Article archive / January 1, 2013
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 5. Source pages: 8, 9.
On July 24, 2012, the attorney for the Licensed Professional Counselors Board of Examiners sent a letter to the Executive Director of the psychology board, Ms. Kelly Parker, saying that she improperly testified regarding SB 216. SB 216 was a successful effort by LPCs to remove restrictions of a consultation and collaboration clause when LPCs treat individuals with serious mental illness.
In the July 24, 2012, letter, authored by LPC Board General Council, Mr. Steve Adams, wrote:
“The Louisiana Licensed Professional Counselors Board of Examiners was surprised that you, as a paid representative of your Board, actively lobbied against, and testified against, SB 216 at the Senate Health and Welfare Committee hearing on April 25, 2012. “We believe that this action was improper, unethical and possibly illegal, in that you utilized state funds to openly attempt to influence the outcome of legislation pending before the Legislature. “Louisiana RS 28:56 (F), provides as follows: F. No state employee in his official capacity or on behalf of his employer shall lobby for or against any matter intended to have the effect of law pending before the legislature or any committee thereof. Nothing herein shall prohibit the dissemination of factual information relative to any such matter or the use of public meeting rooms or meeting facilities available to all citizens to lobby for or against any such matter. “You appear to have violated this provision when you filled out the Committee's "red cards", and actively testified against the bill. “As a courtesy to you and your Board. we are attempting to resolve this issue Informally before referring this matter to appropriate state agencies for their review. and action. “We would appreciate a response to the concerns stated herein.”
In a letter dated August 2, 2012, Council for the psychology board, Mr. Loyd Lunceford, wrote back saying:
[…] “Your letter asserts that Ms. Parker engaged in action that you believe is ‘improper, unethical, and possibly illegal’, by ‘utilize(ing) state funds to openly attempt to influence the outcome of legislation pending before the Legislature.’ “You quote a provision (incorrectly cited as R.S. 28:56(F) but properly cited as La. R.S. 24:56(F)), which provides that no state employee in his official capacity or on behalf of his employer shall lobby for or against a matter pending before the Legislature. “Respectfully, your allegations against Ms. Parker are unwarranted. No state funds were utilized. The LSBEP does not receive state funds. Its budget, including Ms. Parker's salary, is entirely funded from licensing application fees and renewal fees . See La. R.S. 37:2353(G). Additionally, Ms. Parker does not qualify as a ‘lobbyist’ as that term is defined at La. R.S. 24:51(5)(a)(i) and (ii). Lobbying does not constitute one of the principal duties of Ms. Parker's employment. ‘Principal duty’ is defined at R.S. 24:51 (8) as any duty which is expected to account for 20% or more of a person's time in fulfilling the terms of his or her engagement. Ms. Parker's job duties as they relate to pending legislation do not come anywhere near the 20% threshold. Ms. Parker's testimony at the Senate Health and Welfare Committee hearing on April 25, 2012 was unanticipated, prompted by someone else's unexpected absence, and peripheral to her normal duties as LSBEP Executive Director. Because she does not meet the statutory definition of ‘lobbyist’, she was not engaged in ‘lobbying’. “As you know, representatives of state licensing boards, including those representing your client (the LPC Board), often appear in committee to testify concerning pending legislation. Cards sometimes filled out in haste may not always accurately reflect the substance of the testimony. I note, for example, that Dr. Cecelia Mouton, Director of Investigations for the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, filled out cards on April 25th both ‘in opposition’ and ‘for information only’ regarding SB 216. When Ms. Parker appeared in committee on April 25th she was acting in a manner consistent with the responsibilities of the LSBEP. The LSBEP does not advocate for the special interests of a particular profession but serves the health and welfare of the general public by licensing those who wish to engage in the authorized practice of psychology, regulating those who are so licensed, and policing against the unlicensed practice of psychology. Of course, any comments provided for informational purposes (irrespective of the color of the card that was filled out), will in the minds of legislators necessarily have implications that bear on the merits of legislation under consideration. However, this does not convert everyone who testifies into a lobbyist as that term is defined in Louisiana law. “The LSBEP thanks you for bringing your concerns to its attention.
Going forward, it will continue to be mindful, as it has been, of the provisions of Title 24.”
Then on September 27, Adams wrote back, saying:
“Thank you for your letter of August 12 [sic], 2012 relative to the above matter. We certainly do not agree with the legal conclusions you reached, we will not take any further action on the incident in question at this time. “R.S. 24:51, quoted by you, provides only relative to who meets the definition of ‘lobbying’ for purposes of mandatory lobbyist registration. “It does not address the issue of whether your client violated the ban on any lobbying which utilizes state funds. LSBEP operates on ‘State funds’, even though they may be self-generated. Accordingly, we will bring any further activity of this nature to the attention of the Inspector General and/or the Board of Ethics for appropriate action.”
Then on October 4, 2012, Lunceford writes:
“Thank you for your letter of September 27th. My client will not be intimidated by your threats. If my client was in violation of any statute I'm sure you would have cited it, but your letter was notably silent in this regard. You concede that R.S. 24:51 was not violated, but attempt to dismiss it by asserting that it pertains only to mandatory lobbyist registration. That is incorrect. The only definition for a "lobbyist'' found anywhere throughout the Louisiana Revised Statutes is found at R.S. 24:51(5)(a)(i) and (ii)-and Ms. Parker clearly does not fit that definition. “If you know of any other legally controlling definition of a ‘lobbyist’ in Louisiana, please cite me the statute. Otherwise, your energies would better be directed to advising your own client to follow the advice you would give mine, inasmuch as members of the LPC Board have over the years repeatedly testified in committee advocating for or against pending bills.”
Editor’s note: The issue was documented in the LPC board’s minutes and the Times requested the letters. The LPC board provided them to the Times as a matter of public record.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.