Relating to discipline imposed by the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists.
Summary
HB 2016 directs the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists to adopt by rule a schedule matching violations under ORS 675.745 with the penalties imposed for each type of violation. The bill is focused on how long disciplinary information remains publicly available after a licensee or associate has satisfied the board’s order.
Under the bill, the board must remove certain disciplinary information from its website and other publicly accessible print or electronic publications after three years for lesser or similar violations that did not involve suspension or revocation, and after five years for greater or similar violations when suspension was imposed. The bill also allows the board to retain disciplinary information in a publicly accessible searchable licensure-verification database, and it prohibits removal of records involving permanent denial of a license.
Impact
HB 2016 amends the statutes governing the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists by adding a new section to ORS 675.715 to 675.835. It creates a rulemaking requirement for a violation-and-penalty schedule and changes the public disclosure rules for disciplinary records, limiting how long certain discipline remains on the board’s website and related publications while preserving access through licensure-verification databases and preserving permanent-denial records.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable but not unanimous support. It passed the House committee 8-1, the House floor 33-17, and the Senate committee 3-2, indicating broad support with some reservations. The Senate later passed both a motion to reconsider and third reading 18-10, suggesting the measure remained somewhat contested but ultimately advanced with majority support.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between public transparency and rehabilitation or privacy for licensed counselors and therapists. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to standardize discipline and reduce the long-term public exposure of resolved, lower-level disciplinary matters, while opponents likely worried that shortening public access could make it harder for clients and the public to evaluate practitioner history. The narrower committee and floor margins, especially in the Senate, suggest disagreement over whether disciplinary records should remain publicly visible for longer periods.