►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Licensing, Occupations, & Administrative Regulations (2-9-22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Everybody
will
grab
their
seats,
we
have
a
quorum,
we're
gonna
or
we'll
find
out
if
we
have
a
quorum.
If
I
can
count,
I
think
we
have
a
quorum
and
we
will
get
started
for
this
third
meeting
of
house
standing
committee
on
licensing
occupations
and
administrative
regulations.
C
D
A
A
I
believe
you're
going
to
give
some
brief
testimony.
You
have
a
special
guest
on
zoom,
who
will
also
give
some
brief
testimony
and
we
have
an
expert
from
csg
online
who's
available
to
answer
any
questions
is
that
right.
B
E
I
thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative
norma
kirk
mccormick
district
93.
Today
we
bring
before
you
an
interstate
compact
bill
on
counseling
enter
a
house
bill.
65.
E
this
bill
is
has
to
deal
with
interstate
compact
for
licensed
counselors.
We
are
faced
with
a
major
shortage
of
counselors
all
throughout
the
nation,
especially
with
covid.
E
We
have
a
backlog
of
people
waiting
to
receive
counseling,
and
you
may
not
know
this,
but
every
counselor
or
mental
health
profession
has
to
be
licensed
in
every
state
and
they
have
to
pay
a
fee
to
keep
up
that
licensing
every
year.
E
And
it
makes
it
difficult
for
counselors
to
see
consumers
that,
for
example,
we
live
in
if
they
live
in
ashland
or
in
practice
in
huntington,
or
vice
versa
or
the
clients.
Are
there
so
motion.
A
We
have
a
motion
in
a
second.
I
believe
this
is
all
the
standard
language
that
is
used
in
most
of
the
other
compacts.
Is
that
correct.
C
A
F
F
Last
year
I
had
a
waitlist
of
six
months
and
that's
just
unacceptable
and
for
people
to
be
able
to
receive
care
and
get
care
in
a
timely
fashion,
especially
when
they're
in
crisis
they're
into
something
like
an
interstate
compact
would
be
phenomenal
for
that.
G
C
C
C
Yes,
representative
moser,
if
I
may
explain
my
vote
quickly.
Yes,
I
am
a
yes,
and
I
am
very
glad
that
you
have
brought
this
piece
of
legislation
before
us.
This
is
critical
critically
important
to
keeping
more
licensed
counselors
in
our
state
and
access
improving
access
to
care
for
our
patients.
So
thank
you.
A
E
D
Good
morning,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
this
morning,
I'm
representative
david
hale.
I
certainly
appreciate
the
opportunity
today
to
be
before
you
and
this
committee.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
I
think
this
is
my
first
appearance
before
this
committee.
So
in
eight
years
of
being
here
I
counted
the
privilege
you
would.
Let
me
come
to.
D
D
Well,
having
said
that
and
hearing
all
of
that
kind
of
now,
let
me
proceed
just
a
moment,
representative
santoro,
since
this
is
my
first
appearance,
I
want
to
make
it
a
good
one.
Hopefully
this
morning
I
do
appreciate
really
seriously
the
opportunity
and
thank
you
for
hearing
house
bill.
337.
D
I've
got
it
right
here.
In
my
hand,
you
probably
have
a
copy.
You
see
a
20-page
bill
there
before
you,
that's,
certainly
not
20
pages
in
complication.
It
really
isn't
it's
it's
pretty
cut
and
dried
bill.
I
hear
people
say
all
the
time.
Well,
it's
just
a
simple
bill.
Well,
this
is
not
really
just
a
simple
bill,
but
it's
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
certainly
one,
that's
kind
of
self-explanatory.
D
Until
a
few
years
ago,
when
I
became
the
or
was
appointed
to
be
the
the
co-chair
of
the
administrative
regulations
subcommittee
on
the
house
side.
I'll
be
very
frank.
I
had
no
idea,
mr
chairman,
how
administrative
regs
worked.
I
really
didn't
know
how
that
process
worked.
I
didn't
know
what
happened
in
that
process.
