Let me be perfectly clear when I tell you that I believe that 90-95% of all of the associates coming out of school have their heads and their hearts in the right places. You're doing the right thing and you're doing it the right way!! This article is written with the <10% of those that are trying to affect self-serving changes to existing Board rules. With that in mind...

I think I'll take a page out of the Entitled Associates Handbook this week and with tongue firmly implanted in-cheek, see if their logic works for me, the Supervisor. What's good for the goose is good for the goose's supervisor, right?

What Do They Want?

A quick recap of points some associates would like to see made the official law of the land include: (I say "official" because there are quite a few of them who have already made up their own rules in defiance of the LPC Board and have put them into play, running their own practices as we speak!)

Objective #1: They want more money.

Make no mistake, their efforts are entirely money motivated. One has only to listen to the last LPC Board meeting during which they said exactly that in the public feedback segment.

Their faux argument about helping lonely, under-served people in rural Texas is all smoke and I can't help it if they have school debt out the ying-yang. Not my problem to own or solve.

Note: I'm still waiting for the name of the first associate who has (illegally) opened up a practice in a rural TX town, population 3,000 or less, and is billing $90-120 self-pay!

Objective #2: They don't want to wait.

No training required prior to running their own practice. They want to be able to run their own practice immediately upon obtaining their Associate designation. In other words, see Joe Citizen with only 300 practicum hours under their belt.

Note: Their actual arguments for rules changes for obtaining the two objectives above can be found in this post, or this one, this one too, and even in this one. And don't forget this one.

So, Let's Play By Their Rules!

Right now we have to wait 5 years after full licensure and take a 40 hour course to teach us how to handle supervision tasks, services agreements, remediation plan protocol, logs, and compliance issues. (How mean is that?)

Then we have to take 6 extra hours of CE every two years to keep the "S" (Like, really?). And I haven't even gotten to all the required paper-work, lost revenue, being on call 24/7 for my associates or potential liability I'm assuming.

So keeping in mind the two simple objectives that the Associates want to achieve, I'm "seriously" contemplating 5 proposed rules changes for supervisors that incorporate the same objectives they want. Want to hear 'em?

5 Proposed Rules Changes For Supervisors

Proposed Change #1: That no 5 year waiting period be required before obtaining the "S" designation.

"We don't need no stinking experience!" If that argument works for the associates.....

Proposed Change #2: That no training of any kind be necessary to be a supervisor.

As soon as full licensure is obtained one may hold themselves out as a supervisor. Why not? Who has an extra 40 hours to sit through some class designed to protect the associates and Joe Citizen?? Again, if it works for the associates...

Proposed Change #3: That no additional CE hours be required to maintain a Supervisory designation.

That takes time, patience and money. After all, we have overhead expenses to worry about paying! If associates don't have to wait out the 3000 hours to begin a practice, why should I have to wait on anything?

Proposed Change #4: Eliminate all associate-reporting paperwork.

This would free up a lot of time for the Supervisor to make more money seeing clients. Who needs paperwork? The whole, "no accountability" thing works for me, too!

Possible concession: Maybe only (1) form be required each year per associate? This form would indicate only that the associate is "Pass" or "Fail". (No need to track hours or performance. If they paid my fee, "pass 'em!" Remember, this is all about the money, right?!)

Proposed Change #5: That the supervisors be required to charge associates a minimum of 1.5 times their average client rate.

This would help offset lost revenue from time spent mentoring poorly prepared students with misguided expectations who threaten our licenses with their defiant behavior. This would also help me build my legal fund in the event my associate screws up and that liability lands in my lap.

Summary

I want less training, less waiting, less paperwork, and more money, too! If the associates can have that then why can't their Supervisors?

(Notice how Joe Citizen is noticeably not the main focus of this discussion?!)

Oh, one more thought for you. Most of the Board members are Supervisors. Except for (1) notable exception, all I've heard so far is a lot of spineless chatter intended to avoid offending anyone, then kick the can to BHEC.

This is not rocket-surgery, folks. I've laid it all out for you in this and 4-5 prior posts mentioned above so what's the real problem?

Joe Citizen is not best-served by the proposed changes. End of request.

What do you think? Comment below.

Plan Smart. Be Safe. Serve Others.

Kathleen Mills, LPC-S, CEAP