. He then moved to reject docket 24-1701-2501 in its entirety. Later references identified him as the maker of the motion and as the sponsor of a substitute motion, and he voted aye on the substitute motion.
Mr. Doffin — Said the division’s finance team and data analyst run scenario analyses for fee increases.
Mr. Duff — A speaker asked about a break-even point for DOPL consolidation and future fee decreases.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow is mentioned in the discussion as arriving late, with repeated references across the overlapping transcript segments reinforcing the same point.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow moves to accept docket 24-1301-2501, prompting discussion about whether occupational boards with surpluses should help support boards with deficits, whether fee increases signal poor fiscal management, and how the legislature should scrutinize such increases. Senator Winterow argues that fee increases may be necessary to keep boards solvent, support public safety, and align with broader departmental restructuring efforts, while Senator Lenny opposes the measure and warns against rewarding mismanagement. The discussion concludes with a roll call vote in which the motion appears to pass with multiple ayes.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow was called on and then responded in the procedural discussion, agreeing that a rule must be explicitly rejected by motion rather than being treated as rejected after a tie vote.
Melissa Wintrow — Raised concern that the rules shift control from the state to federal standards.
Melissa Wintrow — Said the rules reference federal rules and that replacing state rules is a concern.
Melissa Wintrow — Identified as providing the second, though the name appears to be a transcription error and likely refers to Senator Lenney.
Melissa Wintrow — Recorded as voting aye in the roll call.
Melissa Wintrow — Recorded as voting aye; name appears to be a transcription error for Senator Blaylock.
Melissa Wintrow — Recorded as voting aye; name appears as 'Lennie' in the transcript.
Melissa Wintrow — Referenced as wanting the projections.
Melissa Wintrow — Said there had been prior discussion about whether acupuncturists needed to be licensed at all.
Melissa Wintrow — Described calling acupuncturists in South Dakota to compare licensing practices.
Melissa Wintrow — Reported a provider's view that state licensure would help with insurance billing.
Melissa Wintrow — Continued describing the conversation with the South Dakota provider about licensing and fees.
Melissa Wintrow — Concluded that the $500 figure from the provider made her comfortable with the fee increase.
Melissa Wintrow — Explained support for the fee increase as necessary to keep the license and board operating, while expressing hope for a future decrease.
Melissa Wintrow — Moved to accept docket 24-1701-2501.
Melissa Wintrow — Explained that South Dakota was mentioned because it was one of three states not requiring licensure.
Melissa Wintrow — Clarified that South Dakota was discussed because it is one of three states that do not require licensure.
Melissa Wintrow — Thanked for clarifying the South Dakota reference.
Melissa Wintrow — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Melissa Wintrow — Voted nay on the substitute motion.
Melissa Wintrow — Voted nay.
Carl Bjerke — Senator Kaiser said he supports looking further into alternatives rather than continuing fee increases indefinitely, calling perpetual fee hikes unreasonable and stating he would oppose the proposal. He then acknowledged the importance of safety measures but questioned whether the financial shortfall was truly caused by fraud investigations and citizen-protection efforts, suggesting the issue warranted further examination.
Carl Bjerke — Identified as seconding the motion to reject.
Carl Bjerke — Named as the second on the motion to reject the docket.
Carl Bjerke — Voted aye on the substitute motion.
Mark Harris — Voted aye.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris was recorded as voting aye during the roll call vote.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris seconded the motion to approve the docket and later voted no on the substitute motion during the roll-call vote.
Julie VanOrden — Voted aye as chair.
Julie VanOrden — Senator Van Orden requested and then moved to approve docket 24-0501-2501, except for section 400 on fees. The chair announced the motion passed with eight in favor. Van Orden then asked that a finding of fact be added to the record explaining that the rejected rules were reviewed to ensure compliance with Idaho Code.
Warren Duffin — Warren Duffin, Program Director for the Health Professions Bureau in DOPL and speaking for the Idaho Occupational Therapy Licensure Board, introduced himself and began presenting Document No. 24-0601-2501, the occupational therapy licensure fee rule.
Lawrence Meiser — Lawrence Meiser was asked to explain the procedure following a tie vote on the rule, and he came forward to identify himself and begin explaining the relevant process, including the distinction between a failed motion to approve and an explicit rejection under Idaho Code 67-5291.
Ms. Weiser — Explained that Idaho Code 67-5291 requires findings of fact for rejection but not for approval.
Ms. Smeiser — Was asked to clarify the rule-rejection process.
Ms. Meiser — Ms. Meiser explained that, regardless of past legislative practice, the APA requires findings of fact when something is rejected. She was then acknowledged by the chair and continued by confirming the procedural point and beginning to reference a prior rejection as an example.
Van Burtenshaw — Asked about the finding-of-fact requirement and noted it is new for the committee.
Van Burtenshaw — Asked when the finding-of-fact requirement was added to the rule-rejection process.
Van Burtenshaw — Ms. Weiser responded directly to Senator Van Orden's question about when the requirement was added.