1  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
STATE OF MICHIGAN  
MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES  
BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSING  
-   -   -  
PUBLIC HEARING   
Tuesday, September 22, 2020  
1:00 p.m.  
-   -   -  
Held on-line via Zoom  
under Executive Order 2020-154  
-   -   -  
Re:    Accountancy - General Rules (MOAHR #2020-30 LR)  
       Counseling - General Rules (MOAHR #2020-33 LR)  
HEARING FACILITATOR:  
     Weston MacIntosh, Analyst  
     Bureau of Professional Licensing  
     611 West Ottawa  
     Lansing, Michigan  48909  
 
Also Present:   
     Kerry Przybylo  
     Kimberly Catlin  
 
 
 
Reported by:  Marie T. Schroeder, CSR-2183  
    Metro Court Reporters, Inc.    
     2  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
Lansing, Michigan  
Tuesday, September 22, 2020  
1:00 p.m.   
-   -   -  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  My name is Weston  
MacIntosh and I am the analyst for the Bureau of  
Professional Licensing in the Department of Licensing and  
Regulatory Affairs, and I will be conducting the hearing  
today.  
This is a public hearing on proposed  
administrative rules entitled "Accountancy - General  
Rules" and "Counseling - General Rules".  We are  
conducting the hearing as required by the Administrative  
Procedures Act to allow the public to comment on the  
proposed changes to these rule sets.  As with all other  
public hearings on draft rule sets, the only items  
discussed during this hearing will be the proposed  
changes to the rule sets.  This hearing will not be  
covering any questions or discussions on any other  
issues.    
We are calling this hearing to order at  
1:00 p.m. on September 22, 2020, via Zoom under Executive  
Order 2020-154 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The  
notice of public hearing was published in three  
newspapers of general circulation, the Grand Rapids Press  
     3  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
and the Flint Journal on August 23, 2020, the Mining  
Journal on September 2, 2020, as well as the Michigan  
Register, Issue No. 16, published on September 15, 2020.  
All comments should relate directly to  
the proposed rules.  If you have questions about the  
rules, you may place your comments on the record and the  
Department will review and consider them.  If you have  
suggested changes to the proposed rules, please include  
the specific reasons why the changes would be in the  
public interest.  
We will take the comments in the  
following manner:  For those using the video conference  
portion, not calling by telephone, please use the Raise  
Your Hand feature in Zoom.  I will call on individuals to  
speak and they will be unmuted at that time.  
For participants that are available only  
by telephone, we will ask if you wish to make a comment  
after the video participants have finished.  
If you have a comment but do not wish to  
speak, please note that the Department will also accept  
written statements e-mailed or postmarked to  
BPL-boardsupport@michigan.gov until 5:00 p.m. today.  
Those making comments should clearly and  
slowly say and spell your name and advise if you are  
speaking on behalf of an organization.  We will limit  
     4  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
comments to three minutes per person.  Please remember  
that only one person should speak at a time.  
The Department staff from the Bureau of  
Professional Licensing includes myself, Kerry Przybylo,  
and Stephanie Wiacek.  We will group the comments by rule  
sets so that we can group the comments together.  
The first rule set that we will take  
comments for is Accountancy - General Rules.  Is there  
anyone who wishes to speak on the Accountancy - General  
Rules?  And again you can Raise Your Hand if you're on  
Zoom, in the Participants tab.  And if you are on the  
phone, I believe it's *6 to unmute your call.  (Pause.)  
O.K.  It doesn't look like I am seeing  
anyone with a raised a hand.  Oh, Andy Schut?  
ANDY SCHUT:  Oh, "Scott".  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Go ahead.  You have a  
comment on the Accountancy - General Rules?  
ANDY SCHUT:  Thank you.  I just wanted to  
mention -- my name is Andy Schut, and I'm from Hope  
College.  And wanted to be very much in support of the  
State allowing for the continuous testing to be able to  
sit for one section more than once in the same timeframe,  
in the same quarter.  A number of states have already  
enacted this.  I think the only state behind us is South  
Carolina, they expect to do that next year.  So I just  
     5  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
wanted to let you know that there's a lot of students  
that would really appreciate quick action by the State on  
this.  Thanks.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Thank you, Andy.  Do  
we have any other comments on the Accountancy - General  
Rules?  And again if you are on Zoom, you would be the  
Raise Your Hand tab under the Participants tab, and then  
if you're on the telephone, *6.  (Pause)  
I'm not seeing anyone else, so we'll go  
ahead and move forward.  So the second rule set then we  
are taking comments for is Counseling - General Rules.  
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on the Counseling -  
General Rules?  
