Rick Little: Are we ready? Kim: Yes [crosstalk 00:00:08] David Ittner: Go for it, Rick. Rick Little: All right. Good morning. My name is Rick Little, I'm the Chair of the Washington State Funeral and Cemetery Board and it is now exactly 10:00 and on Tuesday August 3rd, 2021. I'm calling this Board meeting to order. Rick Little: We will be providing an opportunity for public comment later in this meeting and have posted information with the agenda on the website with a link to the Zoom meeting. As a curtesy, we encourage everyone to mute their mics or your phone if you call in when you are not speaking to reduce the background noise when others are speaking. Also, for Board members to help us capture information, correctly please state your name when making comments. Thank you. Rick Little: Introductions. Kim, will you do roll call please? Kim: Yes, thank you. So first off Rick Little. Hello, Rick. Rick Little: Is here. Kim: David? David Ittner: Here. Kim: Cameron? Cameron Smock: Present. Kim: Pete? Pete Cameron: Here. Kim: Did Dante join us? No. Connie? Connie LeSourd: Here. Kim: Angie? Angie Ward: Here. Kim: And then moving to staff. Is Elizabeth present? Jeffery? Rick Storvick? Rick Storvick: Here. Kim: Julia? Julia: Here. Kim: Pam? Pam: Here. Kim: Thomas? Thomas Mowery: Present. Kim: [Jeanie 00:02:06] and Darla. Darla: Here. Kim: Did I miss anybody? All right, back to you Rick. Rick Little: Okay. We have the order of agenda on page three and four. Now, item number 1.2, approval of minutes. We'll need a motion. Cameron Smock: [crosstalk 00:02:38] I move to approach the minutes. Rick Little: I didn't hear. David Ittner: [crosstalk 00:02:55] Pete Cameron: This is Pete with the second. Rick Little: Okay. We have a first and we have a second. Are there any comments? If none, all those in favor say, "aye". Cameron Smock: Aye. Pete Cameron: Aye. David Ittner: Aye. Rick Little: Opposed? Abstentions? Passed. Cameron Smock: Mr. President, or Mr. Chairman? Rick Little: Yes? Cameron Smock: Point of order, I believe we have to approve the agenda as well. Rick Little: No. Kim: It's a special Board meeting. Rick Little: This is a special Board meeting. [crosstalk 00:03:35] Cameron Smock: Okay. Rick Little: No, we don't need to do that. Cameron Smock: Okay, I'll shut up. Rick Little: I'm sorry you did not get the... Cameron Smock: You would have thought after three years I would have figured it out. Rick Little: Okay. Item 1.3, review communications. Rick? Rick Storvick: No communications at this time. Rick Little: Okay. Item number 2. 2.1 any new business? There's none. Item number 3, old business. 3.1 COVID update. Rick and Pam? Rick Storvick: Yes, I'll just briefly say a lot of the guidelines and things for COVID have kind of past. It's a pretty open area but yet, we're still under a pandemic emergency. The governor has not lifted the state of emergency to that extent. So probably the one lingering thing that impacts our licencee some is we have, I think, a couple folks who have interns and they've extended their expiration date while they try to finish up and so they've been in contact. And the Board approved, early on in the pandemic, the ability to extend those timing out until, if I remember right, it's so many days past the end of the declaration of emergency. So we still have I think a couple folks who are kind of in that pattern. Rick Storvick: Pam though, continues to stay engaged in conversations with the coroners group, the medical examiners group and I think Pam and Thomas possibly in some conversations regarding some followup to how the pandemic was handled and I'll turn over to Pam for any updates or insights that she has regarding some of that work. Pam: Thank you, Rick. I was not aware that I was speaking this morning and I did miss the last coroners meeting because I was taking a lot of vacation. So, my apologies to the Board for not being prepared and not having any significant updates for you at this time. Rick Little: Okay, well thank you Pam and I hope you enjoyed your vacation. It's well deserved of course. Alrighty. Item 3.2. Kim: It's me. So the only thing we had from action items from last meeting was to email the committee meetings for the review of the exam questions and that's been done. And I believe the committee has met several times and they're done. So we may be hearing an update from them here shortly. Rick Little: Okay, thank you. Item number 4, cases for review. Is Dante here? Kim: He is not. I have not heard from him either. Rick Little: Okay, so... Rick Storvick: I'll go ahead and read his summary for you, Rick. Rick Little: Sure. Thank you very much Rick. Rick Storvick: And I'll just read from the case manager worksheet here that the complainant, through an attorney, alleged that the respondent committed a felony by unlawfully mutilating, defacing or otherwise injuring her husband's grave and the complainant requested $50,000 for her suffering and $3000 attorney fees. The facts, as they were determined, is the complainant's husband died March 20, 2015 and was interred at the respondent cemetery on March 26, 2015. The complainant submitted two undated photos of the damage done to her husband's grave by cemetery equipment. The damage appears to be muddy tire tracks over the complainant's husband's grave. Rick Storvick: The complainant acknowledged the rules and regulations of the respondent's cemetery on a contract dated March 26, 2015. The respondent's rules and regulations specify that the respondent reserves the right of ingress and egress over grave spaces. Also, the complainant did not provide further evidence of damage or suffering when requested by the respondent's insurance company. Rick Storvick: Also, the damages sought by the complainant are over three years old and would be barred by the statute of limitations' injury claims. And the case manager has recommended that the case be closed with no further action. Rick Little: Good. Thank you so much Rick. Do I have a motion for that? Pete Cameron: This is Pete. So moved. Rick Little: Is there a second? [crosstalk 00:09:05] Cameron Smock: Second. Rick Little: Motion by Pete and seconded by Cameron. Is there any other comments? If none, all in favor say "Aye". David Ittner: Aye. Pete Cameron: Aye. Cameron Smock: Aye. Rick Little: Opposed? Any abstentions? It's passed. Rick Little: Item number 4.2 Mr. Ittner. David Ittner: Okay, this one's a little wordy so bare with me. Case number 2021-03-0606-00CDM. Complaint summary. Complainant, a visitor on site to learn about the respondent operation and facility filed a complaint to the Funeral and Cemetery Board on March 15th, 2021 against the respondent