To Both Professional and Public Members of The Texas LPC Board

Kathleen's Written Submission: A Gentle Reminder

The Sunset Commission drafted a unique concept to ensure that pointless, frivolous, agenda-driven rules were not put into place. They codified it and called it SubChapter B of Rulemaking. It’s a checklist for the procurement of concrete, quantifiable evidence that shall be gathered and submitted to the BHEC Council with any rules change request regardless of its source. Its purpose is to ensure that rules aren’t changed where change is not necessary, so personal agendas are not pursued by those who might lose sight of their true task as board members.

You are obligated by State Law to follow these laws when assessing rules change proposals of any kind, regardless of their source.

The Standards Committee’s frankensteined ce rules change composition was delivered to each board to review with the understanding by every citizen in Texas that each Board would properly adhere to SubChapter B, pages 17-18. Having reviewed SubChapter B multiple times, it is my firm belief the 4 boards, the Council, and maybe even the Sub-Committee, violated, or simply ignored, the specific data procedures sited in SubChapter B. Rulemaking, 881.20 - 881.21.

For the Upcoming LPC Board Meeting

I have 2 questions for the LPC Board to answer publicly and be put on the record at your September 9, 2022 LPC Board Meeting:

1. What is the exact, and current, problem we’re trying to solve with this proposal?

If the petitioner cannot articulate what the nature of the current problem is and the board fails to provide supporting empirical data, then what problem is the rule trying to solve? BTW, “standardization” is still subject to the same supporting data requirements for change as are outlined in SubChapter B.

For a board member to submit a rule change request simply on the grounds that it might "make the world a better place" or satisfy a lobbyist group agenda is inadequate and misguided. That no evidence of a problem needing correction exists is mandatory reason for the BHEC Council to decline it.

2. Where is the list of “significant harm” incidents that have been committed by any ce providing licensee, PRIOR to these proposed changes? Where might we, LPC’s, access the empirical data that would support this proposal’s implied claim?

From what I can see, you have failed so far to produce, on paper, the proof required to support this radical rule change and therefore The Council has a fiduciary duty to the people of Texas to decline the rules change request until such a time as that required proof is re-submitted.

Let’s Not Go-Along to Get-Along

I do not believe the other boards have followed the checklist outlined in SubChapter B. No empirical evidence supporting the need to address any “significant harm” issue was provided, (probably because there isn’t any), and so those requests should have been returned to their respective boards with a request to resubmit with the proper supporting data. The Council FAILED the State of Texas.

That this may constitute a negligence violation is a completely different discussion. Let’s hope the LPC Board has greater long-term vision in that respect than has been shown by the other two Boards. I do not wish for my LPC Board to make the same mistake or commit the same violation, simply because they didn’t “know”.

Possible Solutions

1. Refuse (the Standards Committee) and Withdraw (from BHEC) this complex CE rule in its entirety. There is no current problem with our current set of CE rules.

You are not obligated to do what other boards do even when/if you are feeling pressure to appease other licensing entity compadres, or associations to which you may belong. You must still follow the Rulemaking guidelines even when the standards committee is the petitioner.

Let’s show the other boards we don’t need this type of micro-management especially given the apparent fact that there is no list of complaints against ce providers, no problem to solve. (That some organizations on the Approved Provider list have a known desire to vet all ce providers according to their standards is not a problem to solve, it’s an agenda, and is exactly the type of "problem" The Sunset Commission wanted the boards, and The Council, to avoid.)

2. Table it. Wait, and let time be your ally.

Let's see how the MFT and SW board decisions pan out and learn from their experiences. This is one time where “kicking the can down the road” might be a very wise thing to do. What’s the hurry?

3. Keep This Rule Simple

The one we have now, is working just fine, thank you very much. If you choose to ignore the entire argument presented above then I will defer, in the interest of time, to the suggestions made by Phillip Crum in his written submission on modification suggestions. (To be clear, modifications to the current proposal are mute if you can't define a current problem and provide supporting numbers for it per the BHEC guidelines previously discussed.)

Summary

My prayer is that you trust your licensees to make decisions in the best interest of their practices and their clientele and strike, in it's entirety, this unnecessary, micromanaged CE proposal. As a Board member your primary obligation right now is to the state of Texas, not anyone or anything else.

My husband has a work-working side business. He makes custom furniture pieces for his clients and he has two mantras posted in his garage:

“Measure twice, cut once” and, “No shit leaves the shop”.

That advice has been around a long time for a very good reason. Let’s take our time and get this right, the first time.

Love to hear your comments in the Comments section below.

Plan Smart. Be Safe. Serve Others.

Kathleen Mills, LPC-S, CEAP