STEPHANIE WAICEK:  Wes, I believe Jim  
Blundo was trying to raise his hand.  He may have clapped  
instead.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Oh, O.K.  Jim, can you  
unmute.  It looks like you are on Zoom.  Can you unmute  
yourself?  There you go.  
MR. BLUNDO:  O.K.  I am on.  On behalf of  
the Michigan Mental Health Counselors Association, my  
name is James Blundo.  I am the Executive Director.  I  
can spell it, J-a-m-e-s, B-l-u-n-d-o.  I'd like to thank  
you for the opportunity to provide comment on the  
proposed Counseling rules set, 2020-33 LR.  
     6  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
MMHCA believes the rules as presented  
appropriately implement the legislative intent of the  
current licensed professional counseling statute, and  
that if promulgated will ensure licensed professional  
counselors the opportunity to practice their full scope  
education and training as provided for by Public Act 96  
of 2019.  
In light of actions taken by Governor  
Whitmer under the COVID-19 state of emergency declaration  
that suspended mandatory in-person supervision during the  
pandemic, we strongly recommend that this rule, that  
these rules, this rule opportunity also be utilized to  
allow for similar accommodations in future state  
emergencies.  
To that end, MMHCA recommends the  
following provision to be added to the proposed rule set:  
Under a Governor declared state of disaster or emergency,  
the Board may allow for an alternative supervision  
arrangement to the immediate physical presence required  
between a supervisor and a supervisee such as, but not  
limited to, use of two-way real-time audiovisual  
technology that allows for a direct remote interaction by  
sight, sound, and observation between the supervisor and  
the supervisee to obtain the required supervision hours.  
Thank you again for this opportunity to  
     7  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
provide comment and for all the Department's efforts  
throughout this inclusive and collaborative rules  
process.  Please allow this letter to serve as MMHCA's  
formal communication of our full support for the proposed  
general counseling rules, with the addition of the  
proposed rule allowing for an alternative supervision  
arrangement under a future state of emergency.  Jim  
Blundo.  Thank you.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Thank you, Jim.  Do we  
have any other comments on the Counseling - General  
Rules?  Let me see.  Dr. Irene Ametrano, do you want to  
go ahead?  
DR. AMETRANO:  Well, I would like to  
support the MMHCA proposed amendment.  Is it appropriate  
to do that at this time?  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  You can just basically  
make comments on any proposed changes to the rules.  
DR. AMETRANO:  Yes, O.K.  So I am the  
co-chair of the Michigan Mental Health Counselor Public  
Policy and Licensure Committee.  I am also the program  
coordinator of counseling at Eastern Michigan University.  
So in that capacity, I do a lot of supervision with  
counseling students and their practicum internship.  I  
also do supervision with post-Master's limited licensed  
counselors.    
     8  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
And what I would like to say is that  
without the provision that we could provide remote  
supervision, I would not have been able to do any  
supervision since March, and all of those counselors and  
students would not be able to have seen their clients  
since March.  Therefore, many, many clients would not  
have been able to get services.  So in terms of access,  
this is a critical need for a time like this during the  
pandemic, that we would be able to do remote supervision.  
In terms of the effectiveness, I was a  
skeptic before.  I didn't do remote supervision before.  
And since I have been doing it, I think it really is  
quite -- I mean I don't have any data, but it feels as  
effective to me as in-person supervision, so we have not  
had any problems, and it has worked out quite well.  So I  
would urge support of the proposed amendment to the  
rules.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Thank you,  
Dr. Ametrano.  
DR. AMETRANO:  You're welcome.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Dr. Sue Schaeffer?  
Oh, you're on mute.  
DR. S. SCHAEFFER:  I think I'm unmuted.  
Thank you.  Thanks for the opportunity to testify today.  
I am Dr. Sara Sue Schaeffer.  Sara is S-a-r-a, and  
     9  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
Schaeffer is S-c-h-a-e-f-f-e-r.  I co-chair the MMHCA  
Licensure Committee with Dr. Ametrano.  I am also a  
practicing supervisor, and I provide, provide the clients  
with supervised training for the counselors who are  
qualified to provide.  
I first want to support the rules as  
proposed with MMHCA's proposed addition.  I want to  
briefly share why I think the addition is important.    
