Sen. Head has introduced SB 520 which would create the ERASER committee: The eliminate, reduce, and streamline employee regulation (ERASER) committee. You know when legislation has a fancy but strained acronym, you’re in for a treat.
But, I’m actually more than a little sympathetic to the goals of this one. Basically it creates a committee and then tells the committee to go down the list of professions in IC 25, review the boards that regulate the professions, review the budget and finances of those boards, review the regulation of the profession and the impact of that regulation on consumers and the public, and propose legislation. It divides up the list of professions into four chunks, going in order down IC 25, and then has the committee evaluate that chunk for the year. But, it gets too clever for its own good when it then declares that, in the absence of action by the General Assembly in the year following ERASER evaluation, the profession is no longer regulated — well, actually, it says that the licenses are terminated for those professions; so, I suppose that could be read to mean that the professions are still regulated, just that no one in that profession has a valid license to continue practicing.
The committee consists of the Dean of IU’s school of public and environmental affairs and four members appointed by the governor, two of whom are in regulated professions, two of whom are not. (As well as a couple of non-voting members.)
This approach is too broad, but like I said, I sympathize with the issue. There are a lot of licensed, certified, and registered occupations and legitimate questions about whether they really need to be regulated or, if so, whether the barriers to entry into the market is set at the correct level. And, if you target one professions specifically, there will be a shit storm of lobbying from that profession. I did a post about proposed music therapist licensure a few weeks ago and promptly got a bunch of comments from interested parties helpfully explaining to me the details of music therapy. Last year, the hair professionals came out of the woodwork. It’s like that fable about the dog and the hare. Of course the hare is faster, because he’s running for his life while the dog is only running for his supper. In these cases, the public just has a diffuse interest in non-regulation; the regulated professions have a focused interest in raising barriers to entry. So they can be expected to work and lobby a lot harder.