D
I
didn't
know
how
they
were
handled,
how
they
were
promulgated
and-
and
that
was
probably
my
certainly
my
ignorance
on
that,
but
but
it
being
in
that
position,
it
has
certainly
been
an
eye-opening
experience
for
me
and
having
served
in
that
position
with
the
past
administration,
the
bevin
administration
and
now
also
with
the
bashir
administration.
Here
we
see
numerous,
I'm
literally
hundreds
and
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
regulations
come
through
our
committees
every
year.
D
It
happens
quite
frequently,
but
just
real
quickly,
and
I'm
sure
everybody
in
here
knows
that,
but
when
a
regulation
that
either
comes
before
a
standing
committee
or
before
the
regulation
review
subcommittee,
if,
if
by
chance
that
that
regulation
is
found
to
be
deficient
by
either
one
of
those
committees,
the
governor
or
the
chief
executive
officer
or
the
cabinet
head
or
whomever
that
regulation
has
come
through,
can
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
that
regulation.
As
though
nothing
has
happened.
D
Even
though
it
has
been
found
deficient
by
the
standing
committee,
the
review
subcommittee-
and
it
just
proceeds
as
if
nothing
has
has
ever
happened
about
that.
But
if
house
bill
337
was
to
become
law,
any
regulation
that
would
be
found
deficient
by
either
a
standing
committee
or
that
regu
review
subcommittee
would
now
be
reported
to
the
attorney
general
and
the
governor,
both
of
them
pursuant
to
krs
13,
a
330
and
the
administrative
body.
D
The
the
cabinet
or
whomever,
then
has
the
opportunity
to
appeal
whatever
that
finding
of
deficiency
may
be
within
a
period
of
time,
I'm
not
going
to
read
the
whole
bill.
You
can
actually
look
at
the
bill.
It
gives
you
the
exact
specifications
of
what
happened
would
happen
in
on
page
7,
section
3
line
15
and
over
to
line
6
on
page
8.
It
gives
a
very
explicit,
simple
definition
as
to
what
would
occur
if
if
that
process
happened,
so
I
just
want
to.
D
I
want
to
close
by
saying
this,
and
I
know
there's
some
people
would
say,
and
even
I've
received
some
emails
from
people.
That
says
this
is
just
another
power
grab,
but
I
would
respectfully
respectfully
disagree
with
that.
This
measure,
in
my
opinion,
strengths
and
strengthens
very
much
the
checks
and
balances
by
granting
this
review
to
a
third
party,
who
also
happens
to
be
our
our
the
state's
chief
law
enforcement
officer.
D
So
this
is
not
about
taking
power
away
from
the
governor
or
the
administration,
whomever
that
administration
that
governor
may
be,
but
it
it
brings
us
into
a
this
regulatory
process,
makes
it
far
more
accountable
in
my,
in
my
opinion,
by
this
piece
of
legislation-
and
I
hope
I
haven't
confused
you
this
morning-
but
policies
that
we
have
like
this
to
me-
they're,
going
to
stand
the
testifying
time
long
after
we're
all
gone
this
governor,
the
next
governor's
gone
the
a.g
whomever
that
might
be
so,
mr
chairman,
that
is
my
testimony
this
morning
and
if
I,
if
there
are
any
questions,
I
would
be
very
glad
to
answer.
A
We
have
a
motion
from
representative
mccoy
second,
from
representative
miller.
We
have
tom
fitzgerald
online
who
would
like
to
speak
in
opposition,
but
first
I
would
like
to
see
if
there's
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
representative
gentry.
C
Representative
hill,
I'm
trying
to
get
my
mind
around
this
for
a
second.
If
you
could
turn
to
page
17
on
the
bill
section
7.
C
Let's
see
where
I'm
at
page
19
line
four.
C
D
D
Sir
well,
the
appeal:
if
in
this
particular
piece
of
legislation,
the
appeal
process,
would
there
is
a
10-day?
There
would
be
a
10-day
appeal
process
by
the
administrative
head
or
the
the
governor's
office
or
whomever
that
would
be
to
now
under
this
piece
of
legislation.
The
attorney
general
of
the
state
of
kentucky.
A
Met,
let
representative
cook
take
care
of
the
answer
to
this
question.
H
Yeah
representative
gentry
on
that
page,
so
that
b,
let
me
turn
back
to
it
on
page
17.
