Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rules Discipline Accreditation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adds revocation to discipline guideline and debates accreditation "hard stop" for licensure
Summary
The Florida board voted to add revocation to the maximum penalties in its discipline guideline and debated whether to define "equivalent accrediting body" for master's degree programs; counsel recommended no rulemaking and the board discussed outreach and website guidance for affected students.
The Clinical Social Work, Marriage & Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling, Board of voted unanimously to amend its disciplinary guideline, 64B4-5.001, to add revocation to the list of maximum penalties for crime-related convictions.
Board counsel told members the change was intended to allow revocation as a maximum penalty rather than forcing staff to rely on aggravators to reach that outcome. “So my recommendation is that the maximum penalty on this be amended to also include revocation,” counsel said during the Rules discussion.
Why it matters: The amendment expands the maximum disciplinary sanction on the books for crimes related to professional practice, making revocation an explicitly stated possible outcome.
Board discussion also focused on a separate rule issue tied to licensure education requirements. Counsel reviewed statutory language that, beginning July 1, 2025, requires applicants for licensure to hold a master's degree from a program accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) or by MPCAC (as referenced in the meeting). Counsel recommended the board not attempt to define by rule what an "equivalent accrediting body" would be, calling the statutory language a "hard stop" that should be applied at the time an applicant files an application. "Starting July 1, you have to have that in hand," counsel said about the degree and programmatic accreditation requirement.
Board members and staff discussed implementation and communication. Several members suggested highlighting the requirement in the board's frequently asked questions or posting a notice on the board website to inform prospective students and out-of-state programs. Staff reported some universities already are notifying current students that they lack CACREP or MPCAC accreditation and might not meet Florida licensure requirements. Board counsel noted applicants could still become eligible if their program later obtains programmatic accreditation before they apply.
The board did not open a rulemaking to define "equivalent accrediting body" during the meeting; counsel recommended against such rulemaking and the board appeared to accept that approach. Separately, members approved the amendment to the disciplinary guideline. The motion to amend 64B4-5.001 was moved by Dr. Vicencio and seconded by Ms. Krauss; the motion passed unanimously.
Board staff said they will continue to advise applicants and to add clarifying language to the board website.
The board's discussion on these items took place during the Rules section of the agenda and included staff commentary about implementation steps and outreach.