cemetery and the operator. Complainant alleges the respondent uses a walk-in cooler off the kitchen for the storage of human remains. The complainant also alleges the respondent is disrespectful in the handling and transport of human remains by using a pickup with a canopy for transport, leaving human remains in an open grave, covered only with a plank and water barrels, in quotes. The complainant further alleges the cemetery operator made lewd comments to her and another young woman as well as engaging inappropriate conversations about sexuality polygamy. David Ittner: The facts of the case, the complainant photos show what appears to be an old commercial kitchen adjacent to a walk in cooler where human remains are stored. The respondent's written response states the kitchen is an old campground kitchen and is no longer in use and has not been used since it was a campground in 2017. The community that operates the cemetery facility stores and prepares food in the community dining hall more than 500 feet away from the walk-in cooler where remains are temporarily stores. Just to clarify, the remains are temporarily stored in the old refrigerator that is 500 feet away from the dining facility. David Ittner: The respondent uses a pick-up truck with a canopy to transport human remains over the 20 plus acre site as shown in the photos attached to the case report. The photos show a deceased person wrapped in a shroud and placed on top of what appears to be a wooden platform. An additional respondent statement indicates the human remains for this family were placed in a grave over a bed of wood chips covered by a plank and heavy water barrels as a means to prevent the remains from freezing for the family. All indications are that the family was informed, involved and part of the decision process. David Ittner: An initial letter from the family members of the deceased followed by assessment phone call from an investigator indicate that the family was pleased with the service they received from the respondent location. Furthermore, the family indicated that the only issue they had with the experience of the respondent location was that of the complainant taking selfies during the burial process. David Ittner: Relative to the complaints of lewd comments to the complainant and another woman and discussions about sexuality and polygamy, a letter and an email from the other woman contradict the statements of the complainant as noted... Let's see. They contradict the statement of the complainant. As noted on the respondent website, the community that operates the cemetery explores the intersection between death care and intentional community which involves learning about how sexuality functions within the context of community. David Ittner: I recommend that this case be closed with no further action. Rick Little: Do I have a motion with that? Cameron Smock: I'll move, this is Cameron. Rick Little: Okay, Cameron. Is there a second? Pete Cameron: This is Pete. So move. Rick Little: The motion then the second. Is there any more comments on this case? If not, all in favor- Angie Ward: This is Angie. Rick Little: Sorry, go ahead. Sorry about that. Angie Ward: No, it's okay. Can you hear me all right? Rick Little: Yes. Angie Ward: Can you hear me okay? Rick Little: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Angie Ward: Since I'm the least informed about process for facilities, I just had a question about the concern that obviously is not a big concern or something else would have been suggested for remediation, but the fact that the case is stated... Let me see here. Sorry, back to the complainant summary. I just am verifying or want to better understand, the complainant alleges the respondent utilizes a walk-in cooler off the kitchen for storage of human remains. Albeit, I'm assuming that's unusual, it is not a violation of any sort. It's just curious to me. So can anybody help be understand that? David Ittner: Angie, good question. So based on my observation and the investigator's photos and questions and everything that was part of the case, the kitchen is not... The refrigerator part is in use but the kitchen piece is not used for any sort of food prep or anything, and it's pretty obviously by the photos that it's not a food prep facility. Angie Ward: Okay. David Ittner: Yeah, so it's completely unused at least to the best of my knowledge, for that purpose. And so the food prep and everything else, the kitchen aspect is all in a different facility altogether. And so it's a temporary storage facility for human remains. Angie Ward: Okay, but let's just say that a picture popped up from a week previous to this visit that this complainant had and there was food being prepared, would that be a violation of some sort? David Ittner: That's a good question. Cameron Smock: Potentially. Not to jump in here but one of the things that is in the RCW's Angie is that the areas where humans remains are, there needs to be professional decorum. So for example, in a preparation room in a funeral home you have human remains there whether they're being prepared, embalmed, cosmetized, etc., it would not be appropriate for an employee to have a cup of coffee in there or have lunch in there or things of that nature. There are regulations that talk about professional decorum and what should or shouldn't take place in proximity to human remains. Angie Ward: So David, as part of your... Thank you Cameron. As part of your investigation did you talk with the owner about that and whether... So that was part of your fact finding was that you had a conversation about whether that sort of thing was happening, even though it appeared to you that it hadn't? David Ittner: The investigator did that leg work in speaking with and getting the response from the owner or from the operator. As well as I requested followup conversations with the family members that were involved in reference in the actual complaint from the complainant and to that extent, along with the photos, it appears that the complaints were unsubstantiated. And then there was also a discission or a followup conversation, and I don't recall if it was in person or via email, with the woman that was noted in the complaint as being subject to inappropriate sexual conversations. And so all of that appeared to be, for lack of a better phrase, made up by the complainant. David Ittner: And so yes, there were conversations with the owner by the investigator. Angie Ward: Thank you so much. I guess for me as the public member, I'm totally put at ease by the fact that the family didn't have any complaint. To me, that's the bottom line. I guess being able to put the