Los Angeles herald., 1909-07-10
WANT TO GUST
ENTIRE BOARD
STATE OPTOMETRY OFFICERS
UNDER FIRE
DIR. FRED A. DETMERs' REMOVAL
is DEMANDED
Governor Glllett Appealed to and
Specific Charges Are Made
Against Los Angeles
Member

a doubt. Gross neglect of duty as
state officials is charged against the
of the board and the governor
has been asked to remove them from
office.
Several petitions have been sent to
Governor Gillett calling his attention
to alleged shortcomings in the conduct
Of the boards affairs. The latest pc
tition was sent July T. and asks for
the removal of DIR. Fred w. A. Detmers
Of Los Angeles, president of the state
board. About a score of signatures
have been obtained to the petitions and
they have been placed before Governor
Gillett. All of the signers are licensed
optometrists
The petitions set forth alleged facts
that in all probability will call for a
sweeping investigation if the governor
decides to take any action. Edward
l.. Hutchison has been employed as
attorney for the local optometrists, and
1t was through him that a report for
1908 was obtained a few days ago.
Demand Detmers' Removal
He prepared the petitions sent Gov
ernor Gillett in regular legal form. The
last petition sent. following the one
Is a direct demand for the removal of
DR.. Detmers, and contains charges
against him as a state official of a
more or less serious nature.
The petition reads as follows:
The undersigned, practitioners of
optometry, of long experience and
regularly licensed. hereby petition
you to remove from office the pres
ent chief officer of the state board
of examiners in optometry, Mr..
Detmers, for the following reasons:
In, n oh a
large fees and a percentage in other
fees, he is now conducting and Cor
several years last past has been
conducting an office alleged to be
in the line of optometry, in the city
of Los Angeles, California, at 354
South Broadway in said city, in
which office but a sham of practice
in said profession has been carried
on, and from which said office said
Detmers has been sending, and is
still continuing to send, patients to
be examined in an office other than
his own, In order, as he says, to as
certain what sort of glasses or
treatment may be necessary to said
patients. and from which other Of
flee or place of business said clients
are directed to return to said Det-
mers to be fitted, after examination
and direction and prescription.
That in said office, for a consid-
erable portion of the last three
years, there have been employed
persons as refractionists who never
were regularly licensed, or licensed
at all, for such practice, under the
laws of the state of California, and
which lack of license on the part of
said practitioners said DetmerS well
knew, and which practice he ar
ranged for, connived at and paid
for.
That for some time past said Det-
mers has pursued a policy of in
citing the public generally, by pub
lie speeches and by the public
prints, against certain regular grad
yates and practitioners who were
licensed in optometry, and who
were capable of performing all the
work pertaining to optometry.
That at this particular time, said
Detmers is still protecting certain
unregistered persons who are pcac-
ticing optometry notwithstanding
the rigid laws of this state and In
defiance thereof.
That said Detmers is now and for
a long time past has been, as presi-
dent of said board, long in arrears
in making the required annual re-
port, as required by law, for the
state board of examiners in op-
tometry.
That large collections have beer
made by the state board in the way
of money and fees and fines, and
that much business has been trans
acted by said board, under his di-
rection, without any report what
ever, as your petitioners are in
formed and believe, for more than
two years last past, in defiance Of
law and solely for the personal gain
and advantage of said Detmers and
his associates in business.
Wherefore, your petitioners pray
that said Detmers, president OF said
board of state examiners In OPP
tometry, may be cited to appear to
show cause why he should not be
removed from office for said dere-
fiction in office.
AIIege Maladministration
DIR. George w. Chester and other op-
tometrists in the state, especially more
than a score in Los Angeles, are in
in having the boards duties
in satisfactory and
just manner, but they allege that the
members of the board have failed to
do this and therefore should be re-
moved
"I wrote the secretary of the board,
after personally calling on DR.. Det-
mers, the president, and asked him for
the annual report of the board for
l90S," said Mr.. Hutchison yesterday. IT
got an answer, saying that the matter
had been referred to the boards at
torney Mr.. Hilborn of San Francisco.
Within a few weeks after we had de-
manded the annual report, we received
one from Governor Gillett's private
along with a letter. The re-
{e Oe 1910 The Ia W
provides that the board shall make a
report the first Monday in January of
each year. We charge and can prove
that there never has been a report
made for 1907, and there would not
have been report for 1908 but for the
demand that we made.
Another point | desire to call at
tention to is the language of the act
creating the board. The act was
passed in 1908, amended in 1907 and
again in 1909. 1t is an act to regulate
the practice of optometry and for the
of a board of examiners,
it shall be the duty of the respective
district attorneys to prosecute all vio-
lations of this act
Figures Don't Tally
"Yet we find in the financial state
ment included in the belated report
made June 26 Of this year for 1908 that
$3.50 was paid out as attorneys fees
and $105 for attorneys txpepses. We
also find that for renewal of certificateS
and fines the sum collected was $2995.
The fines are not enumerated. There
are sos optometrists in the state. Each
paying IS would bring the total up to
S29SO or just SIS less than the total
sum collected in both fines and re-
newals.
1--WE know of one man who paid a
dne of 500. The report made by the