Iowa Board of Pharmacy Open Records Request 2015

This is an update to my two pre­vi­ous arti­cles:

On Jan­u­ary 14, 2015, the Office of Drug Con­trol Pol­i­cy (ODCP) made changes to the Iowa Board of Phar­ma­cy (IBPE) leg­isla­tive pro­pos­al for 2015, with­out noti­fy­ing me.

Rul­ing to Main­tain Mar­i­jua­na in Sched­ule 1 Jan­u­ary 5, 2015: Rul­ing on Mar­i­jua­na 45 KB
Rul­ing to Trans­fer Cannabid­i­ol to Sched­ule 2 Jan­u­ary 5, 2015: Rul­ing on Cannabid­i­ol 48 KB
Min­utes from the Jan­u­ary 5–6 Meet­ing Jan­u­ary 10, 2015: IBPE Meet­ing Min­utes 5,568 KB
Email to Carl Olsen and ODCP with the 2 Rul­ings Jan­u­ary 14, 2015: Email to Carl Olsen and ODCP 65 KB
Email to ODCP with the Revised Cannabid­i­ol Rul­ing Jan­u­ary 14, 2015: Email to ODCP 146 KB
Revised Rul­ing on Cannabid­i­ol Jan­u­ary 14, 2015: Revised Rul­ing on Cannabid­i­ol 50 KB

Not only was I not noti­fied, the Jan­u­ary 10, 2015, meet­ing min­utes were altered with­out any doc­u­men­ta­tion not­ing the change or who autho­rized it. You can see the sub­sti­tut­ed rul­ing attached to those min­utes, which are still signed and dat­ed on Jan­u­ary 10, 2015. These changes were not sig­nif­i­cant, as far as my peti­tion is con­cerned, but it does show a com­plete dis­re­gard for due process. The Office of Drug Con­trol Pol­i­cy got a copy of the changed rul­ing on my peti­tion, but the cour­tesy was not extend­ed by send­ing me a copy of the changed rul­ing when they made the changes to it.

But, the pur­pose of my open records request was not to uncov­er chi­canery. I want­ed to know what hap­pened to the cannabid­i­ol pro­pos­al. Was the gov­er­nor noti­fied? Was the leg­is­la­ture noti­fied? The typ­i­cal process the Iowa Board of Phar­ma­cy fol­lows is to pre­file a bill before the leg­isla­tive ses­sion begins, which they did in 2012, 2014, and 2015 and are doing now for 2016. Iowa Code § 2.16 allows state agen­cies to pre­file leg­is­la­tion 45 days in advance of a ses­sion. Cannabid­i­ol is not in the pro­posed leg­is­la­tion for 2015 or 2016, so what hap­pened to it?

Senator Steven J. Sodders

Sen­a­tor Steven J. Sod­ders

So, we’ve estab­lished through this open records request that the usu­al process used to noti­fy the leg­is­la­ture did not take place. On Jan­u­ary 16, 2015, Sen­a­tor Steven Sod­ders invit­ed the exec­u­tive direc­tor of the phar­ma­cy board to attend the hear­ing on his pro­pos­al (SSB1005) to trans­fer mar­i­jua­na from sched­ule 1 to sched­ule 2. Remem­ber now, the board just vot­ed against this on Jan­u­ary 5, 2015. But, the board actu­al­ly did vote to trans­fer mar­i­jua­na from sched­ule 1 to sched­ule 2 in 2010. Can you say mixed sig­nals?

Invi­ta­tion to Hear­ing on SSB1005 Jan­u­ary 16, 2015: Invi­ta­tion to Hear­ing on SSB1005 50 KB
Can­cel­la­tion of Hear­ing on SSB1005 Jan­u­ary 20, 2015: Can­cel­la­tion of Hear­ing on SSB1005 15 KB

The last entry for SSB1005 is Jan­u­ary 14, 2015. The pro­posed meet­ing on Jan­u­ary 20, 2015, nev­er took place.

How­ev­er, this was not the end of it. Toward the end of the leg­isla­tive ses­sion, the Democ­rats decid­ed to get aggres­sive and intro­duced a med­ical mar­i­jua­na bill. In prepa­ra­tion, the phar­ma­cy board was again invit­ed to par­tic­pate. The exec­u­tive direc­tor of the phar­ma­cy board resigned sud­den­ly and unex­pect­ed­ly at the end of March 2015. So, the inter­im direc­tor, Ter­ry Witkows­ki, pro­vid­ed input to the Repub­li­can Cau­cus Staff. I’m guess­ing this is because Sen­a­tor Charles Schnei­der sent me an email on April 19, 2015, remind­ing me that he vot­ed in favor of trans­fer­ring mar­i­jua­na from sched­ule 1 to sched­ule 2 at the inter­im study com­mit­tee hear­ing on Sep­tem­ber 11, 2014.

Email from Ter­ry Witkows­ki to Josh Bron­sink April 7, 2015: Email to Repub­li­can Cau­cus Staff 438 KB
Attach­ment #1 Jan­u­ary 14, 2015, Rec­om­men­da­tion from the Phar­ma­cy Board 341 KB
Attach­ment #2 Feb­ru­ary 17, 2010, Rec­om­men­da­tion from the Phar­ma­cy Board 9 KB
Attach­ment #3 Feb­ru­ary 17, 2010, Min­utes from the Phar­ma­cy Board 95 KB

On April 14, 2015, Sen­a­tor Sod­ders filed an amend­ment to SF 484, which would trans­fer mar­i­jua­na from sched­ule 1 to sched­ule 2, S-3123. All of the Repub­li­cans in atten­dance on April 15, 2015, vot­ed in favor of S-3123 by a vote of 44–0-6, but then vot­ed against SF 484 which nar­row­ly passed by a vote of 26–19-5.

Again, on April 30, 2015, Sen­a­tor Sod­ders filed an amend­ment to HF 567, which would trans­fer mar­i­jua­na from sched­ule 1 to sched­ule 2, S-3148, which nar­row­ly passed on May 5, 2015, by a vote of 27–23.

These two bills, SF 484 and HF 567 are cur­rent­ly pend­ing in the Iowa House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. HF 567 has already been passed in the Iowa House, but the amend­ment, H-1340 (S-3148 in the Iowa Sen­ate), must still be con­sid­ered before it becomes final.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Iowa Board of Pharmacy Open Records Request 2015

  1. yes being a dieabet­ic for 43 years i believe it could help since most my pain meds dont and helps save the eye­shav­ing over 26 eye surg­eries so many dr says no more room for surgery in left eye

  2. Being a Viet­Nam (69–70) vet­er­an with PTSD, you would think the phar­ma­cy board would be open mind­ed to new tech­niques in treat­ing ill­ness­es. Oth­er states have rec­og­nized these ben­e­fits. Why does our state always lead from the rear? Our cit­i­zens need this NOW.

    • Carl Olsen says:

      It is not the phar­ma­cy board’s role to approve new con­di­tions. States that do have pub­lic health depart­ments adding con­di­tions do it because that state enact­ed a law giv­ing them that duty. Our phar­ma­cy board has not been giv­en that duty by our leg­is­la­ture, and I doubt they ever will. Usu­al­ly states assign that duty to the state depart­ment of health, not to a phar­ma­cy board.

Leave a Reply