Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reciprocity Recordkeeping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee flags reciprocity and recordkeeping problems: Cadence/Acadis data gaps and five‑year rules under review
Summary
The group discussed problems verifying out‑of‑state certifications, inconsistent roster maintenance in Acadis/Cadence, and whether the five‑year break-in‑service rule should remain for in‑state personnel. Members recommended clarifying reciprocity documentation and recordkeeping expectations.
Subcommittee members raised recurring problems with reciprocity processing and training records management. The discussion covered three related issues: (1) how the commission records and recognizes out‑of‑state or ProBoard/IFSAC certifications; (2) inconsistent roster and training data in the commission’s training system (referred to in the meeting as Cadence or Acadis); and (3) the fairness of applying a fixed five‑year out‑of‑service rule to in‑state personnel while out‑of‑state reciprocity candidates are processed differently.
Officials said the reciprocity application requires applicants to submit digital copies of certificates, a driver’s license and a letter from the applicant’s chief or employer. However, staff and committee members noted practical problems: ProBoard seals are not always issued or visible for all jurisdictions; some out‑of‑state issuers use different formats; and Cadence records for long‑tenured Tennessee personnel sometimes remain active even when the member left service years earlier.
Members proposed improving the reciprocity workflow: accept certificate copies and chief/employer verification as primary evidence; add an attestation checkbox for applicants about their last active service date; and strengthen guidance and outreach to local training officers to keep roster records current in Cadence/Acadis. Several members asked staff to consider adding administrative consequences (for example, limiting program participation) for departments that fail routine roster maintenance.
The subcommittee also recommended that the rules explicitly state whether the reciprocity effective date for certification‑progression purposes should be the original issue date of the external certification or the commission’s acceptance date in Tennessee (the committee leaned toward preserving original issue dates for progression eligibility where reasonable). Staff were asked to propose explicit wording for reciprocity effective dates and record submission requirements.
Ending: Staff will draft edits clarifying the required documentation for reciprocity, the effective date for progression calculations, and record‑keeping obligations for departments, and will surface any enforcement options for chronic noncompliance.
