We witnessed another disappointing LPC Board failure at the last meeting on Nov 12th. The Board pushed through a measure that would allow associates to run their own practice. Wait, wait! Hear me out.

I can accept a loss so what's got me so stirred up? I'm not going to litigate the many reasons as to why I think that's a really bad idea (and so do 87% of the Supervisors we surveyed) as I've done that elsewhere numerous times. There are two primary points I'd like to make today.

What About Joe?

I call it a failure not because the vote didn't go my way but primarily because it failed to adequately take into account the safety of Joe Citizen. The safety of the public has been rail-roaded on this point from the very beginning (why is that??) and all one has to do to realize the accuracy of that statement is watch the last 3 LPC Board meeting recordings. Sum the time given to the topic of Joe C. vs what Associates want, and form your own conclusion.

Board-Level Issue: Public Feedback Ignored

There is an elaborate rules approval process put into place by BHEC to protect the public but it's only going to work if the Board has the same focus as does BHEC and its' mandate (see Agency Mission and Philosophy, first sentence). At least one of the steps in the approval process is the public feedback step. It's there by law and it's there for a reason.

A sizeable public feedback against the measure was ignored and not discussed in any detail as if it never happened! In fact, it was dismissed without any consideration for the volume or tone of the input. Apparently public feedback is just a cosmetic step in the approval process to the LPC Board.

You can watch the cavalier manner in which the public feedback step of the approval process was side-stepped by the non-counselor attorney running the proceedings ("I don't see anything new here"), by watching the video of the discussion of this agenda point which begins at about the :30 minute mark. Don't worry, the public feedback discussion is very short!

What's the Problem With Our Board?

I'm gonna say it. The Board's being ruddered by lawyers with no counseling experience, and the Board is staffed with academics and loyal association members with apparent agendas of their own. In order for their narratives to be advanced, the Primary Objective (safety of Joe) has to be demoted to a secondary talking point (or worse) in the approval process. I seriously question their motives and goals. Only ONE board member voted against this measure, citing public safety as her reason in a previous Board meeting. One.

What's Next? What's Our Next Move?

The (potentially) final step in the approval process for this rule is for BHEC to either approve, deny, or suggest potential amendments to the rules change request. If I'm not mistaken, any objections have to be based primarily upon the protection of Joe Citizen, and whether or not the new rule comports with existing state law, in that order. I guess we'll see how well this system works won't we?

I'm still convinced this is a brilliant process but it won't work unless common sense and a primary commitment to Joe Citizen and the safety of all counselors is utilized at the Board level.

Summary

I can accept an "L" in the loss column and deal with it. What I cannot and will not accept is a Board that fails to process things through a filter that puts Joe and the safety of all counselors first. If listening to the counselors they represent, and protecting Joe is not their primary agenda, then who's agenda are they promoting? That scares and infuriates me. It'll be interesting to see what BHEC does with this at their February meeting.

To end on a positive note, if this thing gets past BHEC then I'll accept it, wish the Associates well and move on. From my own experience I would also strongly urge them (and their contracted supervisors) to begin a legal defense fund to cover the cost of the complaints and lawsuits they are bound to receive. Supervisors, don't kid yourself about being immune from prosecution!

As for me, I'll amend my Supervision Services Agreement (blog post coming soon) and will not be accepting any Associates who plan to run their own practice during their time with me. I have an obligation to protect Joe, especially if the Board won't do it. Your thoughts in the comments below, please.

Plan Smart. Be Safe. Serve Others.

Kathleen Mills, LPC-S, CEAP