A Review of the Board of Funeral Service · The Board of Funeral Service does not have a rigorous, fully documented process to investigate complaints. Board members’ investigations

August 10, 2004

#469

Joint Legislative Committee on PerformanceEvaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER)

Report tothe Mississippi Legislature

A Review of the Board of FuneralService

The Legislature established Mississippi’s Board of Funeral Service in 1983,which replaced the State Board of Embalming that was established in 1918. The boardregulates funeral service and funeral directing practitioners, as well as funeral homeestablishments, branches, commercial mortuary services, and crematory facilities.

Through the use of a national licensure examination, the Board of FuneralService assures the competency of practitioners. However, the state’s funeral servicelaw does not require practitioners to earn continuing education hours to remaincurrent in their profession. The lack of a continuing education requirement is avariance from requirements of other Mississippi regulatory licensure boards and otherstates’ funeral licensing boards and diminishes the board’s ability to ensure the generalcompetency of licensees to perform funeral service activities.

The Board of Funeral Service does not have a rigorous, fully documentedprocess to investigate complaints. Board members’ investigations and board actions toresolve complaints are poorly documented in the board’s investigative files andmeeting minutes.

The board does not perform periodic, uniform inspections of licensed funeralestablishments. Because of insufficient staffing, lack of specific inspection criteria, andthe lack of a systematic approach to completing inspections, the Board of FuneralService cannot assure protection of the health and safety of funeral establishmentemployees and the public.

Also, the board does not utilize disciplinary actions consistently to deterviolators and, in at least one case, has administered a disciplinary action notauthorized by statute.

PEER: The Mississippi Legislature’s Oversight Agency

The Mississippi Legislature created the Joint Legislative Committee on PerformanceEvaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER Committee) by statute in 1973. A jointcommittee, the PEER Committee is composed of seven members of the House ofRepresentatives appointed by the Speaker and seven members of the Senate appointedby the Lieutenant Governor. Appointments are made for four-year terms with oneSenator and one Representative appointed from each of the U. S. CongressionalDistricts. Committee officers are elected by the membership with officers alternatingannually between the two houses. All Committee actions by statute require a majorityvote of four Representatives and four Senators voting in the affirmative.

Mississippi’s constitution gives the Legislature broad power to conduct examinationsand investigations. PEER is authorized by law to review any public entity, includingcontractors supported in whole or in part by public funds, and to address any issuesthat may require legislative action. PEER has statutory access to all state and localrecords and has subpoena power to compel testimony or the production of documents.

PEER provides a variety of services to the Legislature, including program evaluations,economy and efficiency reviews, financial audits, limited scope evaluations, fiscal notes,special investigations, briefings to individual legislators, testimony, and othergovernmental research and assistance. The Committee identifies inefficiency orineffectiveness or a failure to accomplish legislative objectives, and makesrecommendations for redefinition, redirection, redistribution and/or restructuring ofMississippi government. As directed by and subject to the prior approval of the PEERCommittee, the Committee’s professional staff executes audit and evaluation projectsobtaining information and developing options for consideration by the Committee. ThePEER Committee releases reports to the Legislature, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, andthe agency examined.

The Committee assigns top priority to written requests from individual legislators andlegislative committees. The Committee also considers PEER staff proposals and writtenrequests from state officials and others.

PEER CommitteePost Office Box 1204Jackson, MS 39215-1204

(Tel.) 601-359-1226(Fax) 601-359-1420(Website) http://www.peer.state.ms.us

The Mississippi Legislature

Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review

PEER Committee

SENATORSLYNN POSEY

ChairMERLE FLOWERS

ROBERT (BUNKY) HUGGINSSAMPSON JACKSON

DEAN KIRBYEZELL LEE

RICHARD WHITE

TELEPHONE:(601) 359-1226

FAX:(601) 359-1457

Post Office Box 1204Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1204

www.peer.state.ms.us

Max K. Arinder, Ph.D.Executive Director

REPRESENTATIVESDIRK DEDEAUX

Vice ChairALYCE CLARKE

SecretaryWILLIE BAILEYJOEY HUDSONHARVEY MOSS

WALTER ROBINSONRAY ROGERS

OFFICES:Woolfolk Building

501 North West Street, Suite 301-AJackson, Mississippi 39201

August 10, 2004

Honorable Haley Barbour, GovernorHonorable Amy Tuck, Lieutenant GovernorHonorable Billy McCoy, Speaker of the HouseMembers of the Mississippi State Legislature

On August 10, 2004, the PEER Committee authorized release of the report entitled A Review ofthe Board of Funeral Service.