There,
where
it
says,
is
repealed
re-enacted
as
follows:
that's
a
bill
that
I
ran
last
year
on
government
contract
review
and
so
that
I
was
making
a
bill
because
I'm
having
the
same
problem,
government
contract
review
with
the
process
and
trying
to
add
a
third
party
in
there
to
do
that
which
was
going
to
be
the
state
treasurer.
So
what
you're?
Reading
there
is
that's
language
from
a
bill
last
year
and
that
that
involves
a
section
seven.
H
C
B
C
In
a
follow-up
question,
absolutely
I'm
even
having
trouble
understanding
this
myself
and
I'm
a
legislator
for
for
the
people
at
home
that
are
watching.
Can
we
explain
what
the
quickly
what
the
old
process
is
and
what
the
change
is
here,
because
a
lot
of
people
that
look
at
this
don't
see
bold,
material
or
boated
material
and
thinks
that
there
is
no
change
or
is
no
difference?
D
Well,
I
mean
I'll
be
glad
to
try
to
answer
that
again.
I
may
be
a
little
confused
on
what
the
question
actually
is,
but
in
the
house
bill
or
in
this
proposed
bill
that
I'm
running
or
here
bringing
before
you
today,
it
just
basically
takes
the
when
a
deficiency
is
found
by
either
committee.
It
takes
that
to
now
go
to
the
attorney
general
of
the
state.
Instead
of
just
going
directly
to
the
administrative
head,
the
minis,
the
administrative,
the
administration
itself
and
the
and
the
attorney
general
now
becomes
a
third
party
in
that
decision.
A
If
I-
and
if
I
may
tag
on
to
that
representative
hale,
I
I
believe
where
representative
gentry
is
going
is
right
now.
A
D
D
I
think
the
total
was
like
689
or
something
like
that,
but
I
thought
of
that
689
and
almost
700.
There
was
actually
six
of
those
regs
that
were
found
to
fish
it.
So
that's
like
one
percent
and
most
of
those
most
of
those
regs
that
were
found
deficient
well,
actually,
all
of
those
six
the
administration
went
ahead
and
promulgated
those
rigs,
even
though
that
they
were
found
deficient
by
the
committees.
D
So
this
just
adds
a
again.
This
adds
a
a
third,
a
third
party
to
this,
the
attorney
general,
and
I
just
again
in
my
closing
statement.
I
believe
this
just
gives
us
more
transparency
in
everything
we're
doing
here.
So
thank
you.
C
That
is
it
for
now.
Thank
you
all.
A
A
For
the
record
and
and
tell
us
all,
we
need
to
know
and
and
nothing
more
if
you
would
absolutely.
I
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
tom
fitzgerald,
formerly
director,
now
just
senior
staff
over
at
the
kentucky
resources
council
and
mr
chairman,
I
I'm
gonna,
tell
the
committee
that
I
promised
I
would
be
uncharacteristically
brief,
and
I
will
try
to
do
so.
I
I
have
not
talked
to
the
committee
members
and
I
apologize
for
that
members
of
the
committee,
because
I
was
only
able
to
communicate
my
concerns
to
representative
hale
a
couple
of
days
ago.
I
So
out
of
out
of
respect
for
him,
I
did
not
attempt
to
communicate
directly
with
committee
members,
because
I
wanted
to
make
sure
he
had
those
concerns.
First,
my
my
concerns
essentially
are
twofold.
One
is
that,
as
as
representative
hale
noted,
the
situations
in
which
a
committee
either
the
administrative
raid
committee
or
the
committee
of
jurisdiction,
the
second
committee
that
reviews
these
regulations
has
found
a
rate
to
be
deficient
is
exceedingly
rare,
and
so
I
questioned
the
necessity
of
the
bill.
I
The
current
process,
I
think,
is
absolutely
sufficient
to
assure
that
in
those
rare
instances
in
which
there
is
a
determination
of
deficiency
by
a
committee
followed
by
a
finding
by
the
governor
that
the
regulation
should
go
into
effect
notwithstanding,
the
regulations
can
be
addressed
either
through
judicial
challenge
or
through
subsequent
legislative
action
has,
as
has
been
the
case,
look
at
just
to
put
a
fine
point
on
it
since
2000.
