| Complaint: | Complaint 22-94 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Melanie Rettler |
| Premises: | Unknown |
| Related: | 21-96, 22-51 |
First, let's begin with some context. On very infrequent occasions, the veterinary board actually tries to rescind a license, and on many of those occasions, they hold a formal hearing. It's an exciting time where the same people who voted to hold a hearing are the judges in that hearing, and the entire proceeding tastes chewy with a distinct flavor of kangaroo court. They almost never do that, which is what makes Melanie Rettler all the more special; between her rants at school board meetings and the fact she refuses to pay them a license fee penalty, the board finally had enough.
Rettler's defense strategy is outside the box. Regarding accusations of racism in 22-51, some people might take the high road and argue that one's personal beliefs should have no impact on their professional licensure status. Rettler, on the other hand, first states that she's been the target of a death-threat and harassment campaign (not implausible) and then goes on to state that the complainant in 22-51 "is just a psycho probably democrat, probably jew trying to cause trouble." Rettler also says that the complainant "will be held accountable by me since I know you can't do anything to 'protect the public' from idiots."
Setting aside one's own personal feelings about Rettler, it's worth reading how this all started. It appears that much of this trouble came from a boo-boo with the board regarding a lapsed veterinary license. She claims that she actually intended to renew both her premises and her veterinary license but some kind of problem must have occurred; she notes that she had maintained her license for 30 years and even discovered the problem with her license after attempting to renew it the following year. She notes that during an informal hearing about her lapse, she was required to pay a $1000 fine and take six hours of continuing education; she also claims that one of the board members actually wanted to charge a $2000 fine until she learned that she couldn't legally do that. Faced with an unreasonable punishment, she notes that she told the Board to "fuck off."
She's not wrong about the punishment not fitting the crime; veterinarians have harmed and even killed pets, sometimes horribly, only to get far less. Some vets seem to be on a perpetual loop where they keep appearing before the Board for their faults yet get rinsed off for another cycle in the wash.
Where she starts to make considerably less sense is when she starts citing the "original" 13th and 14th amendments that apparently, among other things, prohibit government officials from exercising any special privileges over other citizens (including occupational licensing), prohibits lawyers from holding public office (thereby rendering the Veterinary Practice Act itself null and void because it was drawn up by lawyers), and protects veterinarians from paying a license fee (because it's really slavery).
It's interesting to see a veterinarian arguing against occupational licensing, particularly given that economic analysis often attributes the existence of professional licensing systems to rent-seeking behavior on the part of its beneficiaries. Consider that the vet board has a mission to sue horse-massagers, investigate whether vet techs are giving shots without veterinarians being involved, and admonish veterinarians for insufficiently accurate logs of happy juice; when an actual medical complaint shows up they're typically dispatched with great aplomb and a disturbing lack of rational thought.
Rettler, despite being an unsavory character with a variety of alleged problems mental and otherwise, isn't being accused of actually maiming or killing a pet, yet she's the target of one of the veterinary board's most severe actions in recent memory. Even granting that she's bonkers, being bonkers doesn't appear to be disqualifying based on precedent. What is disqualifying is not coughing up the cash.
| Source: | March 3, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | J Greg Byrne |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Absent |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | May 5, 2022 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Robyn Jaynes |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Craig Nausley | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Melissa Thompson | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | Order 22094 (June 6, 2022) |
|---|---|
| Violations: | |
| A.R.S. ยง 32-2232(18) violating o attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, or assisting or abetting the violation or conspiracy to violate any of the provisions of this chapter, a rule adopted by, the Board or a written order of the Board. | |
| Penalties: | |
| Revocation of license | |
The primary source for the above summary was obtained as a public record from the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. You are welcome to review the original records and board meeting minutes by clicking the relevant links. While we endeavor to provide an accurate summary of the complaint, response, investigative reports and board actions, we encourage you to review the primary sources and come to your own conclusions. In some cases we have also been able to reach out to individuals with knowledge of specific complaints, and where possible that information will be included here.