(Some of the issues addressed herein were affected by subsequent Committee Amendments)
Arguments in Opposition to SB-1419
relating to
Mandatory Licensing of Professional and Pastoral Counselors
before the
Health & Welfare Committee
of the
Idaho State House of Representatives
during the
1998 Legislative Session
Re: SECTION 2, Amendments to 54-3401. DEFINITIONS
Item (5) defines the “Practice of professional” counseling so broadly as to encompass the activities of just about anyone who would purposefully seek to nurture the human development of another person. Parents, pastors, employers, and simply good friends might commonly do many of the things listed here as peculiar to professional counselors; and the bill is carefully written so as to not limit the definition to only those things specifically mentioned.
In the last paragraph, there is no clear delineation of the “specific methods, techniques, or modalities” which are “restricted to professional and pastoral counselors”; presumably the particulars will be left to evolve in whatever direction the profession might drift and incorporate whatever it might subsequently deem appropriate to its vested interests.
While many of the terms used in these paragraphs have definite spiritual implications, there is absolutely no doubt that the specific reference to “pastoral counselors” marks the State’s plunge into the disdainful role of making religious determinations. 54-3404, Idaho Code declares that the Counselor Licensing Board, which by law must remain a secular board, has the power to “pass upon the qualifications and fitness of applicants for licenses”, to ”review the practice of counselors”, to “establish a peer review system”, to “examine”, and to “provide specialty standards” for licensed counselors; a secular board cannot possibly exercise these powers in the spiritual realm, where pastoral counselors function, without trampling upon Idaho’s constitution. That fact is evidenced by Article I, Section 4. GUARANTY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, which states, “no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege, or capacity on account of his religious opinions;... nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.”
The constitutional problems inherent in any attempt to facilitate licensing in this spiritual realm have been amply outlined by the Attorney General’s office; first in a 1995 opinion which dealt with certain aspects that are inherent in such legislation, and again this year when it indicated that Idaho’s current and yet to be implemented law (54-3405A) would probably not hold up to a constitutional challenge, a challenge which will surely come if the Bureau of Occupational Licensing proceeds with implementation of any type of Pastoral Counselor Licensing.
Re: SECTION 3, Amendments to 54-3402. LICENSE REQUIRED -- EXEMPTIONS
Item (1) would redirect the impetus of the law away from a simple concern for those unlicensed counselors who might misrepresent their professional status and would impinge against those unlicensed individuals who might be touched by the previous section’s broad definition of counseling. An intended broad application is made clear by the paragraph’s use of the simple term “counseling” instead of the more specific “professional counseling” used earlier, and its avoidance of any reference to an application only to those who would do counseling for a fee; this problem is further magnified by the SECTION 1, 54-3400 directive that the “chapter should be construed liberally to carry out” its “objectives and purposes.”
Item (3) essentially declares that everyone who is unlicensed is, therefore, unprofessional and incompetent; nothing could be further from the truth. For untold centuries before the invention of psychology and the unfortunate integration of psychology and religion, mankind has known the benefit of freely sharing principles of human development and facilitating the healthy development of one another by assessing emotions, behavior, and conduct and then giving counsel with specific goals and objectives in mind. True, some people are better at it than others, but it seems obvious and is even provable that since the inception of counseling as a profession, the emotional, mental, and spiritual heartache of humankind have only grown by leaps and bounds. Additionally, research which “reviewed forty-two studies that compared professional counselors with untrained helpers” showed the fallacy of the professional counselors’ typical claims of success. The results were “consistent and provocative. Paraprofessionals achieve clinical outcomes equal to or significantly better than those obtained by professionals... The study, on the whole, lent no support to the major hypothesis that...the technical skills of professional psychotherapists produce measurably better therapeutic change.” (From a study by J.A Durlack entitled Comparative Effectiveness of Paraprofessional and Professional Helpers, as reported by Psychologist Gary Collins and quoted by Dr. Ed Bulkley in Why Christians Can’t Trust Psychology)
Via the provisions of this paragraph, the ‘professionals’ would lay exclusive claim to any “title, words, letters or abbreviations” that might possibly be construed to designate any “standard of professional or occupational competence”; everyone else who is not specifically exempted, be they religious or secular, is precluded from using such terms. When taken in light of the provisions of proposed changes in 54-3408 (3), it is clear that even though one may not intend to be viewed as a ‘professional counselor’, if anything he does could be construed to fall under these broadly defined terms or functions, he would be in violation.
