Dear Sir/ Madam,

This proposal is exclusionary. Other states, including Maryland, have created specific guidelines for licenure, including passing the NBCC exam, having 3000 plus hours of supervision after graduation, and taking all relevant classes for licensure.

This propsal seems to want to want the applicant to redo some of the process, including retaking an exam which was already passed elsewhere. And the only schools the applicant is allowed to attend are CACREP endorsed schools. The proposal says it intends to protect public safety, implying that only licensees who attended CACREP schools are "safe." What arrogance! The schooling and training received by the counselor are just the beginning. Being a good therapist involves far more than schooling. It also involves the person's ongoing training and supervision, their ethics, and morals. And it also invloves their commitment to their own mental health in order to best help their clients.

This proposal will do the opposite of what it proposes: it will limit the number of therapists available, thus putting the public more at risk by limiting the opportunities to find the right therapist. After all, therapy at its most basic is about the fit between client and therapist. It's exclusionistic strategy will merely create less competition for those it endorses, and thus could be viewed as anti-competetive. How does that serve the public? It seems more self-serving for CACREP membership.

Keep the opportunities available to everyone licensed by a state board in the US, and give the public the best care possible.

Thank You,

Thomas Lishman, LCPC