The Alabama Board of Pharmacy came under scrutiny during the Joint Interim Sunset Committee Hearing, following the January resignation of its executive secretary, Donna Yeatman, who stepped down after months of controversy and an audit that revealed widespread problems inside the agency.
Yeatman’s departure came under a settlement agreement worth more than $250,000, a payout that lawmakers have sharply criticized as unfair to taxpayers. House Pro-Tem Chris Pringle, R-Mobile, called the settlement “ridiculous,” and said the board is “detested by its membership.”
“It’s the taxpayers’ money, and I’m tired of them using that money to buy the silence of their former employees in order to avoid litigation of the stuff they’ve done that’s not right,” said Pringle.
Previously, at tense hearings before the Legislature’s Sunset Committee, pharmacists accused the board of operating more like “organized crime” than a regulatory agency, alleging retaliation against those who questioned its practices or requested public records.
In response, the Legislature passed a sweeping overhaul of the agency in the 2025 session. The law expands the board from five to nine members, adds non-pharmacist voices such as a consumer representative and a pharmacy technician and prohibits future executive secretaries from having worked for the board within the prior five years, aimed at reducing conflicts of interest.
For now, the board is operating under interim leadership while searching for Yeatman’s permanent successor. Yeatman’s resignation and settlement were approved by the Governor’s Office and Attorney General Steve Marshall.
The most pointed exchanges centered on the Board’s compliance with Alabama’s Open Meetings Act. The Examiners of Public Accounts told lawmakers the Board had misused executive sessions, going behind closed doors for reasons that state law does not allow.
Jason Hawk, an attorney with the Examiners, said he could say “with 100 percent certainty” that this executive session was not handled correctly. He explained that while boards are permitted to enter executive session to discuss pending litigation and allegations, it is inappropriate to discuss next actions to take at that time.
Yet in this case, Hawk noted, the minutes reflected a unanimous vote to take action, suggesting that deliberations had occurred in private.
He added that the second reason given for closing the meeting failed to comply with the law. “Job performance can be discussed in executive session … but not for Miss Yeatman,” Hawk said, calling the rationale “unavailable as a basis.”
The Attorney General’s office partly backed that assessment. Brad Chynoweth with the AG’s office told the committee that discussing Yeatman’s job performance in executive session was inappropriate. However, executive sessions should not be interpreted too narrowly.
“It is very important for us, not just with respect to this board, but with respect to all boards, to be able to give confidential, privileged legal advice to our board and commission clients because we need to be candid with them about the risk they may be facing,” said Chynoweth.
“Y’all might want to do some remedial education on some of these attorneys. There’s some bad legal advice being given, and people are blaming you all for it. So I’m just going to caution you… I’ve heard this several times from other boards where they have broken the law and said they did it under advice of counsel with the approval of the attorney general’s office, so we need to address it,” said Pringle.