In the realm of both secular and religious philosophies, the resultant effect would be to compel any dissenters to conform (by claiming to believe something with which they may be in disagreement), or to affiliate with a “denomination or sect” that may not adhere to their own religious views. The constitutions of both Idaho and the United States forbid such religious compulsion.
Item (4) would open the door to possible harassment of anyone who might innocently find himself under the scrutinizing eye of the “board”; it provides weak, qualified, and fragile exceptions for certain categories of people and provides no exceptions for the individual who might, in the normal course of a life committed to helping and caring for others, find himself snared in the ominous web constructed by the broad strokes of these proposed amendments. It forces relinquishment not only of records that are “required... pursuant to this chapter”, but also compels compliance with any “request” for information. If one is compelled by force of law to deliver information, that is not a “request” at all; it is a demand, and in this arena of counseling where so much is subject to fluctuating practices and opinions, such demands are inappropriate, especially when they are not clearly stipulated by law.
Further, all but one category of exemption stipulates allowances for titles which may be used in performing these counseling functions; there is no specified exemption for “titles and descriptions” that may be used in the “religious” category. Are religious counselors unworthy of equal consideration?
Re: SECTION 4, Amendments to Section 54-3405B. CONDITIONAL LICENSE.
Even though a currently practicing counselor may have an exemplary history of nurturing people to full recovery, the proposed law would presume that he was, in the absence of the required license, unfit to continue helping people beyond the arbitrary year of 2002, unless he bowed to the equally arbitrary requirements of the Counselor License law. If it were true that unlicensed counselors are a substantial threat to the public and that such licensure negates the threat, then one might expect that a grace period of any duration would be considered too risky for the public. Then, too, we should properly assume that the public would be entirely safe in the hands of licensed counselors; however, only the oblivious would accept that premise, because the failures of those in every licensed occupation under the sun are all too evident to ignore. Remember that over recent decades noted professionals have given us lobotomies, phrenology, shock treatment, mind-altering drugs, memory regression therapy, and continuing vacillations from one pet idea to another; there is no norm except to continually assault common sense concepts that have to do with personal responsibility, absolute truth, or biblical spiritual admonitions.
By comparison of principle, how glad we should all be that just because average citizens believe them to be competent, men and women from every station in life are deemed worthy of representing the people in the very serious task of making laws that affect every man, woman, and child in their respective spheres of government. What a travesty it would be to disqualify, by some arbitrary license procedure, the many capable yet common people who regularly become our mayors, commissioners, representatives, and senators whose jobs are every bit as important and consequential for the public as are those of counselors at any level.
Summary
In spite of its ostensible goal of protecting and otherwise benefiting the public, SB-1419 will, if adopted into law, actually benefit only those whose field of competition is limited by the license procedure; concurrently, it will rob the public of free choice from amongst many very qualified counselors who for philosophical, religious, educational, or other valid reasons simply choose not to be licensed. Worst of all, it will trample on the glorious traditions and the constitutions of both Idaho and these United States. With its provisions for religious intrusion, while it faces a constitutional challenge, it will place Idaho in league with a handful of liberal states that are being manipulated for the benefit of vested counseling interests.
SB-1419 will make bad law; please kill it before further harm is done.
Thank you for the opportunity to be heard on this important issue.
With sincere concern for the citizens of Idaho,
Nelson M. “Nels” Wilson
General Manager
KBGN Christian Radio
3303 E. Chicago St.
Caldwell, ID 83605
208-459-3635
(Some of the issues addressed herein were affected by subsequent Committee Amendments)
Dr. Harper's Letter to the Committee