pieces of this together and knowing that... I don't know what's appropriate to say here. It's obvious to me who this is, who this respondent is and knowing that with the new methods of disposition that this might become... Other things may come to light or that... I guess to me it doesn't feel like some of what you're telling me now, David, was captured. So if a public someone were to ask for this record and read it, I don't think that that answer that you gave without more information in relation to the concern about the kitchen area is addressed here. So I just was wondering if we needed to add something to it or if that isn't really something that we need to be concerned about. That if someone were to request this document, this case manager recommendation worksheet, would the whole story have been told? Just feels like the answer to your first questions was really informative for me. Angie Ward: That's it, thank you. David Ittner: Good questions. I guess one thing I'm not fully aware of in what is, in terms of public documents, would be... Rick, you can answer this question but is the investigative report itself open to the public at some point? Rick Storvick: Yes, the investigative file would be subject to public disclosure. So if someone wants the details, that's all available to them. David Ittner: Okay. And so what I see... I don't know if it's appropriate or not to attach photos and documentary evidence like that to a case manager report but Angie, to me that tells the story and whether or not it's the most ideal funeral facility in the world... Or maybe that's a question to ask but as far as the complaint that we received and the information that was presented to me via the investigator, it just didn't appear that there was... The complainant's issue was not valid or it was unfounded in that sense. David Ittner: But again, if a member of the public wanted to see that, I suppose if the case evidence is available then it should be cleared up. Angie Ward: That answers all my questions so thank you so much David, I appreciate it. David Ittner: Yup, you bet. Rick Little: Thank you, Angie, for just being and having the insight to bring that up and all comments are very much appreciated when we're working on these investigative reports. Thank you again. Rick Little: So we had a motion and a second. Any other further comments? All those in favor say "Aye". Cameron Smock: Aye. Pete Cameron: Aye. Angie Ward: Aye. Rick Little: Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, so moved. Rick Little: Item number 4.3, Mr. Cameron. Pete Cameron: This is case number 2020-10-1352-00FBE. Complaint summary is the complaint alleges respondent funeral home refused to file a death certificate for several months. Pete Cameron: The facts of the case are that after taking custody of the deceased, respondent worked with the next of kin who requested that the death certificate not be filed until an autopsy and other tests could be completed. These duties went on for weeks, then months as communication with the next of kin slowed. Vital statistics contacted the respondent several times to file the death certificate so they could fulfill order so certified copies but respondent refused, claiming they were following directions of the person who had the right to control disposition. Pete Cameron: Seven months later, at the request of Vital Statistics, respondent eventually filed the death certificate with the date of disposition of unknown. They were instructed to file an affidavit for correction when that information was finally established. Pete Cameron: After readying through all this, I recommend a remediation counseling for the respondent employees by Board staff regarding RCW 70.58.170 and the guidelines for the proper filing of death certificate. This was completed by Board staff on June 8th, so I am recommending that this case be closed with no further action. Rick Little: Thank you Pete. Do I have a motion? Cameron Smock: So moved. Rick Little: So moved. Is there a second? Kim: I second it. Rick Little: The motion's by Cameron and is there any other comments at all? Okay, all in favor say "Aye". David Ittner: Aye. Pete Cameron: Aye. Pam: Aye. Connie LeSourd: Aye. Rick Little: Okay, any opposed? Any abstentions? All right, thank you very much. I'll be glad when we can meet in person. Zoom's getting kind of crazy. Rick Little: All right, I just became Chairman of the Board here and I got to hand the duties off for these cases. If I can have our Vice Chair David to continue on. David Ittner: All right, I'll try not to mess this part up. Item number 4.4, Mr. Little. Rick Little: Okay, this is case number 2018-05-2601FDE. Legal next of kin was upset with the customer service they received from the funeral director. Funeral director would not disclose the whereabouts of the deceased. When the legal next of kin decided to move the deceased to another facility, the funeral director charged the family $400 for entering the deceased into their system and for two death certificates. Rick Little: The fact is, the mother of the deceased made the initial arrangements of the funeral director. The father of the deceased called and asked a few questions. After several attempts to call the funeral director, the director finally returned the call. The father asked where his son was and the funeral director explained that he was in storage. The legal next of kin then went to the business the following day and found that the deceased was still in the medical examiner's office. The legal next of kin then decided to change to another facility because of the unprofessional conduct of the funeral director. Rick Little: The funeral home did charge the family $300 for the basic service fee. The next funeral home was able to confirm the deceased was at the medical examiner's office but the cremation was delayed for a total of 10 days due to the misinformation that was imputed into ERS by the initial funeral home. Rick Little: I would recommend that this be closed with no further action. David Ittner: Is there a motion for that affect? Cameron Smock: So move. David Ittner: Was that Cameron? Cameron Smock: Yeah, sorry. David Ittner: Is there a second? Pete Cameron: This is Pete on second. David Ittner: Any discussion? Pete Cameron: This is Pete. Rick, was it clarified in the investigation whether the family paid the funeral home the $300 or they wouldn't release that until the family paid that? Rick Little: It wasn't clear in the investigation but this is... I'd have to double check but I don't believe so. I don't think they were holding the person. Pete Cameron: That's where my question was kind of going. Rick Little: