Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensure Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OPLER director outlines statutory duties, capacity limits and stakeholder scrutiny
Summary
Jeff Shumway, director of the Office of Professional Licensure Review (OPLER), told the General Government Appropriations Subcommittee that OPLER is meeting statutory duties from SB 16 (2022) but faces capacity constraints and high stakeholder scrutiny that shape how quickly it can respond to legislative inquiries and sunrise reviews.
Jeff Shumway, director of the Office of Professional Licensure Review, told the General Government Appropriation Subcommittee on Feb. 3 that OPLER is carrying out duties assigned in SB 16 (2022) but is balancing legal rigor, stakeholder engagement and limited staff capacity.
The office, created by SB 16, has four core statutory duties, Shumway said: periodic reviews of regulated occupations, sunrise reviews of proposals to add regulation, responses to legislator inquiries about regulated occupations, and a required October 1 report to the Business and Labor Committee. “We have 4 statutory duties that were given to us in SB 16 in 2022,” Shumway said. “3 of the 4 have a statutory deadline, 1 is sort of implicit and the other 2 are explicit.”
The nut graf: OPLER’s work aims to protect public safety while removing unnecessary barriers to licensure, but staff limits and intense scrutiny from regulated industries and legislators require the office to be methodical. That tension affects how many rapid responses OPLER can provide during the legislative session.
Shumway told the committee OPLER seeks “Pareto efficient” outcomes — changes that improve safety without imposing additional burdens, or that reduce burdens without impairing safety. He summarized the office’s recent topical reviews: an initial behavioral-health review in year one; a second-year review labeled “personal care and economic opportunities” covering cosmetology, massage and building inspectors; and an ongoing set of reviews covering nursing and allied health professions. He said OPLER has completed multiple sunrise reviews and several legislative inquiries, with more in near-completion.
Shumway described an operational lesson: even seemingly narrow inquiries often attract industry associations and paid lobbyists, which forces the office to be “rigorous and defensible” in its analysis so reports can withstand public scrutiny. He listed examples of contentious topics OPLER has handled or studied: laser surgery scope for optometrists, the prescribing question for psychologists addressed in SB 26 (2023), life coaching, cosmetology and massage therapy.
Committee members asked about outreach to legislators. Representative Thurston and others discussed whether lawmakers know about OPLER’s services. Shumway said the office sends a spring letter to all legislators inviting sunrise review or inquiry requests and typically receives four to five informal inquiries that can lead to formal scope work. He added the office sometimes reaches out proactively to sponsors but has limited capacity for that work.
On funding, Shumway described a permanent appropriation that supports four full-time staff (director, head of policy and research, two analysts) and intermittent interns. Executive Director Margaret Willebusy of the Department of Commerce explained the office’s appropriation is paid from the Commerce Service Fund (fees from license holders) and noted OPLER has a fifth position focused on internationally trained credentialing that was funded as part of Commerce staffing rather than OPLER’s core four positions.
Shumway gave an efficiency update: after adjusting for complexity, his team’s reviews required roughly 900 staff-hours per review in year one and about 700 hours in year two. He said the office aims to improve efficiency while maintaining defensible work products, and described stakeholder engagement as the most time-consuming element of that rigor.
Several committee members, including Representative Kotler and Representative Malloy, praised OPLER’s work on behavioral-health licensing and other reviews and told Shumway the office’s research has been useful for drafting legislation.
The presentation concluded with members expressing general support and raising the tradeoff between agency flexibility in using fee-funded reserves and legislative oversight of appropriations.
Looking ahead: OPLER told the committee it will continue annual reviews timed to the legislative session and use targeted outreach to legislators after session to solicit inquiries. The office cautioned that capacity constraints limit how proactive it can be in offering rapid responses during the interim.
Ending: Committee members thanked Shumway and Commerce leadership for the briefing and moved on to the next agenda item.
