The second possible approach is to provide for the indemnification of board members. Indemnification means to compensate someone for loss or damages sustained. In this context, it would mean covering the damages that individual board members would sustain in antitrust lawsuits. In Dental Examiners, the Supreme Court choose not to address whether board members could be personally liable for monetary damages as individuals, but they did suggest it was possible. Scholars have found that individual damages against board members is likely given antitrust law on this subject. This raises real concerns because it may make it harder for the state to recruit board members if potential members fear they could be subject to lawsuits for personal
…show more content…
First, the state could place the responsibility on a current state official such as the Secretary of Administration or the Attorney General, which is the strategy that Oklahoma is using. This avoids the need to create a new agency, but may place too heavy of a burden on an existing state agency. A second possible approach is to create a new position that supervises all board decisions, which is the approach taken by Alabama. Some states, such as Utah, already used this method for review prior to Dental Examiners. A third possibility is to assign review assignments by topic, so for example the Secretary of Treasury could review the decisions by the State Board of Accountancy. This method has benefits in that it ensures more expertise on a particular topic, but is problematic because it would be more complicated to create. Finally, some scholars have suggested that legislative committees could provide supervision of board decisions, but that would require the same level of review as previously mentioned, and may be an unrealistic burden on a legislative committee. So states could use a variety of supervision system if the state decided that it should increase “active …show more content…
I have previously mentioned how the Board of Technical Professions functions like this by combining multiple professions. Another example would be the Board of Cosmetology, which is made up of two cosmetologists, one tattoo artist or body piecer, one operator of a tanning facility, one cosmetology educator, and two members of the general public. This combined board means that when the board makes decisions in the various areas under its regulatory purview, it does not do so while being “controlled” by active market participants. This method would seek to combine boards with similar or related functions such as was done with the Board of Technical Professions. This method does not appear to have any direct benefits over changing membership compositions. Either of these methods to changing board composition has both advantages and disadvantages that need to be balanced against each other, as well as compared to the other possible solutions. All four approaches have their own merit, and are largely a question of choosing which benefits and burdens matter most to the State of
First, the state could place the responsibility on a current state official such as the Secretary of Administration or the Attorney General, which is the strategy that Oklahoma is using. This avoids the need to create a new agency, but may place too heavy of a burden on an existing state agency. A second possible approach is to create a new position that supervises all board decisions, which is the approach taken by Alabama. Some states, such as Utah, already used this method for review prior to Dental Examiners. A third possibility is to assign review assignments by topic, so for example the Secretary of Treasury could review the decisions by the State Board of Accountancy. This method has benefits in that it ensures more expertise on a particular topic, but is problematic because it would be more complicated to create. Finally, some scholars have suggested that legislative committees could provide supervision of board decisions, but that would require the same level of review as previously mentioned, and may be an unrealistic burden on a legislative committee. So states could use a variety of supervision system if the state decided that it should increase “active …show more content…
I have previously mentioned how the Board of Technical Professions functions like this by combining multiple professions. Another example would be the Board of Cosmetology, which is made up of two cosmetologists, one tattoo artist or body piecer, one operator of a tanning facility, one cosmetology educator, and two members of the general public. This combined board means that when the board makes decisions in the various areas under its regulatory purview, it does not do so while being “controlled” by active market participants. This method would seek to combine boards with similar or related functions such as was done with the Board of Technical Professions. This method does not appear to have any direct benefits over changing membership compositions. Either of these methods to changing board composition has both advantages and disadvantages that need to be balanced against each other, as well as compared to the other possible solutions. All four approaches have their own merit, and are largely a question of choosing which benefits and burdens matter most to the State of