Yeah, right. Pete Cameron: Okay. David Ittner: Any further discussion? All in favor? Pete Cameron: Aye. Angie Ward: Aye. [crosstalk 00:28:31] Kim: Aye. David Ittner: Any opposed? Nope. All right. Just one second. All right, item number 4.5 Mr. Little. Rick Little: Okay, this is case number 2018-05 2600-00FBE. Legal next of kin was upset about the funeral home not disclosing the location of the deceased to be cremated. When the call was received by the legal next of kin to the funeral home, the funeral director was vague to the whereabouts of the deceased. The lack of communications had with the legal next of kin caused distress. After the legal next of kin called several places, they found out where the deceased was. The staff of this facility told the legal next of kin when the cremation would take place. Rick Little: From the date of death of the release of the cremated remains was 19 days. Although this was a lengthy time, again is all about communication if there's an issue with anything but there really wasn't any violations so I would recommend this be closed. David Ittner: All right, is there a motion to that affect? Pete Cameron: This is Pete, so move. David Ittner: Is there a second? Connie LeSourd: This is Connie. I second it. David Ittner: All right. Any discussion? Cameron Smock: I think my only comment or question is I don't know if it raises to the level of remediation or counseling but in both of these cases it seems like, Rick you're right it is communication but it's baffling to me that the funeral director or the funeral home would not properly communicate with the family regarding where their loved one is or what the status of their loved one's care is. So I guess the optimistic part of me says I hope that the funeral director, funeral homes involved in these two cases have learned a lesson in terms of how important communication is. Rick Little: Yes, most definitely. Cameron Smock: No further comments. Angie Ward: This is Angie. David Ittner: Any further... Oh, go ahead. Angie Ward: I was going to say the same thing, Cameron. I don't know if it's more concerning to me that there are two cases in this short period of time from different places or the thought that it could be the same place, which I know that we aren't privy to that information. But yeah, it does seem a little bit concerning that we've got these two cases where that is an issue and they're... Like you said, hopefully just the investigation alone is enough. But considering where we were with the hearing earlier in the spring and knowing how these patterns can develop, it is a little bit concerning. Angie Ward: That's all, thank you. David Ittner: I think those are both good points. I would wonder is there not an obligation to communicate to the family the location of their... If I'm reading the case right Rick they just simply did not communicate to the family as to where the deceased person was located. Is there not an obligation to do so? Rick Little: Well I agree. It's definitely a communication factor. You should always be communicating with your families even if there's any question of what is going on. David Ittner: Okay. Any further discussion? Speaker 13: I have a question. A similar case. I'm wondering, is there a state law or administrative rule that requires cremation by a certain timeframe after a death? Rick Storvick: This is Rick. At this point this is a Board discussion and so if the public has comments we can certainly take those comments at the end. Speaker 13: Okay. Rick Storvick: It's a deliberative process right now to try to determine their course of action here. Thank you. Speaker 13: Okay, I apologize. Rick Storvick: Not a problem. Thank... David Ittner: Any further discussion? Cameron Smock: My only comment, not to be an obstructionist here, I'm going to vote no for the motion that's before us just because I feel it's unclear to me whether this really raises to the level of counseling for that respondent that was involved. So when I vote no, that's my reasoning. David Ittner: All right. Any further comments? All right, there being none- Angie Ward: This is Angie. David Ittner: Oh, sorry, go ahead. Angie Ward: I'll be voting no as well, just for your information. Rick Storvick: And I'll add a little conversation here, Rick if I may, that that issue actually was discussed in determination what to do here. You'll notice that these cases are from 2018. The recommendations were made a year later. It got caught up in some staff transitions and one of the things that Rick and I reviewed before bringing this to the Board at this time was a review that in these cases there've been no further complaints since back in 2019. And so part of the discussion regarding whether we should reach out and do remedial counseling two years later with no ongoing complaints, that was part of the decision before bringing it to the Board today. Rick Little: This is from a long time ago and that's why I want to repeat what Rick said about that. Cameron Smock: Rick Storvick, I appreciate that explanation. That helps me better understand the situation. Rick Storvick: Yup. David Ittner: Okay. Any further discussion? All right, al in favor? Pete Cameron: Aye. David Ittner: Any opposed? Cameron Smock: I oppose. Angie Ward: This is Angie. I oppose. David Ittner: All right. Any abstentions? All right. The motion does not pass. Kim: I did not hear Connie vote in any way. David Ittner: Oh. Kim: Did we lose her? David Ittner: Connie are you there? Kim: Yes. David Ittner: Okay. Kim: I asked her to unmute. David Ittner: Are we trying to get in contact with her? Kim: She's on. Connie, are you able to vote? Connie LeSourd: Oh, yes. I thought I said "Aye", I'm sorry. Yeah, Kim: That's all right, thank you. David Ittner: Okay. So then with my vote being opposed, assuming I get a vote, then the motion does not pass. Rick Storvick: That's correct. David Ittner: And then I'm not sure where to go from here. Rick Storvick: So, it gets sent back to the case manager and staff to re-work the case. David Ittner: Okay. All right, moving onto item number 4.6. Mr. Little. Rick Little: Okay, item number 4.6 we have case number 2018-04-6201 00FDE. The representative of the deceased was upset with the unprofessional conduct of the funeral director. The funeral director would not give out the location of the deceased or the whereabouts of the deceased that had been cremated. The funeral director would not release the cremated remains to the son of the deceased. Rick Little: The facts is, after several attempts by the representative of the deceased to the funeral director as the whereabouts or whether the deceased had been cremated, the