Senator Lynn Posey, Chair

PEER Report #469ii

PEER Report #469 iii

Table of Contents

Letter of Transmittal ...................................................................................................................................... i

List of Exhibits ..................................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................vii

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

Authority .....................................................................................................................................1Scope and Purpose..................................................................................................................................1Method .....................................................................................................................................1

Background .....................................................................................................................................2

Statutory Authority for Regulation of Funeral Service in Mississippi ..........................................2Federal Regulations Affecting Funeral Service Industry .................................................................3Board Composition .................................................................................................................................4Staff .....................................................................................................................................4Revenues and Expenditures ..................................................................................................................5

Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................7

Does Mississippi need a Board of Funeral Service?..........................................................................7What are the board’s responsibilities in regulating the practice of funeral service?.................................................................................................................9Does the board’s licensing process provide assurance of competency of professionals?.....................................................................................................10Does the board effectively enforce regulatory requirements?.....................................................13

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................31

Agency Response ...................................................................................................................................35

PEER’s Note to Agency Response .................................................................................................................39

PEER Report #469iv

PEER Report #469 v

List of Exhibits

1. Members of the Board of Funeral Service (As of March 2004) .......................................................5

2. FY 2000-2003 Revenues, Expenditures, and Cash Balances ofthe Board of Funeral Service .................................................................................................................6

3. Inspection Form of the Board of Funeral Service............................................................................17

4. Industry Standards of the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) that Apply to Funeral Establishments....................................................22

5. Comparison of Inspections of Selected Funeral Establishments by OSHA and Boardof Funeral Service..................................................................................................................................25

PEER Report #469vi

PEER Report #469 vii


Executive Summary

IntroductionThe PEER Committee reviewed the Board of FuneralService. PEER conducted the review pursuant to theauthority granted by MISS. CODE ANN. Section 5-3-57 etseq. (1972). This review is a “cycle review,” which is notdriven by specific complaints or allegations of misconduct.

In conducting this review, PEER sought to determine theeffectiveness of the Board of Funeral Service’s oversight byanswering the following questions:

• Does Mississippi need a Board of Funeral Service?

• What are the board’s responsibilities in regulating thepractice of funeral service?

• Does the board’s licensing process provide assuranceof competency of professionals?

• Does the board effectively enforce regulatoryrequirements?

BackgroundAll fifty states and the District of Columbia have boardswith responsibility for regulation of the funeral serviceindustry. The Legislature established Mississippi’s Boardof Funeral Service in 1983, which replaced the State Boardof Embalming that was established in 1918. The boardregulates funeral service and funeral directingpractitioners, as well as funeral home establishments,branches, commercial mortuary services, and crematoryfacilities in Mississippi. These individuals andestablishments must also comply with requirements of theFederal Trade Commission and the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration of the U. S. Department ofLabor (OSHA).

The Board of Funeral Service consists of seven members:

PEER Report #469viii

• one funeral service licensee and one funeral directorlicensee from each of the state’s three Supreme Courtdistricts; and,

• one public member appointed from the state at-large.

The board presently has two employees: an ExecutiveDirector and an Administrative Secretary. Inspections arecarried out by the Executive Director and board members,with some assistance provided by the Executive Director’shusband and a former board member.

Need for the Board of Funeral ServiceRisk factors associated with the funeral service profession create a need for stategovernment to protect workers in the industry and the public. The Board ofFuneral Service, if it fulfills its function properly, should diminish or eliminate theprofession’s potential risks.

The practice of the funeral service profession entails risksto practitioners as well as to the general public, ifhazardous chemicals and infectious materials are notproperly handled. These risks require practitioners to beregulated and properly trained. The board’sresponsibilities in regulating the practice of funeral serviceconsist of licensing professionals and enforcing applicablelaws and regulations.

