At a Senate Workforce Development Committee hearing, lawmakers voted unanimously to give Senate Bill 2395 a do‑pass recommendation after testimony that the measure would create baseline licensing standards and speed approval for professionals licensed in other states.

Supporters said the bill implements recommendations from a multi‑board study conducted by the former state labor commissioner and the Department of Labor, and that the changes are intended to reduce delays in licensure that can impede workforce recruitment.

The bill would establish a set of uniform procedures for occupational licensing boards that the bill applies to, including a 10 business‑day target for issuing licenses once a "routine" or "clean" application is complete, authorization for board staff to issue provisional or temporary licenses until a board can ratify them, a requirement that any state‑specific jurisprudence (law) exam be offered at least monthly, and a limited set of reporting and review obligations for boards.

Nathan Swaholic, who described himself as the former North Dakota labor commissioner and who led the study the bill is based on, told the committee the objective was to remove avoidable barriers for practitioners seeking licensure here. "We want to make sure those peoples can get licensed in a timely fashion," he said, and noted the committee settled on 10 business days after debating shorter time frames. Swaholic described the study as including a 40‑page report, a 53‑question questionnaire issued to boards, and direct meetings with 42 boards subject to the review.

Senator David Hoag (State Senator, Minot, District 38), the bill sponsor in the hearing, told the committee the proposal builds on earlier work from the last legislative session and that it is "trying to achieve a baseline of standards for all of these licensing boards." He distributed an additional amendment he said would carve out the State Board of Law Examiners from some provisions and urged the committee to consider board‑specific concerns.

Board leaders and executive directors from multiple licensing boards — including the Board of Pharmacy, Board of Nursing, Board of Medicine, Board of Dental Examiners, Education Standards and Practices Board, and the State Board of Pharmacy — testified in support. Mark Hardy, executive director of the State Board of Pharmacy, said the board supports the legislation as amended and emphasized the workforce benefit: "The primary goal ... is to ensure applications from out of state are moving into practice as quickly as possible within the state while ensuring the safeguards for the public."

Several boards and representatives also urged caution and offered narrowly targeted amendments. The State Board of Law Examiners testified in opposition on constitutional grounds, saying admission of attorneys has traditionally been regulated by the Supreme Court and the board is appointed by the court. Scott Porrasberg, appearing for the Board of Law Examiners, said the board opposes the original bill and urged protections so the court's role in attorney admission is preserved. Petra Holm, secretary‑treasurer of that board, told the committee the amendment filed earlier in the day addressed some of the board's concerns and asked to retain the board's ability to complete full character and fitness investigations.

The Board of Accountancy told the committee it supports the bill's objectives but sought language to preserve existing interstate mobility mechanisms the CPA profession uses, and noted the board cannot control the frequency of national examinations administered by a national testing organization. The board asked that the bill not unintentionally make licensure for CPAs more burdensome than current statute allows.

Key clarifications and provisions discussed in the hearing included:
- Definition of a "routine" or "clean" application: the 10 business‑day clock begins only once a board receives a completed application, including required transcripts, test scores or background checks; if an applicant is nonresponsive the application is not treated as complete.
- Provisional licensing: board staff would be permitted to issue temporary licenses for routine applications and the board would later ratify those actions.
- Electronic applications: the bill encourages boards to post applications online and use electronic filing where feasible to reduce applicant burden.
- Jurisprudence (state law) exams: if a board requires a North Dakota‑specific law exam, the bill would require it be offered at least monthly.
- Reporting: limited reporting to assess the reform (two reports over the next biennium) covering counts and timeliness of processing under the new standard.
- Interstate compacts and reciprocity: boards that are part of an effective interstate compact, an executed license transfer, or existing reciprocity would be excluded from certain requirements.
- Continuing education: the bill would require boards to offer virtual continuing education options; boards generally supported maintaining current hour requirements but increasing virtual availability.
- Removal and vacancy rules: the bill clarifies gubernatorial authority to remove board members for misconduct or frequent absences and allows board members to continue serving until replaced to avoid quorum gaps.
- Alternative pathways: language creating broad "experience‑based" alternative pathways to licensure was removed from the current version after testimony that it could create unintended public‑safety risks in some professions.

Opponents and some boards recommended specific carve‑outs or clarifying amendments (for example, the State Board of Law Examiners and the Board of Accountancy). The committee adopted an amendment during the session (amendment 01/2002 and related clarifications that excluded the secretary of state's licensing functions from the bill's scope) and then voted to give the bill a do‑pass recommendation as amended. The roll call recorded a unanimous committee vote in favor (Senators Wabamaw, Axman, Larson, Beauche and Powers recorded as "yes").

Discussion in the hearing repeatedly emphasized two aims: (1) to preserve boards' professional and disciplinary judgment while removing procedural delays, and (2) to avoid creating a new centralized bureaucracy above existing boards. Several licensing boards said they prefer targeted statutory changes rather than wholesale administrative centralization.

The committee's action sends SB 2395, as amended, forward with a do‑pass recommendation; the measure and the committee's adopted amendment will be available for consideration by the full body.