I
Until
the
current
day,
25
regulations
by
my
counting
have
been
found
to
be
deficient
and
have
gone
into
effect.
Notwithstanding
in
most
of
those
cases,
the
regulations
are
not
deficient
in
the
sense
that
they
were
promulgated
without
legal
process.
They
were
found
efficient
because
there's
a
policy
disagreement,
for
example,
dealing
with
the
degree
to
which
non-co-mining
operations
should
be
regulated
under
the
patent
administration.
I
The
question
of
how
rigorously
industrial-scale
hog
operations
should
be
regulated
again
under
the
patent
administration.
The
question
of
whether
medicaid
should
be
expanded
more
recently.
These
are
policy
issues,
not
matters
of
the
regulation
not
having
followed
the
the
regulatory
promulgation
process.
I
Since
2005,
there
have
been
9
676,
regular
regulations
propagated,
so
we're
looking
at
a
bill
that
is
addressing
two-tenths
of
one
percent
of
the
regulations
that
have
been
adopted
in
the
past
16
17
years,
and
I
question
whether
we
should
up
end
of
the
current
process
to
address
such
a
minor
problem.
That
is,
in
fact,
already
redressed
through
access
to
the
courts
and
through
subsequent
legislative
action,
because
it
takes
many
months
to
propagate
a
regulation
that
we
are
back
here
in
frankfurt,
virtually
or
in
person
every
year.
I
My
second
concern
is
that
the
attempt
to
delegate
to
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
the
power
to
hear
appeals
of
an
executive
branch
agency
decision
regarding
a
regulation
that
is
identified
by
an
interim
committee
as
being
deficient,
runs
the
foul
of
the
decision
in
lrc
versus
brown,
which
visited
the
earlier
legislative
process
regarding
administrative
regulations
and
found
that
the
delegation
to
the
administrative
raid
committee,
the
authority
to
to
determine
a
regulation
to
be
ineffective
due
to
a
deficiency,
was
an
exceedance
of
the
legislative
function.
I
I
It's
equally
the
case
that
the
interim
committee
cannot
set
in
motion
that
invalidation
by
by
declaring
that
the
regulation
is
void,
unless
it's
appealed
to
the
attorney
general,
who
in
turn
can
uphold
that
deficiency
finding
and
cause
the
regulation
to
be
invalidated.
I
Additionally,
the
power
to
adopt
regulations
to
implement
statutes
is
an
executive
branch
function
by
constitution
and
cannot
be
delegated
by
the
legislature
to
the
attorney
general's
office
without
running
afoul
of
lrc
versus
brown,
and
if,
but
in
effect,
that's
what
the
bill
does.
Finally,
and
perhaps
most
fundamentally
the
determination
of
whether
regulation
comports
with
the
statute.
I
As
noted
by
the
court
in
lrc
versus
brown
is
a
judicial
function
and
it's
not
one
that
the
can
be
assigned
by
the
general
assembly
to
the
attorney
general
without
encroaching
on
the
judicial
branch
function
again
in
violation
of
separation
of
power.
So
I
appreciate
miss
chairman.
This
is
my
43rd
year,
40,
one
of
them
as
director
of
the
resources
council.
Now
now
as
senior
staff
soon
to
be
fossilized,
I
think,
but
it
is.
I
I
understand
that
there
are
occasional
frustrations
among
the
branches
of
government
regarding
administrative
regulations
that
are
thought
to
for
one
reason
or
another
to
exceed
or
be
inconsistent
with
the
legislative
mandate.
We
have
remedies
for
that
and
the
remedies
that
we
have
have
been
tested
and
are,
in
conformance
with
the
hard
separation
of
powers
that
our
state
constitution
has
in
it,
and
I
would
encourage
the
the
committee.
This
is
not
a
problem
that
needs
fixing.
I
I
The
thousands
of
regulations-
and
I
would
encourage
the
committee
to
to
consider
whether,
in
fact,
we
need
to
upend
this
process
and
and
potentially
we're
gonna
foul
the
constitution
in
order
to
address
an
issue
that
is
adequately
addressed
currently,
so
I
appreciate
that
very
much
representative
hale,
I
I'm
sorry,
I
wasn't
able
to
get
it
up
to
you
earlier
than
this
and,
mr
chairman,
I'm
happy
to
answer
the
questions
that
any
of
the
members
of
the
committee
have.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
G
The
comment
is,
I
want
to
thank
tom
fitzgerald
for
so
many
years.
