Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health License Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves bill clarifying when fingerprint‑based background checks apply to counselors
Summary
Senate Bill 1018 passed the Idaho Senate on Jan. 31, clarifying that fingerprinting for criminal history checks for counselors and therapists is required only when the division later requires it, not universally as previously worded.
Get email alerts on the Health License Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BOISE — The Idaho Senate on Jan. 31 approved Senate Bill 1018, a measure clarifying when fingerprint‑based criminal history background checks apply to counselors and therapists seeking licensure.
Senator Harris, who opened the floor debate on SB1018, said the bill updates the statute to address uncertainty created when a fingerprinting requirement was added in 2024 in anticipation of an interstate licensure compact that did not pass. Harris said the change clarifies that fingerprinting will not be mandatory in every instance; rather, the licensing division may require fingerprinting under existing criminal history check authority if and when appropriate.
“The changes clarify that fingerprinting is not required in every instance unless the division and the legislature later determine that it is necessary,” Harris said on the Senate floor. He told senators the bill does not change rulemaking authority, licensure qualifications, scope of practice, discipline, or supervision, and that it has no impact on the state general fund or federal funds.
Senators held no floor amendments, and Harris closed debate. The clerk called the roll; the Senate recorded 32 votes in favor with three absent and announced that SB1018 had passed. The transcript states the bill will be transmitted to the House (referred to “the body across the road”).
The bill was described on the floor as aligning the statute with last year’s House Bill 490 and responding to administrative questions from licensees about whether the current language made fingerprinting mandatory in all cases.