LicensureThrough the use of a national licensure examination, the Board of Funeral Serviceassures the competency of practitioners. However, the state’s funeral service lawdoes not require practitioners to earn continuing education hours to remaincurrent in their profession.

A major function of the Board of Funeral Service is tolicense individuals who want to practice in Mississippi.Licensing should involve a fair process that assurescompetency to practice. State law requires that the boarddetermine that an individual engaged in funeral service ordirecting meets certain standards pertaining to generalqualifications, education, and testing.

The Mississippi Board of Funeral Service requirescandidates to achieve a passing score on a nationalexamination prior to initial licensure. The board utilizesthe National Board Examination (NBE) developed by theInternational Conference of Funeral Service ExaminingBoards to examine candidates for licensure. With theexception of California, all states utilize this examinationto determine a candidate’s funeral service competencies.Candidates for a Mississippi funeral service or funeral

PEER Report #469 ix

directing license may take either the NBE or the Mississippilicensure examination.

Until 2002, MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-51 (1972) requiredall applicants for licensure to have completed at leastthree hours of continuing education units in areas relatedto federal OSHA standards. However, now, onceindividuals are licensed, the state’s funeral service lawdoes not require licensees to earn continuing educationhours to remain current in their profession. The lack of acontinuing education requirement for renewal of licensesdiminishes the board’s ability to ensure the generalcompetency of licensees to perform funeral serviceactivities.

EnforcementThe Board of Funeral Service does not effectively enforce regulatory requirementsbecause it does not have a rigorous, fully documented process to investigatecomplaints; it does not perform periodic, uniform inspections of licensed funeralestablishments; and it does not ensure that its disciplinary actions are consistent.

PEER examined the board’s complaint, inspection, anddisciplinary processes with which it carries out itsenforcement function.

Complaint Process

Board members’ investigations and board actions to resolve complaints arepoorly documented in the board’s investigative files and meeting minutes.

PEER found that individuals who investigate complaintsregarding funeral service licensees and establishments donot consistently document their fieldwork andconclusions. Also, for the complaints that had beenprocessed and closed for calendar year 2002, the board’smeeting minutes did not include a summary of thecomplaint, results of the investigative board member’sinvestigation, or a recommendation of action to be takenby the board in response to the complaint.

It is imperative that the board have a rigorous investigativeprocess that fully documents the rationale for any actionstaken by the board. The lack of such could result inpenalties being inconsistently imposed or board decisionsbeing overturned on appeal to circuit court.

PEER Report #469x

Inspection Process

Because of insufficient staffing and the lack of a systematic approach tocompleting inspections, the Board of Funeral Service has not fulfilled itsinspection responsibilities and thus cannot assure the protection of thehealth and safety of funeral establishment employees and the public.

PEER examined a random sample of fifty-two files from atotal of 442 establishments that the board should haveinspected in 2001 and 2002 and found that the board hadinspected only thirty-three of these establishments. Thisis due in part because the Board of Funeral Service hasinsufficient staff with which to conduct the inspectionsmandated by law. As noted previously, inspections arecarried out by the Executive Director and board members,with some assistance provided by the Executive Director’shusband and a former board member.

Concerning disciplinary proceedings, board members whohave inspected a funeral establishment and participate inthe full board’s determination of noncompliance and anyresulting disciplinary penalties regarding that sameestablishment could be, or appear to be, prejudiced infavor of or against the establishment. Because the boardhas no rule that requires members who have conductedinspections to recuse themselves from disciplinaryproceedings on the establishments they have inspected,the potential exists for the appearance of bias orimpropriety.

The board has no formal process or plan in place toinspect all funeral establishments within the two-year timeframe mandated by law. The board cannot ensure that allinspections will be completed within the licensing period,particularly with the limited number of individualsavailable to conduct inspections. Thus the board cannotassure the public that funeral establishments are incompliance with state law and board rules and regulations.

Neither state law nor the board’s rules and regulationscontain requirements for follow-up inspections. Without afollow-up inspection, the board cannot determine whethercorrective action has been taken for each violation.