You
know
when
I
came
down
here
100
years
ago.
You
had
already
been
here
100
before
that
so
and
there's
there's
several
times.
We
worked
together
and
many,
and
sometimes
we
opposed
each
other,
but
there
was,
but
your
straightforwardness
was
always
appreciated.
G
You
were
very
transparent
on
everything
and
I
appreciate
that
and
the
question
is
representative
hell.
What
is
the
recourse
now
I
mean
there's
got
to
be
some
recourse.
If
some
regulation
is
so
out
of
whack,
do
they
take
it
to
court
or
something
I
mean
what?
If
what
if
the
law
says,
it
shall
be
one
two
three
and
they
come
out
with
a
reg.
It
says
it's
gonna,
be
four
five
six
I
mean
and
it's
just
a
blatant
mischaracterization
of
the
the
intent
of
the
law.
What
what
is
the
recourse
now.
D
Well,
of
course,
once
that
regulation
is
brought
before
whatever
committee
it
would
be
brought
before
or
before
the
review
subcommittee,
if
there
would
be
again
a
deficiency
finding
of
that
that
that
reg
could
go
ahead
and
be
promulgated
just
as
though
it
it
was
not
found
efficient.
Is
there
a?
Is
there
a
recourse
for
us
as
the
legislature
or.
G
D
That
would
probably
have
to
be
a
question
that
somebody
in
the
legal
mind
would
answer
on
that.
I
I'm
not
exactly
sure
about
that.
Representative
bratcher
again,
I
apologize.
I,
I
really
don't
know
the
answer
for
that.
A
There
is
sharon
hold
on
tom
yeah
sure
I
think
it's
you
know,
and
then
let
me
just
say
this.
You
know
I
since
becoming
chairman
of
this
committee.
I
I've
dealt
with
two
administrations
of
two
different
parties
and
had
issues
with
administrative
regulations
and
in
both
of
them-
and
you
know,
I
have
remedied
them
by
meeting
with
with
staff
from
from
ppc
various
departments
and
fixed
it.
That
way.
A
My
my
direct
ship
cleanup
bill
last
year
was
a
done
in
part
because
didn't
like
abc
regulations
that
they
came
from
it
and,
I
think,
flew
in
the
face
of
the
intent
of
the
legislation
and
the
actual
awards
written
there.
So
I
mean
there's
always
plenty
of
remedies.
This
will
be
another.
A
One
of
the
remedies
I
would
have
of
you
know
preferred
not
to
have
to
file
a
whole
different
bill
to
to
fix
those
on
the
direct
ship
bill,
and
you
know
the
this
instead
of
having
using
this
committee
to
find
those
regs
deficient
because
they
would
have
just
been
overturned
by
the
governor
and
put
into
place
anyway
chose
to
get
the
whole
process
started.
A
Allow
people
to
start
shipping,
because
that
would
have
just
slowed
things
up,
decided
to
just
get
it
started
and
then
deal
with
with
those
in
the
next
year.
It
would
have
been
nice
to
have
had
the
option
of
of
perhaps
doing
it
this
way
going
forward,
and
that's
that's.
You
know
we
have
plenty
of
options
before
us
and
this
will
be
another
one,
and
you
know
there
are
when
talk
of
you
know
not
a
lot
of
regs
are
found
deficient.
A
D
We
have
had
many
numerous
regulations
that
we
worked
out.
Instead
of
going
through
the
deficiency
process,
we
went
back
and
met
with
the
folks
worked,
those
out
and
for
the
most
part
we
were
able
to
get
those
problems
solved
and.
A
Hopefully,
we
will
continue
to
do
things
that
way
and-
and
this
will
be
a
last-ditch
effort.
So,
mr.
D
Chairman
can
I
can,
I
just
add
one
thing
and
I,
mr
fitzgerald,
he
I
want
to
do
say
he
or
I
want
to
add
this.
He
did
reach
out
to
me.