representative had been told that the decease was cremated three weeks prior. The funeral director finally mailed the remains to the legal next of kin. Rick Little: This was, there was a lack of communication between the funeral director and the next of kin regarding the whereabouts of the pre-arranged of the deceased which lead to the legal next of kin to believe that the deceased had been left in refrigeration for three weeks. There's lack of follow through and working with this family. Rick Little: And I will share with everyone that this is a decision that was made because there's several different cases, this is another one which is a whole array of ones that they're doing an investigation on. Working with the Board of staff, we decided to close because they're working on this other part of the investigation with this firm. So they wanted to put these aside to focus on the other items that they're working with and I don't know if I can say anything more about that but that's the whole reason behind these. And I appreciate your comments and what you're... I'm glad that you are expressing that you don't agree with this but they're trying to move this forward so they can focus on the other and I would say that. Because I originally was doing remedial counseling before but then really, due to the other factors, I wasn't able to... They were recommending I do this instead. Rick Little: So I'm saying, I'm recommending closed with no further action. David Ittner: Okay, thank you Mr. Little. Is there a motion to that affect? Pete Cameron: [crosstalk 00:42:09] This is Pete, so moved. Cameron Smock: I will move. This is Cameron. David Ittner: Okay, first by Pete, second by Cameron then? I think that's what I heard. Any discussion? Cameron Smock: This is Cameron. I'm really not trying to be a sore thumb here. I don't know if I can ask this question or not but Rick Little, based on your commentary, this is the third complaint that involved what I consider improper communication. Can I ask, is the respondent the same in all three cases or are these different respondents? Rick Storvick: I don't think it's appropriate to go into who the respondents are on these cases. Cameron Smock: Yeah, all right, I know I can't ask who they are, I didn't know [crosstalk 00:43:18] Rick Storvick: Yeah, I don't think. Cameron Smock: Fair enough. Rick Storvick: Yup. Cameron Smock: Okay, well for the same reason as the last one then, I will vote no to the recommendation. Angie Ward: This is Angie. The same for me. Pete Cameron: This is Pete with a question. Rick, it says in this one that there is a representative of the deceased that tried to contact the funeral director as well. Was that representative hired by the person with the right to control disposition or was that somebody else who hired a representative? Rick Little: I'd have to look that up. I believe it was... They weren't hired, they were just representing the decease. Pete Cameron: So was that representative [crosstalk 00:44:31] was the representative a person who was involved with the right to control? Was that clear? Rick Little: I don't believe that was clear with that. Pete Cameron: Okay. For that reason on this one I'm going to vote no as well. Connie LeSourd: This is Connie, I'm voting no. David Ittner: Okay. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor. Any opposed? Cameron Smock: Aye. Pete Cameron: Aye. Angie Ward: Aye Connie LeSourd: Aye. David Ittner: All right, motion does not pass. Okay. Moving forward to item number 4.7, Mr. Little. Rick Little: Okay, this is case number 2017-11-2600 00FDE. County Vital Statistics alleged that the funeral establishment did not pay the fees owed to the County Vital Statistics over an eight month period. Rick Little: The facts is, the funeral establishment collected monies from the family served. The county restricted the funeral establishment to cash only and repayment was taken care of over time. And I recommend that this be closed with no further action since they made an agreement to take care of the bills that were owed to the County. David Ittner: All right, is there a motion to that effect? Cameron Smock: This is Cameron. I move. David Ittner: Okay. Connie LeSourd: This is Connie. [crosstalk 00:47:00] David Ittner: First, is there a second? Connie LeSourd: I second it. This is Connie. David Ittner: Thank you. Any discussion? Cameron Smock: This is Cameron. I have a question. Is there anything in the RCWs that fall under our [inaudible 00:47:18] that address the issue of funeral homes' responsibilities for timely payment of third party expenses? Pete Cameron: This is Pete. Not to my knowledge. I've run into this before. Cameron Smock: So if that's true and I think, Pete, it is, thank you, this may be bad business but it's really not an issue that we have jurisdiction on. Rick Little: Right. Cameron Smock: Okay, thank you. David Ittner: Any further discussion? All in favor. Cameron Smock: Aye. Pete Cameron: Aye. Angie Ward: Aye. Connie LeSourd: Aye. David Ittner: Any opposed? Oh, was that a for or against? Kim: I think that was for, she's just delayed a little bit. David Ittner: Oh, okay. Great. All right, any abstentions? Being none, motion passes. Mr. Little, I will turn it back over to you. Rick Little: Thank you. Alrighty, item number five, legal issues for deliberation. 5.1, orders to be presented. None from what I understand. Okay if none, item number six, disciplinary and investigation items. Rick? Rick Storvick: Okay thanks. So as you can see here, we're starting to generate reports out of the new system regarding cases and you can see folks listed with cases that have been closed that they've had. If it's an investigation legal management review for a total there both, and broken down by cemetery cases and funeral cases. One thing kind of a little bit odd there, you see Ron Messenger's name on there and he's been gone for a while. We're still figuring out how to best tweak these reports and make sure that it's good and understandable for you. Rick Storvick: I believe that, for example, Ron Messenger's name shows up because there's some past cases that the Board has taken action but it still floats in our system. We're probably watching to make sure people have complied with something or whatever, again so some of those things show up. Rick Storvick: The other thing that I'll mention that is a little odd, we have some listed as not applicable, NA for case manager, that we have some things out there. One of the things that I found out is in our new system, in Polaris, is you go to renew your license and you have problems with it and you decide to enter a complaint about