Alabama Pharmacy Commission Hearing Post-Resignation
The Alabama Pharmacy Commission underwent scrutiny during an Interim Committee hearing following the resignation of executive director Donna Yettman in January.
Yettman’s departure was linked to a settlement agreement exceeding $250,000—a sum that has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers who view it as an injustice to taxpayers. Pro-Tem Pringle from R-Mobile described the settlement as “dilly” and mentioned that the board was “disliked by its membership.”
“It’s taxpayer money, and I’m fed up with sidestepping the right thing just to dodge lawsuits. They essentially paid to silence former employees,” Pringle expressed.
During a previous tense meeting with the Congressional Sunset Committee, pharmacists had vocally criticized steering committees, likening them to “organized crime” rather than regulators. They also alleged they faced retaliation for questioning established practices or for requesting public records.
In response, Congress moved to significantly reform the agency in the 2025 session. The new law seeks to expand the board from five to nine members, include voices from non-pharmacists like consumer advocates and pharmacy technicians, and prevent future executive secretaries from being part of any boards they’ve previously served on within the last five years—aiming to curb conflicts of interest.
For now, the board is operating under interim leadership while a permanent successor for Yettman is sought. Both Yettman’s resignation and the settlement were sanctioned by the governor’s office and Attorney General Steve Marshall.
Discussions have recently zeroed in on the board’s adherence to Alabama’s public meeting laws. A public account examiner informed lawmakers that the board has been misusing executive sessions and holding private discussions for reasons not allowed by state law.
Jason Hawk, the examiner’s attorney, stated that if the executive session isn’t conducted properly, he could say “certainly 100% sure.” He clarified that while the board is allowed to hold executive sessions for discussing ongoing litigation and allegations, it’s inappropriate to address the next steps during those discussions.
In this instance, Hawk pointed out that meeting minutes suggested a unanimous decision for action, leading to private deliberations inappropriately.
He further noted that the second reason for closing the meeting didn’t align with legal requirements. “Work performance can be discussed in executive sessions, but not for Miss Yettman,” Hawk remarked, dismissing the reasoning as “not usable as a basis.”
The Attorney General’s Office partially backed this assessment. Brad Chynoweth and the AG office told the committee that discussing Yettman’s work performance in the executive session was improper. However, they cautioned against interpreting executive sessions too narrowly.
“It’s crucial for us to provide confidential, privileged legal counsel to our board and committee clients—not just for this committee, but for all, as we need to be transparent about the risks we face,” Chynoweth explained.
“You might want to receive some corrective education on certain legal advisors. Some poor legal advice has been given, and you’re bearing the blame. So I’m warning you… I’ve heard multiple times from other boards about legal violations.”