Discipline and Penalties

The Board of Funeral Service does not utilize specific criteria whenconducting inspections of funeral establishments. Thus the board cannotconduct uniform inspections and cannot ensure the safety of funeralestablishment employees and the public.

Although individuals who conduct funeral establishmentinspections use a standard inspection form with generalguidelines, it does not provide any specific criteria forthese elements. For example, one item on the inspectionform, “Proper quarter for rites and ceremonies,” does not

PEER Report #469 xi

operationally define “proper.” The meaning of this term isopen to the interpretation of the individual inspectors.

To gauge the effectiveness of the Board of FuneralService’s inspections, PEER compared the results ofinspections of selected establishments by the board toresults of inspections of the same establishments byOSHA. Although the board’s inspection responsibilitiesinclude matters other than workplace safety (e.g.,consumer protection matters), OSHA standards give somereasonable basis of comparison. PEER compared results ofthe board’s inspections of three establishments to theresults of OSHA inspections of those same establishments.For two of the establishments, OSHA had cited multipleserious violations, while the board had cited no violations.The board had not inspected the third establishment.

When the board and OSHA conduct inspections of thesame establishments and OSHA finds multiple violationsand the board finds none, the board’s effectiveness inconducting inspections is called into question.

The board does not utilize disciplinary actions consistently to deter violatorsand, in at least one case, has administered a disciplinary action notauthorized by statute.

If a funeral establishment is found guilty of violating statelaw or board rules and regulations, state law provides thefollowing options for disciplinary actions:

• refuse to examine, issue, or renew a license;

• suspend or revoke any license; or,

• reprimand or place the holder of a license onprobation.

State law also allows the board to assess monetarypenalties against those funeral establishments found to beguilty of a violation. For the first violation, a monetarypenalty of no less than $50 nor more than $500 may beassessed; for the second violation, a monetary penalty ofno less than $100 nor more than $1,000; and for the thirdviolation, no less than $500 nor more than $5,000.

Although monetary penalty ranges are provided for instate law, the board has not developed a penalty matrixthat states the amount of monetary penalty that should beassessed for each violation, based on the type and severityof the violation or whether it was an initial or recurringoffense. Similarly, the board does not have a penaltymatrix or written procedure for determining the length ofprobationary periods it assesses for noncompliance.

When inspections of funeral establishments foundviolations of state law or the board’s rules and regulationsthat funeral establishment personnel acknowledged, theboard has administered penalties in some cases and not in

PEER Report #469xii

others. Within PEER’s sample of fifty-two randomlyselected funeral establishment files, eleven funeralestablishments whose inspection reports noted that theywere out of compliance with state law or the board’s rulesand regulations had no action taken against them by theboard. PEER’s review of the board’s minutes identified fourother funeral establishments that received disciplinaryaction by the board for the same violations committed bythe above-noted eleven establishments that did not receivepenalties.

In at least one instance, the Board of Funeral Service hasused a consent order to implement a disciplinary actionnot authorized by statute. A $1,000 monetary fineassessed by the board exceeded by $500 the fineauthorized in MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-57 (1972) for afirst violation.

Recommendations1. The Legislature should amend MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-

11-55 (1972) to provide authority to the Board ofFuneral Service to develop a comprehensive set ofregulations to protect workers in the funeral serviceindustry from the unique risks associated with theiremployment. Such regulations should be measurableso that trained inspectors can determine compliancewith them.

2. No later than December 1, 2004, the Board of FuneralService should develop a proposed continuingeducation program for all licensees. The proposedprogram should include annual educationrequirements for each class of license and the subjectsrequired for each licensee. Upon development of acontinuing education program, the board should seeklegislative authorization to implement the program.

3. The Board of Funeral Service should review its currentfunding structure and program expenditures todetermine whether sufficient funds are available fromexisting sources to implement recommendationscontained in this report. If sufficient funds currentlyexist, the board should seek increased appropriationsfor future fiscal years from current revenue sources tooffset expenses associated with implementation ofreport recommendations. If the board can establishthat current revenue sources will not be sufficient tooffset such expenses, the board should recommend tothe Legislature increased or additional fees sufficientto cover such expenses.