In mid March it became clear that it was  
unsafe to provide supervision in person.  It was a  
significant health risk to do so.  The Governor's  
emergency order giving us authorization to do that was  
not yet in effect.  And so it was clear that the only way  
to connect with supervisees was virtually.  Our ethics  
direct that supervisors have a responsibility to ensure  
the well being of supervisee clients as well as  
supervise, direct, and oversight those you are  
supervising.  But we were in a situation that raised a  
lot of questions.  Were we in violation of the Public  
Health Code if we were not providing supervision?  It  
appeared that we were satisfying the general provisions  
of the Health Code by doing supervision virtually, but  
the specific requirements in the licensure portion of the  
law said that it must be in person.  And so some of the  
questions were:  What do we do?  Could LPC (inaudible)  
    10  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
clients?  If not, there was a disruption.  And it also  
delayed the ability of LPCs to continue to count hours  
toward their supervision, which meant that the ten-year  
timeframe for some people could become a problem, and it  
meant that some faced loss of employment opportunities  
because they weren't able to finish their supervision in  
the timeframe they had planned.  By mid April the  
emergency order was in place, and that resolved the  
problem for us.  
So we believe that the Board has the  
ability to allow for an alternative such as that during a  
Governor's declared state of emergency, that will avoid  
that situation (inaudible) will avoid the confusion and  
the potential disruption of services.  And I myself  
support that that be included along with the rules that  
have been proposed.  Thank you.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Thank you, Dr.  
Schaeffer.  Do we have any other comments on Counseling -  
General Rules?  Go ahead.  
MICHAEL JOY:  Michael Joy.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Go ahead.    
MICHAEL JOY:  Thank you.  My name is  
Michael Joy.  That's spelled M-i-c-h-e-a-l.  Last name is  
spelled J-o-y.  I'm the President of the Michigan  
Counseling Association, but I'm also an LPC supervisor,  
    11  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
as well as I work in private practice.  And I just want  
to echo the sentiments of those expressed by MMHCA and  
others, that I definitely support the proposed amendment  
in terms of allowing non face-to-face supervision to be  
allowed, especially under the executive order and the  
current times that we are living in.    
Under the pandemic I do have a few  
supervisees myself who have been able to continue their  
supervision hours with me virtually, and it has made it  
possible for them to, as said by others, you know,  
continue to practice safely.  And there's many situations  
where good a discussion has been had regarding ways in  
which they can help their clients.  
So I definitely support this as a measure  
that will not only help build their practice, but help  
the safety of the clients that we serve.  That's all I  
wanted to add.  And again thank you for allowing us to be  
here today to discuss the proposed rules.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Thank you, Michael.  
Do we have any other comments on the Counseling rules?  
Again just a reminder, if you're on Zoom, it's under the  
Participants tab.  You can Raise Your Hand.  If you're on  
the telephone you can -- although I'm not seeing anybody  
on the telephone -- you can hit star 6.  
KERRY PRZYBYLO:  Weston, I don't see any  
    12  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
further hands raised.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  I'm not seeing any.  
O.K.  So if there is no one who wishes to speak at this  
time, we'll take a short recess, we'll wait until I think  
maybe 1:20 to see if there is anyone else.  If not, we'll  
adjourn.  So other than that, unless there's anybody at  
the moment?  
Oh.  Michael, you still have your hand  
raised.  
MICHAEL JOY:  Sorry.  Thank you, Weston.  
Just another question.  Is there a limit on how many  
hours can be done non face-to-face for supervision, on  
the proposed changes?  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  You have to take a  
look at the proposed set.  If you're looking at 17 --  
hold on one second.  If you're looking at 1774, and what  
was your question, as far as how many hours must be in  
person?  
MICHAEL JOY:  Yes.  How many hours have  
to be in person out of the 100.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Yeah.  So for those,  
this is of course for folks with a Master's degree.  So  
right now within the proposed rules we have the in-person  
requirement of 100 hours.  But then we also have the  
caveat that they can do 25 of those hours via the  
    13  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
two-way real-time, that's the current, the current  
proposed rule.  
MICHAEL JOY:  O.K.  That's what I thought  
it was.  I just wanted to get clarification.  What is the  
process for getting that through, you know, if it passes?  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Well, if -- what I'll  
have to do next is, based off of any comments that I have  
received today and also in written comments, go back to  
the rules committee, and we'll consider any of the  
comments and see if we're going to make any potential  
changes based on the comments.  The rules committee,  
we'll talk about it at the rules committee, see what the  
rules committee thinks, and then we'll take those  
comments to the full Board and see if there's any changes  
to make.  Beyond that, they go on to JCAR.  
MICHAEL JOY:  O.K.  Sounds great.  Thank  
you.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Yes.  Let's see.  I  
see Rachel Toiv.  Hopefully I'm pronouncing that  
correctly.  Oh, Rachel, I think you're on mute.  Sorry.  
RACHEL TOIV:  Can you hear me?  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Yes, I can hear you  
now.  