that, some people are using our complaint portal to issue the complaint so it gets logged as that now we have a complaint in one of our professions that is really, it's not a complaint. So we'll end up closing that without bringing it to the Board because it's not a true complaint but it does get logged in, in that manner. And if you want to scroll up a little bit, there's some information there regarding, I think, what the different statuses are. Rick Storvick: In that, as we go through, if you have questions about this report, let us know and if we can figure out a way to tweak it so it's a helpful tool... I know typically a lot of Board members have indicated they use this to look at and go, "You say that I've got X number but when I'm looking at my own files that's not what I'm getting." So we can make sure that folks have an accurate accounting of where their cases are at. Rick Little: Okay, thank you Rick. Rick Storvick: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Rick Little: Are there questions at all with that? All right, item seven, this is the attorney general's report. Is Elizabeth there? Rick Storvick: Elizabeth wasn't able to join us today so she would not have a report at this time. Rick Little: Okay. Item eight, committee task force report. There's none I understand. Item number nine, Board staff report. Pete Cameron: Rick actually, this is Pete. Did you want me to give an update on the committee? Rick Little: Yes, please. Hey, I'm going by this little cheat sheet here that Cameron wished he has. No it's fine. Pete Cameron: That's why I wanted to help you out. Rick Little: Appreciate that. Pete Cameron: So this is just a quick run down from the law review committee that was formed to review the test questions for the state law exam. Committee members are myself, Mr. Little, Mr. Gutierrez-Zamora. We are also joined by Mr. Storvick, Ms. Grilse and Mr. Towery and Ms. Manley who actually did most of the work. Board staff really came through together for us. Pete Cameron: Over the last couple of months we've had at least six online meetings that I know of, there's probably more in there. We went through the questions, the 57 that are currently on the law test and then the bank of 121 questions that are available to use. Kudos to Pam and Tom for really doing the brunt of the work on this. I can't imagine how many hours they put in behind the scenes making this run smoothly. Pete Cameron: But we physically read through all 178 questions, one by one out loud. Read through all the answers, had some interesting discussion. This hadn't been done in many. Many years. Language was very outdated and it took quite a bit of time. We threw out several questions that were just completely irrelevant. EDRS obviously has changed a lot of the death certificate questions. Pete Cameron: We also decided to talk about the actual number of test questions. Currently, there's 57 offered on the test and 7 of those were not scored. We decided as a group to reduce the test down to just the 50 questions and all will be scored. Pete Cameron: We spent a lot of time going through. We re-wrote several questions, re-wrote several answers, updated grammar, names of agencies and Boards that have changed. We also went through and made sure all the pronouns were correct to get us in line with current language that's acceptable. Pete Cameron: So I want to thank everybody for hard work, dedication on that. That was not easy. We all learned a lot I think. So now everything, Rick, if I'm correct has been sent to the conference or is it in the hands of Pierce and view right now? Rick Storvick: That's a really good question Pete and I'll defer to staff but before I do, huge kudos, one to Thomas. He was like the task master for this group but there to, back to the Board members, Pete and Rick, and Dante, they stepped up every time, reviewed all these questions, they were re-writing things and submitting the homework that Thomas had assigned. So every meeting was really quite productive and it was really great. Everything was handled with confidentiality because it is an exam and so they utilized a secure server location and things like that so I think we're in great shape. Rick Storvick: I'll check in here with Thomas or Pam, if you know the current status of where we're at moving this forward at this point. Thomas Mowery: Thank you Rick. This is Thomas, I can speak to that. I want to reiterate what you said. Thank you to the committee for fabulous work and commitment to that project. Since the committee was all in agreement with the bank of questions as of last week, we are just going to spot read one last time for grammar and punctuation and then that document will be forwarded to the international conference in the next week or two. Rick Storvick: So, by some point here this fall we should have that up and functioning and living with a law exam that actually reflects your current law's rules. Thomas Mowery: Correct. Rick Little: And I have to reiterate, it was a rare opportunity to be a part of that and I quite thoroughly enjoyed going through the process and seeing what we had there that was outdated and the new items that we were able to submit and put in. So I just thank everyone again for all that we did to make this happen and I really want... I appreciate Thomas for taking the lead on that too as Board staff. Rick Little: Thank you so much for bringing that to my attention too. Rick Little: All right, item nine, Board staff report. Rick Storvick: So, one of the things we're real excited about... and Pam mentioned earlier that she's been out some on vacation but she also spent a week over in the tri-cities doing an audit for the case that there was an order last fall regarding [Katherine 00:58:29] Tate and wrapping that up. We've been asking the department for some time to allow her to travel and do that audit. So she spent a solid week over there getting that done and put together so it's nice to finally get to that point. Rick Storvick: Both Pam and Thomas have been involved in some discussion regarding what do investigations and what do inspections and things like that look like as we move forward? How do we take advantage of some of the remote things that we've learned and continue with that? So I anticipate we'll continue working along those lines. Rick Storvick: Part of program operations I think of Polaris, Polaris is working much better for us but we've identified an area where we kind of have some issues with... I would refer to it as relationships within the hierarchy of businesses in that we're concerned could create problems when we hit the renewal time. And so we have a team of Thomas