Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SLP board interim executive officer warns of higher attorney‑general costs, outlines CE audits and licensing gains
Summary
Interim executive officer Melissa Burns told the board the agency expects higher attorney‑general and OAH hearing costs this fiscal year and is planning an augmentation request to keep the board fund healthy; staff also reported continuing reductions in licensing processing times and the first round of continuing education (CE/CPD) audits.
Interim Executive Officer Melissa Burns reported to the Speech‑Language Pathology, Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensers Board on Feb. 21 that the board expects increased attorney‑general and Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) expenditures this fiscal year and is preparing a budget augmentation to avoid a negative fund balance.
Burns told members the board’s surplus has declined and, without augmentation, the board could dip into a negative fund balance because of a cluster of complex enforcement cases and associated AG/OAH costs. She said augmentation requests are submitted to the Department of Finance and — when approved — come from the board’s licensing fund (not the state general fund). Burns estimated a single contested hearing can cost the AG’s office in the range of $6,000–$8,000 and described the proposed augmentation as sized to keep the fund reserve at roughly 1.7–2 percent rather than allowing a deficit.
On licensing operations, Burns said the board’s online application and process improvements have substantially reduced processing times and increased throughput; licensing volume is up and reserves are stable in the near term (she cited roughly seven months in reserve rising toward nine months over two years in the fund condition projections).
On continuing professional development (CE/CPD) compliance, Burns reported the board’s new CECPD auditor conducted a January 2024 audit of 38 randomly selected renewals (about 5% of the renewals that month). Of those selected, 21 passed, 14 did not pass the initial audit, and 2 qualified for exemptions. Burns described common audit findings: documentation missing or out of the renewal period, too many self‑study hours where live hours were required, and misunderstandings about which providers or activities qualify. The auditor is continuing audits of February–March renewals; the board’s target audit selection rate is approximately 5% of renewals each period.
Burns also summarized enforcement activity: 39 complaints received in the reported period, 8 citations and fines issued, 10 formal discipline cases pending at the attorney general’s office, and 16 licensees currently on monitoring (7 with required drug/alcohol testing and 4 in tolled status).
Board members asked questions about the augmentation process, how cost recovery interacts with enforcement, how audits are selected and handled, and whether the board could increase the audit rate. Burns said augmentations are typically approved in her experience and that cost recovery can be limited — some enforcement costs may not be recouped if an ALJ reduces cost assessments or if a licensee does not seek reinstatement.