RACHEL TOIV:  Rachel Toiv.  I wanted to  
show support for the NCMHCE examination.  I didn't know  
    14  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
if this was the place to do it, or if that will be  
(inaudible).  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  That's fine.  If you  
have, it's comments on the rules.  So if there is  
something, you know, positive, negative, any comments, go  
ahead.  
RACHEL TOIV:  Yes.  I would just like to  
show my support for the acceptance of the NCMHCE state  
examination as it is created by the NDCC, which also  
gives out the NCE examination.  Those tests are composed  
of pretty much the same content outline.  It's just a  
matter of the format and they're very thorough, help, you  
know, analyze, identify, treat, think of, you know, ways  
to support all diagnoses.  So I just want to show my  
support for the acceptance and addition of that  
examination to the Michigan state licensing.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Thank you, Rachel.  
Dr. Ametrano, did you raise your hand again, or did you  
leave your hand up?  
DR. AMETRANO:  I raised it again.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  O.K.  Go ahead.  
DR. AMETRANO:  This goes back to the  
question about the number of hours allowed in the  
proposed rules, that 25 hours we're allowed in remote  
supervision in the proposed rules.  But I wanted to  
    15  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
clarify that my understanding is that then any hours that  
are done remotely under a Governor's emergency orders  
would not count as part of that 25 percent.  Is that  
correct?  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Well, it would depend.  
I think we're talking in hypotheticals at this point,  
right.  It depends on what the executive order says.  
DR. AMETRANO:  O.K.  So if the executive  
order implied over and above?  I mean --  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  If there is -- just to  
clarify.  So hypothetically speaking, if there was an  
executive order that said as far as how many hours you  
could do in person or what-have-you, the executive order  
would essentially trump anything that we would have in  
the rules regardless of, you know.  Even if we put in  
here that the Board, you know, could waive the in-person  
requirement, just hypothetically speaking, if the  
Governor issued some executive order saying something  
contrary to that, the executive order would trump that.  
Is that kind of what you're asking?  
DR. AMETRANO:  Yes.  I am not sure that  
it would be clarified in the order.  The order I thought  
would go over and above any hours counted towards the  
25 percent that are in the rules, in the proposed rules.  
So 25 percent is allowed outside of the Governor's  
    16  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
executive order.  But if the Governor's executive  
order goes --  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  I think you're  
confusing two different circumstances.  Right now in the  
proposed rules we have nothing that addresses any  
executive order.  
DR. AMETRANO:  Right.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Right now it's  
addressing morbid circumstances.  So in other words,  
right now under normal circumstances, staying completely  
irrelevant of the current emergency, you would have a 100  
hours in-person requirement.  But we would have, we have  
in there, in the proposed rules, an allowance of the 100  
you can do 25, up to 25 of those hours via two-way  
real-time communication.  That's irrespective of any  
executive order.  
DR. AMETRANO:  Right.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  If there were an  
executive order in place, whatever the executive order --  
if an executive order addressed specifically anything  
related to in-person requirements, the executive order is  
going to trump it, anything that we would put in the  
rules.  And right now, if an executive order addressed  
the in-person requirement, it would basically nullify  
this, too.  Does that make sense?  
    17  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
DR. AMETRANO:  Yes.  Yes.  The  
proposed -- but the MMHCA proposed amendment is not  
during the executive order we can do remote supervision.  
And I'm confused.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  I'll have to take a  
look and -- yes.  I understand you, what the comments  
are.  
DR. AMETRANO:  I just, theoretically  
someone could, if the executive order goes on for two  
years, theoretically somebody could end up with 100 hours  
of remote supervision, and that would be O.K., even  
though the rule says 25 percent.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  The ultimate effect of  
it, you know, remains to be determined.  And then again,  
that depends on what ultimately is adopted in the rules.  
DR. AMETRANO:  O.K.  Yes.  I'm just  
confusing things so I'll back off now.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Next, let's see.  
Andrea Casarillo, go ahead.  
ANDREA CASARILLO:  Yes.  I just want --  
Andrea Casarillo with the (inaudible).  And I'm also on  
behalf of MMHCA, the Michigan Mental Health Counselors  
Association.  I just want to clarify.  The intent of the  
proposed addition to the rules regarding remote  
supervision would, is, you know, today we are under a  
    18  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
stay of emergency.  The Governor has included executive  
orders with that, that exempts in-person provision and  
allows for full remote supervision.  
The proposed amendment to the supervision  
rules would allow, while we allow for 25 percent being  
remote in the proposed rules, this would allow the Board  
to determine in a future state of emergency, so not the  
current one that is dictated by executive orders, but in  
a future state of emergency, they could waive that  
in-person requirement and allow that full remote  
supervision at their discretion, if that was warranted.  