and Jeanie working with one of our IT specialists to go in and just try to make sure all that data is cleaned up and the relationships are in the right place. So hopefully renewals this winter will be a smooth renewal. But it's going to be quite a labor to lift that. We talked about doing something where we just have the computers do the updating but that usually ends up with things not working out well. So literally, they'll be going through every account, account by account and making sure those things are put together well. Rick Storvick: As far as program operations, also our assistant administrator is Julia Manley and she's been in that position as a temporary thing for a long time now and with the lifting of the hiring freeze by the agency late this spring, we're finally in the spot where we're interviewing for that and so Julia will be interviewing in the near future for that and we hope to have that all wrapped up so come this fall we have things in place. Rick Storvick: But that being said, we roll into department licensing. One of the things we're currently working on is what's being referred to as a functional alignment where instead of every program being a silo unto itself, we'll group people together around functions. And one of the things that we'll start to see is that coming together which may change some of the direct reporting but one of the elements that I continue to stress through the conversations and encourage staff to do is make sure that everything that we do to support Boards is tied directly back to the Boards. Rick Storvick: A good example is on the complaint process and things, nobody else in DPD has work members who review cases except for in the regulatory Board area. And so you're a key part of our staff as we work through that. So we're emphasizing the need to make sure we maintain those relationships and keep that in line. And we'll keep you posted as we move forward. Rick Storvick: One other thing that we've been working real hard on in generating report, you can see we've generated a report here around generating a licensing count which is up on the screen at this time and we'll start bringing this on a regular basis just so you can see how the numbers shake out. These numbers don't change in huge ways from time to time but it's just interesting to watch. Rick Storvick: The other report, we weren't able to bring it today but we'll have a future meetings is we'll get back to the budget reports that we used to do, clearly identifying where monies are coming and going. The one thing I can tell you form an operating standpoint, this last year we didn't spend much money on travel since everybody was restricted to their desk which was restricted to their home and we didn't have any Board members traveling to Board meetings and things. But our hope is to shift that in the coming year and that we'll actually be able to schedule some in person meetings and do that so we'll reach out and do that. Rick Storvick: And the other piece though I'll say about that, it's likely if we're able to do in person meetings, it's going to be a priority to try to do it in a hybrid fashion. So we would meet in person but in a location where we can stream it on the web, similar to what we've done with Zoom, either one so public can attend no matter where they are in the state, but then also if there's a Board member who can't make the meeting possibly, they'd be able to still connect via the internet here. Rick Storvick: So that's it for that report, Rick. Rick Little: Thank you. I'll look forward to a time when we can all get together in one room and I agree that having the both in person and with the Zoom is going to be a very beneficial tool in the future. Rick Little: Item 10, other business. Is there any other business? 10.1 the actions from this meeting. Kim? Kim: I do not have any action items from this meeting. For agenda items, the only thing I can think of also would be for next meeting we'll set up the meetings for 2022. Rick Little: Okay. Thank you Kim. Item 11, public comment opportunity. This is an opportunity for the Board to receive comments from the public. And individuals comments will be limited to two minutes each. Comments should be general in nature and the Board will not take any comments regarding open or pending or potential complaints. If you would like to make a comment, please unmute your line, state your name and share your comment with the Board. As a reminder, please mute your line once you have finished so that there's no background noise. Do we have anybody that would like to make a public comment? Rick Little: Give a minute here. Lauren Thomas: Rick, this is Lauren Thomas with the conference. Rick Little: Hi Lauren. Lauren Thomas: Hello to all my friends in Washington. Great to see you guys today. I just wanted to mention a couple of things quickly, just kind of some announcements and first I wanted to commend all of you for your time and investment in our laws exam. Sometimes funding and volunteer hours, staff time, all of those valid reasons come up when it's time to update an exam. So we really just thank you all for putting in that effort. I know that Sarah's worked with Thomas pretty closely on getting our guys in a good spot and getting the exam to go live. Anyways, we just to say thank you to everyone involved on that project. Lauren Thomas: The other thing I wanted to mention was the Board of Directors, we sent out an announcement yesterday, the Board has made a decision to award one travel permit to each jurisdiction to attend the annual meeting in Houston in February. So we'll be presenting more information in the coming months. You guys always have such a strong participation at that meeting so we of course hope to see you all there. Just want to pass along that each state will be receiving one. Lauren Thomas: And then lastly, I wanted to give a shout out to Pam. She is going to chair the conference's model disposition committee. We had a really strong response to our open call for volunteers for that committee and we were thrilled to pieces to have Pam agree to chair that for us. So we're going to get started on that in the next month or so and have some updates for you guys coming out a little later this fall. Lauren Thomas: So, thank you to everyone. It's good to see you guys. Rick Little: Thank you, Lauren. Rick Little: Anyone else? Okay. Speaker 13: I have a question. Rick Little: Okay. Speaker 13: What is the purpose of public comments in this section when your statement says that you cannot comment obviously on existing on ongoing projects or issues? I'm not clear. Could you clarify that for me please? Rick Little: