When I read the article and the editorial I knew that many people will cheer the limiting of licenses to those with criminal histories, but I think they tend to focus on horrific crimes and don’t realize the impact made on people who commit crimes due to a lack of knowledge or because they are young or with the best of intentions.  If you do not speak to such people daily, then you cannot know the heartache and problems for the licensee or the ultimate ramifications for the public.  What about a licensee who is wrongly accused (it happens more than you think:  bad investigations, witness lies, evidence corrupted) and then convicted (Oh, and it does not matter the licensee received deferred adjudication since some regulatory boards consider deferred adjudications as convictions.).  A situation I have seen over and over is during a divorce or custody hearing, one of the spouses accuses the other of some crime and then lie or plant evidence; the other spouse is sure the law will find on their side since they are obviously innocent, but the legal system does not always work that way, so the innocent ex-spouse is now facing an investigation by the regulatory board.  The criminal incident has nothing to do with the licensee’s profession, but the licensee is investigated then disciplined and  loses their job and is now on public assistance because no one wants to hire them.  It happens again and again, professionals attempting to find work outside of their profession will not be hired because the potential employers think they will leave too soon, are too over-qualified, will challenge them for their position etc and a highly educated professional remains unemployed.

Mr. Dexheimer discusses so many cases where the state’s result does not appear to be justified; that there is no nexus between the criminal charge and the practice of that particular profession.   One of the examples involves pharmacist Emmanuel Kanu who lost his pharmacist license, not because of patient care issues or as a result of actions which could harm the people of Texas (potential patients/clients), but because he did not complete the proper documentation when he sent donated medications to a clinic in a third world county.  Mr. Kanu, a pharmacist with no patient care issues for 17 years, is now removed from being able to care for the Texas public for 10 years; how is this outcome reasonable or just? Would one consider Mr. Kanu to be a criminal?  Is his failure to submit the proper documentation in order to send these medications so heinous that we need to waste tax payer funds to convict him and then remove him from the professional workforce?

I also fear the public will ignore the message of this article (and the subsequent editorial) because it deals with “ex-cons” or those with criminal incidents when the message is so much more–the regulatory agencies are vested with great power and there can be an unfair and unjust tendency to abuse and overuse that power; once again, it depends on the individuals within the agency–there are some excellent staff members who warrant great respect, but there are also some who are not protecting the public, they are just punishing.

The problem our attorneys face is most licensees cannot afford to fight the regulatory boards and they are faced with accepting discipline which is not warranted or in some cases, even legal.  But, it is not clear sailing for those licensees that do choose to fight because as seen in Mr. Dexheimer’s article,  like Mr. Kanu, the licensee pays the money to fight the regulatory board, the licensee wins at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) only to have the case overturned by the regulatory board.  This is such a wide spread problem that our attorneys testified during the last Legislative session urging Texas lawmakers to support a bill which would make SOAH decisions final and if either party wanted to appeal at district court, they could do so.  Making SOAH decisions final avoids the “second chance at the licensee” actions which occur now when boards overturn SOAH Judge recommendations.  Making SOAH decisions final levels the process and makes it fair for all involved.

These are problems which should be addressed and the regulatory system, if it is going to be vested with so much independent power, should be fair and just and able to stand up to scrutiny.  Ask yourself, who is on the side of the licensee?  Who is making sure there are enough professionals to provide care to the people of Texas?  Is the system driving good professionals out of practice or turning them into cynics who no longer see the benefit in caring?  The public, the boards, and licensees need to be aware of all sides of a situation; not jump to conclusions; and consider the ultimate impact on all.

1)      clarify the meaning of non-therapeutic relationships;

2)       clarify how an LPC-Intern should advertise;

3)      clarify that a course in each core area of study must be taken as a requirement for licensure;

4)      allow for supervision via live internet webcam.

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY LPC Rule Changes

Section 681.14(a)(10) has been added to authorize the board to charge a fee of $50 for pre-evaluation of a criminal history for eligibility for future licensure.

New §681.17 authorizes the board to pre-evaluate a criminal history by request of future licensees.

Section 681.41(e)(6) is amended to require LPC Interns to provide their supervisor’s name on all documentation.

Section 681.41(j) is amended to allow LPCs to promote and sell products to clients as long as it is for a therapeutic purpose and does not hamper the counseling relationship.

Section 681.41(l) is amended to clarify a dual relationship. REMOVES LANGUAGE REGARDING DUAL RELATIONSHIP AND SIMPLY STATES NON-THERAPUETIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH CLIENTS ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS THEY OCCUR TWO YEARS AFTER THERAPY TERMINATED OR IN THE CASE OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS—FIVE YEARS AFTER THERAPY TERMINATED.

Section 681.42(e)(2) is amended to clarify language. REMOVED THE WORD “Inappropriate” regarding seductive, sexual behavior and sexual comments.

Section 681.48(a) is amended to require LPC Interns to provide their supervisor’s name on all documentation. In addition, §681.48(e) is added to require LPC Interns to inform clients of their supervisor’s name, telephone number, and address.

Section 681.49(d) is amended to ensure the understanding that all degrees must be accepted and reported by American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. THIS REFERS TO ADVERTISING AND THAT A DEGREE MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY AACR

Section 681.52(e) is amended to require LPC Interns to provide their supervisor’s name on all documentation.

Section 681.72(d) is amended to require the supervisor’s renewal card to be submitted with the supervisor agreement form.

Section 681.83(a) is amended to clarify that an applicant must take at least one course in each of the core areas. REMOVES LANGUAGE:  “obtain academic course work”

Section 681.92(g) is amended to allow supervision over the Internet using live Internet webcam.

Section 681.93(e)(2), (4), and (6) is amended with minor editorial revisions in grammar, renumbering within the section, and removing unnecessary existing language.

Section 681.93(k) is amended to clarify the requirement for repayment of supervision fees.

Section 681.111(g) is amended to ensure the understanding that all degrees must be accepted and reported by American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Section 681.125(e) is amended to remove repetitive language.

Section 681.142(b) is deleted to disallow carry over of continuing education credit.

Section 681.164(d)(6) is amended to clarify the rule. Removes the words “insurance claim” and leaves the word” fraud.”

Over the weekend, the Governor, Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the House asked all agencies to find 10% cuts from its 2012-2013 Budget. Again, most of these cuts will have to come from employees. This means customer service will suffer, licensure will likely take a little longer, investigations will further slow down its resolution time, and prosecutions will take longer.

I also would not be surprised if all renewal fees were increased.