Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BSRB discusses multiple regulatory and licensing changes including expedited reviews, unprofessional conduct revisions and education definitions
Summary
Board members reviewed proposed continuing-education regulations, discussed broad revisions to unprofessional-conduct rules, considered an expedited-application model and agreed to draft language for supervisor attestations when supervisors become unavailable.
Board members spent the latter portion of the meeting reviewing a slate of proposed regulatory and policy changes affecting licensure, supervision and discipline.
Continuing education and record retention: Advisory committees recommended updates to continuing-education language across professions, including modernizing references to digital recordings, standardizing a three‑year record‑retention requirement after renewal, and removing an underused self‑directed learning category. The board gave consensus to move revised continuing-education regulations forward for public comment.
Unprofessional conduct: Staff and advisory committees reviewed decades-old unprofessional-conduct regulations. The board discussed whether to standardize language across professions on topics such as discrimination, social media/confidentiality, impaired practice and sexual or physical relationships with clients. Several committees recommended tightening some standards (for example, some proposed making sexual relationships with former clients always unprofessional rather than only within 24 months). Legal counsel Tim Redner said the board has defined what constitutes “satisfactory evidence” for supervised postgraduate hours and noted the board lacks a clear mechanism when a supervisor becomes unavailable; he recommended adopting guardrails to address that circumstance.
Supervisor attestations and post‑graduate hours: Staff reported recent cases in which supervisors died or became unreachable while trainees were accruing post‑graduate hours. Board counsel and staff proposed regulatory language to permit the board to accept alternate evidence when a supervisor is unavailable for reasons such as death or incapacitation. The board asked staff to draft proposed language and consider recordkeeping options (for example, periodic supervisor attestations kept on file) to reduce future disputes.
Expedited application review process: The board discussed a statutory directive to establish an expedited application process. Staff presented a model that defines five application types eligible for expedited review (permanent, several temporary/license candidates, reinstatement, student temporary and out‑of‑state practice requests) and recommended clear, application‑level criteria to enable decisions within the statute's 15‑day window. Staff also proposed a concept of "presumptive denial" in cases lacking required documentation, with an option for applicants to ask staff to continue review (which would not be subject to the expedited timeline). The board provided feedback on the model and asked staff to prepare draft regulation language that would balance the statutory timeline with practical verification steps (for example, official transcripts and supervision attestations).
Education and testing: The board approved consensus changes to “in‑residence” education language for psychology and master’s‑level psychology to accommodate programs that identify physical locations or use synchronous video conferencing for required coursework. The masters‑level psychology advisory committee asked staff to allow candidates who have met educational requirements (for example, hold an LMLP or have an active application for the clinical license) to retake the shared EPPP exam without waiting two years; staff reported the test vendor permits multiple attempts but caps retakes. The board supported treating marriage-and-family therapy similarly for consistency.
Professional‑compact administration and fees: Staff outlined the structure of the counseling compact and proposed a $25 privilege fee for out‑of‑state practitioners who apply to practice in Kansas under that compact; the board gave consensus to proceed with that fee level and to draft regulation language clarifying the fee applies to out‑of‑state compact privileges rather than domestic home‑state licenses.
Next steps: Staff will draft regulatory language on expedited review, supervisor attestations and unprofessional conduct issues and circulate it to the board for review. The board asked staff to standardize where practicable and to preserve profession‑specific differences where relevant.