It's- Go ahead. Rick Storvick: So, Rick if you don't mind. The concern about making comments about something that's an ongoing issue or complaint for example, the complaint is the easiest one to speak to, when the Board heard the roughly five or six, seven it looks like, complaints today where the case manager had submitted a summary, up to that point the case manager is the only member of the Board that was aware that those cases existed, that the complaints existed because then the rest of the Board acts as the jury to determine whether or not to approve a case manager summary. Rick Storvick: Those cases, if they were to actually move forward to the point that there's hearing, again at the hearing, the only information that the Board members should be hearing is what's presented in that formal hearing process, that is represented. So then they make their determinations based on that. Rick Storvick: And so we tend to be cautious around the public comment time so as not to taint a potential case moving forward is the intended reason for that. That's where there's a comment about something that's a general thing certainly can be commented on but if it's tied to specific scenarios that there's concern about complaints, it's not appropriate for the Board to take those at this time. Rick Little: So I just wanted to clarify, if a member of the public has a concern they want to bring to the Board's attention during a process of deliberation but that member is asked to hold their comments to the end it defeats the public comment purpose as I see it and understand it. Please clarify and correct me if I'm wrong but I guess I fail to see why you ask for public comments and then ask for them at the end instead when the debate has already been completed. Rick Storvick: Right, so comments during the course of the Board's business portion of the meeting is something... The public's invited in to listen, to observe and those things but it's the Board needs to make those decisions based on information that they've put together that they've presented to one another and I'm not sure if Elizabeth heard the question or comments but she's online here now too. Elizabeth: Yeah, I apologize. I'm kind of under the weather today but I thought I'd check in. Rick Storvick: No problem. Elizabeth: Was there a question that I could answer? Rick Storvick: Go ahead and repeat your question ma'am and Elizabeth maybe can add any two cents there. Speaker 13: I'm sorry, I don't know Elizabeth nor her function. Rick Storvick: Elizabeth is our advising attorney with the AAG's office and I think the context that you had early been interested and made a comment during the time that the Board was considering whether to approve a case manager summary to close a specific case and you were interested in interjecting a perspective into that conversation during their deliberation. Is that correct? Speaker 13: That's correct but really more I'm trying to understand your process. So is there any point in time, say when the case manager is doing their report write up, that the public has an opportunity to contact them and provide information and facts or supportive arguments? Rick Storvick: Maybe I'll give a brief overview of the complaint process and let you know how that works, your question about the process. Rick Storvick: When somebody files a complaint with the Board, a staff member takes that information in, they acknowledge the person who has filed the complaint and they may ask if you have additional information, you can provide it to our staff member. Rick Storvick: In most cases it's also communicated to the licencee that a complaint has been filed against them and has the basic complaint and asks the licencee or the respondent because sometimes it's an unlicensed practice situation, do they have information that they want to share about that. Rick Storvick: From there, we have an investigator that will build a case. They will interview people, they will seek out documents that pertain to the case and put together an investigative packet that then is provided to the case manager who would review that. And I think in one of the cases earlier for example, I think Mr. Ittner indicated that he received some information but then he asked the investigator to gather some additional information where he had questions or concerns and all the case managers have that opportunity. Rick Storvick: So between the investigator and the staff doing their work and working with the case manager, that's when recommendations get put together and brought forward and at that point, when it comes before the Board, that's not a time to try to gather additional information or whatever. So it's based on that initial investigation at that point and then as you saw today, when it's a recommendation for closure, sometimes they get closed and sometimes not. And so where it had not been closed, the case manager will work with staff to figure out the next step. Speaker 13: I greatly appreciate your explanation and your time. It seems to me that the public might have additional input and the two or three cases that have been brought up in recent years may just be a tip of an iceberg so to speak and I'm just conjecturing but at some point it seems that perhaps, I don't know to what extent an investigator does a larger investigation, solicits public comment or anything like that because there may be other cases out there that need to be heard. That might augment your decision making process. It's just my thought on the process and I very much appreciate your explanation. Rick Storvick: And along those lines, one of the things I will say is that frequently one of the things that staff and Board members look at is whether or not there's past case history with a particular person that's being complained about or licencee or whether it's new. Frequently, during the complaint process, Board members and staff talk about aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances clearly are when there's multiple complaints against the same licencee and some of them may be ones that have been closed or didn't end up in action. Mitigating factors could be the matter that maybe this is the first time that a complaint or the licencee may have taken immediate steps to try to rectify the situation. So the Board has some flexibility in that and they certainly are looking for things beyond just the specifics of one complaint on any of these. Rick Storvick: So thank you for your comments. Rick Little: Are there any other comments? Go ahead, I'm sorry. Okay, she muted. Is there any other comments? Okay. Item 12, adjournment. This meeting is adjourned and the time is 11:17.