PROTOCOLS

The union representing medical board investigators says that could leave them hamstrung if a person only feels comfortable talking in the privacy of their home. The union wants the policy, and a handful of others, changed to allow them to thoroughly review all complaints.

Some of the policies also have been called into question by a state working group appointed by Gov. Mike Dewine, and a medical board spokeswoman said they are among those expected to be addressed at a Wednesday board meeting.

The medical board is responsible for handling complaints against physicians and the other medical-related professionals it licenses.

But current policies could lead to cases being closed “without what we would consider a thorough investigation,” said Chris Mabe, president of the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association. He said the policies were drafted without input frominvestigators, and he hopes they have a seat at the table when the rules are revised this time around.

The governor’s working group was formed to look into the 1996 sexual misconduct investigation of Ohio

State University physician Richard Strauss, now accused of sexually abusing at least 177 students. In an August report, the working group found the case seemingly fell into a “black hole” despite an investigator at the timefinding credible evidence of misconduct.

The working group called on the board to review old sexual misconduct cases and to identify medical professionals who might have failed to report suspicious activity by Strauss.

It also raised a number of other issues, with the board identifying 50 separate requests for action in eight different categories.

Along with the neutrallocation policy, the working group has suggested the board eliminate a policy that allows a case to be closed when a sexual misconduct complainant fails to come forward initially.

In an Oct. 1 report, the medical board indicated that it hopes to approve changes to sexual-misconduct protocol and an investigator manual by year-end. It says the changes are to be made “to ensure that there is no time limit to investigation of sexual-misconduct cases” with plans to get input from a victim coordinator being hired this month.

Mabe said the union and managers at the board had been looking to revise some policies even before the

working group report was released, and he is hopeful that the changes requested in the report will help create good rapport within the agency.

Some of the policies in question are among those developed in the months before the board voted 9-2 on Dec. 12 to disarm investigators, a move that was not supported by the union.

“It’s like sending a fireman to a fire without a fire hose,” Mabe said of the change, noting that complaints at times involve allegations of criminal activity. “We’ve got to give people the tools and ability to carry out the jobs they do.”

Investigators had been authorized to carry firearms since 2011, in the midst of socalled pill mill investigations.

Board spokeswoman Tessie Pollock said in January that the decisionto rescind was made because “medical board investigators are administrative staff of a state agency; they are not members of law enforcement.”

“The bulk of their investigations are performed in public locations and in licensee offices — many of which have security already on site,” she added. “Investigators from similar boards — including the nursing and dental boards— do not have armed investigators.”

Of the board’s 21 positions in investigations, 14 of the employees have law-enforcement backgrounds, she said last week.

Minutes from a June 2016 meeting show that some members of the board had raised concerns regarding firearms during a discussion about a report from a thirdparty firm assessing the risks faced by investigators. It had concluded “that there are some inherent risks associated with the position which would warrant investigators carrying a firearm.”

One alternative, conducting interviews remotely, makes an investigator’s job more difficult, Mabe said, because it eliminates the “on the ground” ability to assess complainants and witnesses in person and discover facts; he likened it to “investigating a homicide over your telephone.”

Mabe also expressed concern about what are termed “red list” cases, which have been on file for 270 days or more. Such cases, he said, receive “top priority regardless of the merits or seriousness of the case.”

The working group has suggested that the board review its red list policy in an effort to ensure that cases do not languish, but not to the detriment of investigative quality.

The board has said it intends to review the red list policy and make adjustments.