Article archive / October 1, 2016
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 10. Source pages: 5, 6.
A task force created by Senate Concurrent Resolution 65 during the last legislative session, and authored by Senator Fred Mills, created the “Task Force on Meaningful Oversight.” The goal was to examine possible structures for oversight of the 25 healthcare boards under the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH). The effort was to deal with the fact that the boards operate autonomously from the department with “virtually no detectable oversight; …” said Senator Mills.
The taskforce met in August and mediators Stephen Russo, Chair, and Attorney Angelique Duhon Freel, Deputy Director Civil Division, Louisiana Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, gave boards a list of questions to answer.
The LSBEP composed its responses and published them in the minutes from a special meeting held September 7. The following are selected questions from Russo and Freel, and answers from the psychology board.
Q: Mechanism, if any, for removal of board members;
A: If the behavior of a board member was found to be unlawful or unethical, the Board would notify either the Inspector General, Attorney General, Board of Ethics and/or Governor’s Office (Boards and Commissions). However, there is no mechanism for “removal” that is specifically written in the psychology statute.
Q: Does the board issue cease and desist letters, and what is the authority, process, and the due process procedures;
A: Under the authority referenced below, [§2351] the board does investigate complaints against unlicensed individuals.
Q: Is there any additional oversight for the rulemaking process;
A: Oversight for Rulemaking occurs at several levels as follows: a. Discussion and opportunity for public comment at Board Meetings prior to filing rules; b. Publication of proposed rules on the Board’s website and also in the LA Register; c. Scheduled hearings or opportunity for public comment or to request hearing on proposed rules; d. Review by the Legislative Fiscal Office which specifically includes review on the following:
Q: What type of training do the board members receive once they are appointed to the board;
A: 1) LSBEP has a Board Member Orientation packet which contains Policy, Procedures, Statutes, Rules, Administrative Procedures Act, Open Meeting Laws, Keesey’s Parliamentary Procedures; 2) Board members are required to annually take online ethics training; 3) New Board Members attend a national association meeting (ASPPB) where they attend a New Board Member Orientation; 4) The Board is a member of the Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards (FARB) which provides training on regulatory issues to Members. In 2014, LA Board’s organized a FARB training for Members and Administration.
Q: Is there currently any training done to educate members on how to recognize actual antitrust issues;
A: The Board is a member of FARB and has organized training at its own expense to educate its membership on antitrust issues. The Board has also begun implementation of a new policy for antitrust training to be conducted annually by the Board’s General Counsel at its Long Range Planning meeting. Q: What areas of training
would the board members like to receive;
A: Any additional training offered by the state agencies that oversee open meetings laws, ethics; understanding the regulatory role versus professional advocacy, would be a welcomed opportunity.
Q: What is the board’s position on including more non-market participants as members on the board;
A: Although the Board would not be opposed to adding ex-officio members serving in an advisory capacity, there is a concern that the addition of any non-market participants on the board would reduce or eliminate altogether the judicial deference afforded to licensing boards by the courts.
Q: What is the board’s position on needed changes in light of the North Carolina Dental case: does the board think it is applicable, what are the board’s concerns, and proposed remedies;
A: The North Carolina Dental case has caused the Board to scrutinize its statutes, regulations, policies and procedures concerning antitrust issues. This review has facilitated the implementation of better defined procedures for handling complaints against non-market participants (including the adoption of the FARB Model for Identifying and Addressing Antitrust Issues); and implementation of an annual antitrust training for members. However, beyond this, it is the Board’s position that the statutes and regulations are clear regarding the scope and limitations of the board to regulate the practice of psychology.
Q: Does the board take the position that there is currently a state supervisor who reviews decisions of the Board; if so, describe and explain whether that person has the power to reverse or modify the board’s decision;
A: It is the Board’s position that, regarding market participants, there is oversight through rule- making, and adjudication of a complaint.
In complaint adjudication, a complainant is ultimately the Board’s witness against a licensee. The parties in an Administrative Complaint include the Board and the Licensee. In decisions which are adverse to the licensee, this Board is required to follow the LA Administrative Procedures Act and offer an opportunity for hearing. In these cases, an administrative law judge oversees the decisions of the board. An opportunity to appeal these decisions are (sic) afforded under La. R.S. §2353. E.
Q: Suggestions for active supervision by the state on market-sensitive decisions;
A: It is the Board’s opinion that the board’s policies and training in conjunction with oversight currently in place (i.e. rule-making and injunctive preceding’s (sic) in the District Courts) is sufficient.
Q: Position on creation of a superagency that would review market-sensitive decisions and would approve, modify or veto the board’s action;
A: The Board maintains that adequate oversight currently exists in market-sensitive decisions involving non-market participants (i.e. the District Attorney; Judicial District Courts; LaRegister; Legislative Fiscal Office; Health and Welfare Oversight Committees).
Q: Is there a concern with participation by board members that wear a dual hat/association appointee, etc.;
A: Participating as an officer in an Association could present a conflict of interest where the Association protects the interests of the market participant and the Board protects the interests of the consumer. There may be ethical and/or legal considerations in dual office holding in some cases. The Board must rely on the Governor’s Office of Boards and Commissions to review and vet these matters and potential conflicts of interest. This Board is not currently dealing with such concerns. Additionally, the Board seeks to improve relations with its association to seek and support the Board’s opinion on legislation that may promote the profession, but potentially harm the public.
Q: Are there specific board prohibitions that address conflicts of interests that may exist for board members;
A: The Board has no prohibition specifically written in its regulations. However, it is the Board’s policy to follow the Open Meetings and Ethics laws.
(The complete text of questions and answers can be found in the minutes of the September 7 meeting, available at http://www.lsbep.org/wp- content/uploads/Minutes-9-7-16- Final-Approved-.pdf)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.