SPEAK OUT!

In this issue of CLEAR NEWS, we are introducing a new forum.  It is being developed based on discussions held with CLEAR members over the last year and is intended to allow CLEAR members to voice their opinions on issues facing regulation.  We hope the column will generate discussion and allow for continuing member dialogue. The authors invite your comments. 

These exchanges are not intended to represent the position of CLEAR on any issue; nor are they intended to represent the opinion of an author’s employing agency.  We hope to eventually generate enough interest in the topics put forward that we can move to monthly online or monthly telephone conference discussions. 

This represents another service being offered to CLEAR members.  Let us hear from you about the new product.  I authored the first column, but let’s hope by the next issue, there will be a list of members wishing to Speak Out. 

Donna H. Mooney
CLEAR Immediate Past President

ARE REGULATORY BOARDS LOSING THEIR FOCUS?
By Donna H. Mooney

While at the CLEAR annual conference in Las Vegas, a number of us were standing around following a session and the issue of what is the current role of regulatory boards arose.  For me, this seemed to be an easy question because the current role, is the same as the previous role --to protect the public.  But as the discussion continued, it became evident that although we all espouse those words, it seems the emphasis of who is the public and what is protection seems to be shifting. 

It appears that the currently defined emphasis on public protection can be traced back to the early to mid 80’s, when “the public” began to seriously expect, and hold licensing boards to a standard of publicly demonstrating that licensees met certain standards.  The public, at this point, insisted on open meetings, access to information, a visible disciplinary process and uniform standards for education and licensing.  AND in the 80’s, the public seemed to exclude licensees of the profession in their definition of public.  It was almost a “we” versus “they” atmosphere. 

During this period, regulatory boards and the associations representing those licensees rarely talked and most often seemed at odds with each other.  The boards saw their post-licensing duty as discipline, including the removal from practice of those licensees who didn’t meet standards; associations saw themselves as “protectors” of the profession. 

Then along came the 90’s and the focus began to shift.  The definition of “public” was broadened to include members of the profession.  As information became more accessible, public discussions of board activities became less precise.  As educational standards and licensure requirements became more standardized, more questions arose about specific scopes of practice, overlapping scopes of practice, and turf protection.  And, as more members of the profession became involved in the board processes, discipline shifted from what some term “punitive” to more remediation and self-help programs. 

With this shift, are regulatory boards losing their focus on public protection and rather becoming governmentally mandated extensions of associations?  The answer for me is maybe.  However, in order to appropriately answer that question, we need to first have the public define for us, what they mean by public protection. 

Is it accomplished by simply determining educational requirements, mandating licensure requirements, and assuring competency?  Can these things be accomplished without a regulatory oversight board but rather (do I dare say it) through institutional credentialing?  Can members of the profession really be gatekeepers and appropriately discipline members of the profession? Can they ensure that those who aren’t qualified to practice or in some other way violate the public trust are removed from, excluded from or in some manner they are adequately sanctioned for their behaviors?  And what is an adequate response?  Is the role to punish, or to remediate, or maybe some combination of both? 

The role of regulatory boards has definitely shifted in the last 20 years.  Now is the time to evaluate and in some instances re-evaluate what is meant by public protection and determine what the role of the board should be. 

We invite your comments. 

Let CLEAR News know whether you have something to say on the issue Donna Mooney raises. Send your written comments for publication in the next issue of CLEAR News. You can also write on an entirely new topic for Speak Out. Fax material to 859-231-1943 or e-mail it to Adam Parfitt.

Next