The North Dakota Board of Nursing on Thursday revised its criminal history record check policies and discussed how to proceed in an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing on the part of its executive director.

Shelly Peterson, president of the North Dakota Long Term Care Association, issued a letter July 11 to the governor's office, the attorney general's office and the Board of Nursing, outlining concerns about the board's plan to implement criminal history checks. The letter, also signed by Arnold Thomas with the North Dakota Healthcare Association, also addressed a potential conflict of interest on the part of Connie Kalanek, executive director of the board.

Kalanek's son, Bill Kalanek, is a part owner of IDMetryx, a local vendor originally chosen by the board to process the criminal history record checks.

The board of nursing, like several other state agencies and boards, was given the ability by the 2007 Legislature to require criminal history record checks for various purposes. In March of this year, the board approved a plan to require all license-seekers to go through such checks as of July 1.

However, the plan was put on hold due to potential problems with how the checks would be conducted, meaning only temporary, non-renewable licenses could be issued by the board since the beginning of the month. The temporary licenses allow people to work until the criminal history record checks are completed.

The board had approved ID Metryx to process criminal history record checks, take fingerprints and submit the applicants' information to the state Bureau of Criminal Investigation. ID Metryx would have charged $90, which would have covered fingerprinting and fees for BCI to perform state checks and submit fingerprints to the FBI for federal criminal history checks. All fingerprint-based criminal history checks in North Dakota have to be submitted through BCI.

Questions were raised over whether applicants could get the fingerprints done by local law enforcement, then have them submitted directly to BCI, rather than go through an outside vendor. Fingerprinting by local law enforcement agencies typically runs from $5 to $10, and the cost of state and federal background checks by BCI is $47.25.

Ken Tupa, part-owner of ID Metryx, said Wednesday questions regarding whether applicants had a choice about where to go prompted ID Metryx to suspend its services for the time being.

At the board's annual meeting, which started Thursday and runs through today, members discussed changes to make the criminal history background check process more clear.

The board unanimously approved revisions to the policy tha include a process by which the board of nursing will coordinate the criminal history record checks with BCI, rather than have an outside vendor facilitate the process.

The changes included charging a $15 administrative fee to have the information run through the board of nursing. The fee first was proposed as $35 but was lowered after board treasurer Mary Tello-Pool voiced opposition. Tello-Pool said the $35 may be unnecessarily high and could be a barrier to people applying for licenses.

Kalanek explained that the fee would be necessary to pay additional staff members to process paperwork in relation to the criminal history record checks. After some discussion, the board decided to lower the rate to $15, which can be reevaluated if later deemed to be too low.

"$10 to $15, I think, would be doable," Tello-Pool said.

Approved vendors still will be allowed to take fingerprints and complete submission information for submission to BCI, if an applicant chooses to go that route. The board on Thursday also set up guidelines and a request for proposal for vendors interested in providing such services.

The guidelines first presented to the board on Thursday included requirements for vendors to "conduct fingerprinting through biometrics, including electronic Live Scan and Fingerprint Enrollment system" and to have "online services to complete the application process and make an appointment for fingerprinting." Tello-Pool again voiced opposition, saying the requirements would be an unnessary barrier to most potential vendors.

Law enforcement agencies do not use the fingerprinting techniques described in the original guidelines, and not every company has such online services, Tello-Pool pointed out. She said the guidelines seemed to have been set up for IDMetryx to come in as the only approved vendor.

Tello-Pool, a licensed private investigator, said private investigators may be interested in providing such services in areas where law enforcement may not have the resources to provide fingerprinting services. She said she would not be interested, as she would consider it a conflict of interest because of her position on the board.

The revised guidelines, which passed unanimously, require vendors to have fingerprint technicians trained by the FBI or other approved entities; to set up a written notification system with the board to verify registration for fingerprints and notification of completion of prints; and to complete the submission of applications and fees to BCI.

Also discussed at the meeting was the letter from Peterson and Anderson. Brian Bergeson, a special assistant attorney general who represents the board of nursing, said the letter asked for an "independent investigation" into whether Kalanek violated state law, including the Nurse Practices Act, by not identifying her relationship to IDMetryx.

Kalanek and Tupa told the Tribune on Wednesday that Kalanek had disclosed to the board that her son, Bill Kalanek, was a part-owner in the company. However, Tello-Pool disputed that, saying no mention of Kalanek's son was made during a presentation from IDMetryx. The presentation referred to the company as "ID Metryx by APT," she said. She added that Tupa was not at the presentation and would not have known if the information had been disclosed.

Bergeson said parts of the letter referring to whether the original selection of IDMetryx as a vendor complied with state procurement requirements may not have merit. Since no money would have exchanged hands directly from the board of nursing to IDMetryx, state procurement requirements would not apply, Bergeson believes.

Bergeson said the complaint against Kalanek, who was present during the discussion into the letter but did not speak, should be handled like a complaint against any other nurse. He explained that such complaints usually are referred to a disciplinary review panel. However, board members make up the panel, which would not be seen as independent.

The board authorized Bergeson to confer with the attorney general's office about putting together an independent panel to review the complaint and to respond to Peterson and Anderson.

(Reach reporter Jenny Michael at 250-8225 or jenny.michael@bismarcktribune.com.)