Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 7. Source pages: 8.
From the Minutes Selected Items from May 2021 Minutes of the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (LSBEP)
Friday, May 21, 2021 Executive Committee Report – Ms. Monic reported on the following: a. Legislative Performance Audit – The Legislative Auditor has begun performance audits of the mental health boards. Ms. Monic was informed that following the LPC Board of Examiners, LSBEP will be subject to audit in late August 2021. b. The matter Richard Marksbury vs. LSBEP is currently being litigated in the La. 1st Circuit. LSBEP has requested dismissal. g. Meetings/appearances: i. Ms. Monic reported that on May 7, 2021 she attended the California Board of Examiners of Psychologists, Tele Telepsychology Committee Meeting with Dr. Gormanous. […] some of the issues raised included: 1. Concerns for constitutionality of ASPPB’s PSYPact (brought up by California’s Attorney) where PSYPact becomes a quasi-governmental public agency authorized to issue licenses to practice, without governmental oversight and with authority to regulate practice in an adopting jurisdiction, including authority over the state licensing board (place mandates on state agencies, assess fees on agency, and require an agency to conduct investigations on licensees complained of that reside in other jurisdictions). Ms. Monic educated the Board that Louisiana actually has an Attorney General Opinion and Jurisprudence (Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. McCrory) related to delegation of government authority to non- governmental/private entities. ASPPB issued a “Legal Opinion “on January 13, 2021; however this opinion does not cite any jurisprudence to support legal or constitutional authority to engage in the PSYPact. 4. Other information learned was that ASPPB developed the PSYPact agreement which becomes a quasi-governmental agency in a state once legislation is passed in an adopting state. It is governed by the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact Commission (PSYPact), and ASPPB holds a non- voting seat on the PSYPact Governance Commission. The PSYPact Governance Commission requires funding from jurisdictions who are supported by license renewal fees, and also requires licensees to pay to participate in PSYPact; then requires jurisdictions to bear the financial and legal burden of disciplining licensees from their jurisdiction and the participating jurisdiction. Following presentation on the PSYPact by Ms. Janet Orwig at ASPPB, and considering public comments, the California Tele Telepsychology Committee voted to recommend that the California Board of Examiners of Psychologists not adopt PSYPact. h. Researched options for Learning Management Systems to conduct virtual CPD and electronic Jurisprudence examinations. 2. Finance Committee – […]b. Financial Statements – Ms. Monic reported that Valerie Dominique was still working on April Financial Statements and that she and Ms. Dominique will have a Budget Meeting to discussed previously approved amendments next Monday, May 24, 2021. A draft will be provided at the next regularly scheduled meeting. 6. Complaints Committee – a. Mr. Owens reported for the period 5/1/21- 5/21/21 as follows: Zero new Request(s) for Investigation were received by consumers since the last report; there are a total of 12 open investigations, 10 are active (one from FY17-18; one from FY19-20; eight from FY 20-21; two are under review and not yet noticed). There are currently no formal hearings scheduled; no disciplinary actions were finalized during this period and there were no applicants denied based on review of criminal history. 2. LSBEP Employee Structure – The Board discussed the current workload of staff, including the inability to staff an attorney at the budgeted amount. Dr. Henke suggested changing directions from seeking an in-house attorney to seeking an administrative position under the supervision of Ms. Monic. The board discussed some particulars of the individual needing to be technology savvy, potentially part-time and exploring the option of requesting that Civil Service change the new unclassified position created for an in-house attorney to an additional administrative unclassified position. The Board discussed the motion. The motion passed […]
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.