So I just wanted to offer that clarification in case  
there was any misunderstanding.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Thank you, Andrea.  
Dr. Schaeffer, did you raise your hand again or was that  
from earlier?  Oh, you're on mute.  
DR. S. SCHAEFFER:  I just also wanted to  
chime in the conversation to help clarify that.  And Wes,  
my understanding is that we have an emergency declaration  
or declaration of a state of emergency and then we have  
executive orders.  And so right now we have an emergency  
declaration and an executive order that allows us, per  
the emergency declaration, to do the remote supervision.  
My understanding is that the MMHCA  
amendment is for a situation where a state of emergency  
    19  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
was declared but there wasn't an executive order that  
gave us direction about providing supervision in  
virtually.  And the amendment was to give the Board the  
authority to do that.  And you can correct me if I'm  
right or wrong on that.  
But then the second question, I think,  
that Dr. Ametrano was getting at is, if that were the  
case, we want to make sure that those hours that the  
Board said were waiving the in-person requirement because  
of the state of emergency, that it wouldn't count against  
the 25 percent that are already allowed to be done that  
way.  
So can you, first of all, is my  
understanding right about the difference between the  
executive order and the state of emergency?  And then, is  
it also your interpretation that if the Board declared  
that in-person required hours could be performed  
virtually because of the state of emergency, am I correct  
in understanding that that doesn't count against the 25  
hours that are already allowed?  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  I'd have to take a  
closer look at the comment and consider it and the  
effectiveness under the present circumstances.  It would  
probably be inappropriate for me to try and provide a  
full interpretation of what would happen in a  
    20  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
hypothetical situation.  Just because, you know, it's not  
really -- it's also not really the appropriate place to  
do it.  I mean, if you're going to, you know, if you're  
going to throw a hypothetical, it's hard to say without  
considering all the potential factors.  
DR. S. SCHAEFFER:  O.K.  I think what we  
want to make sure to communicate is that was our  
intention in proposing it.  So if we didn't say it just  
right, so that you might be able to help us say it in a  
way that honors the intention that was proposed.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Any other comments?  
Sheri Pickover.  
SHERI PICKOVER:  Thank you.  I'm from  
Central Michigan University.  And I apologize, I kind of  
came in later so if this was already addressed, please  
forgive me.  I was at another meeting.  
I really just wanted to make a comment  
about the plan to require the graduates to seek outside  
credentially and just express my concern about that, the  
fee, and the kind of social justice issues around that.  
Central Michigan work primarily with a lot of students  
who are in rural communities, who are trying to service  
the same rural communities where there are no access to  
mental health services.  They have -- obviously they were  
paying tuition, but money and finances, especially in  
    21  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
this time, are a concern.  And so then to have that extra  
burden added, and we haven't been able to quantify how  
much they would have pay, because we are in the process  
of accreditation but aren't -- we don't have the stamp of  
approval yet.  So I just wanted to kind of put that on  
the record, to advocate for our graduates.  
WESTON MacINTOSH:  Thank you, Sheri.  Any  
other comments?  (No response.)   
And just to circle back, any other  
comments on either Accounting or Counseling?  (No  
response.)  
O.K.  So we're at 1:28.  So if there are  
no further comments at this time, I hereby declare this  
hearing closed.  The record will remain open until today  
at 5:00 o'clock p.m. for any other comments you may wish  
to share about those rules.  Thank you for attending.  
(The hearing was closed at 1:29 p.m.  
-   -   -  
 
    22  
 1  
 2  
 3  
 4  
 5  
 6  
 7  
 8  
 9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
 
C E R T I F I C A T E  
   I, Marie T. Schroeder, CSR-2183, do  
hereby certify that I reported in stenotype the  
proceedings had in the within-entitled matter, via Zoom,  
before the Bureau of Professional Licensing, LARA, MOAHR,  
Lansing, Michigan, on Tuesday, September 22, 2020; and do  
further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting  
of 22 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my  
stenotype notes.   
 
 
Digitally signed by MarieT Schroeder  
DN: cn=MarieT Schroeder, o=Metro  
Court Reporters Inc, ou,  
email=metrostate@sbcglobal.net,  
c=US  
MarieT  
Date: 2020.09.24 11:30:45 -04'00'  
Schroeder  
_______________________________  
Marie T. Schroeder, CSR-2183  
                              P.O. Box 1313  
Walled Lake, Michigan  48390  
                              metrostate@sbcglobal.net  
 
 
Dated:  September 24, 2020    
;