4. The Board of Funeral Service should ensure thatindividuals who serve as inspectors are adequatelytrained to conduct investigative fieldwork. Such

PEER Report #469 xiii

training should consist of mastery of all substantivecriteria for inspections and preparation of supportingworkpapers.

5. The Board of Funeral Service should ensure that boardmembers who investigate complaints against a licenseeor funeral establishment do not participate in theadjudication of such complaints.

6. The Board of Funeral Service should consideremploying a full-time, trained professional to conductinspections of funeral establishments and investigatecomplaints.

7. The Board of Funeral Service should develop a formalprocess for ensuring that funeral establishmentinspections are completed in a timely manner andinclude the process in its policy and proceduremanual. The process could include, but not be limitedto:

• a schedule for the completion of a specifiednumber of inspections per month;

• inclusion in the board’s computer system of thetypes of inspections (reinspection, routine,initial) and the results of the inspections;

• a system to track the performance of funeralestablishments and provide data with which tomeasure the effectiveness of the inspectionprogram;

• a report of all funeral establishments inspectedeach quarter or from the date of the last boardmeeting and the results to be presented at eachboard meeting; and,

• a requirement that a report be made by theExecutive Director on October 30 of each yearin which the licensure period expires to identifythose funeral establishments that have notbeen inspected to ensure that the scheduleprovides for an inspection prior to December31.

8. The Board of Funeral Service should create a penaltymatrix to determine the monetary penalty that shouldbe assessed as well other penalties that should beassessed (such as probation) based on the types ofviolations and the severity of violations.

9. The Mississippi Legislature should amend MISS. CODEANN. § 73-11-57 (1972) to require the board toconduct follow-up inspections within thirty days of thefiling of an inspection report for funeralestablishments that the board cites as failing tocomply with state law or board regulations.

PEER Report #469xiv

10. To ensure that funeral establishments are inspectedconsistently, the Board of Funeral Service shoulddevelop measurable criteria for each element includedin the inspection process.

11. When imposing monetary fines against non-compliantlicensees or funeral establishments, the Board ofFuneral Service should strictly adhere to the graduatedschedule of fines included in MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-57 (1972).

12. The Board of Funeral Service should review itsdisciplinary actions and consent orders for casesclosed during CY 2002 and CY 2003 to determine theircompliance with penalties authorized by MISS. CODEANN. § 73-11-57 (1972). In those instances in whichpenalties imposed varied from state law, the boardshould take corrective action to ensure strictcompliance with state law. Also, for each hearingconducted or administrative action taken by the board,the Executive Director should compile and include ininvestigative files an itemized accounting ofadministrative expenses associated with such action.

For More Information or Clarification, Contact:

PEER CommitteeP.O. Box 1204

Jackson, MS 39215-1204(601) 359-1226

http://www.peer.state.ms.us

Senator Lynn Posey, ChairUnion Church, MS 601-786-6339

Representative Dirk Dedeaux, Vice ChairGulfport, MS 228-255-6171

Representative Alyce Clarke, SecretaryJackson, MS 601-354-5453

PEER Report #469 1


Introduction

AuthorityThe PEER Committee reviewed the Board of FuneralService. PEER conducted the review pursuant to theauthority granted by MISS. CODE ANN. Section 5-3-57 etseq. (1972). This review is a “cycle review,” which is notdriven by specific complaints or allegations of misconduct.

Scope and PurposePEER sought to determine the effectiveness of the Board ofFuneral Service’s oversight by answering the followingquestions:

• Does Mississippi need a Board of Funeral Service?

• What are the board’s responsibilities in regulating thepractice of funeral service?

• Does the board’s licensing process provide assuranceof competency of professionals?

• Does the board effectively enforce regulatoryrequirements?

MethodIn conducting this review, PEER:

• reviewed relevant sections of federal and state laws,board rules, regulations, policies, and procedures;

• interviewed board members and staff and selectedstaff of the International Conference of Funeral ServiceExamining Boards, Inc.; and,

• reviewed financial information and board records.

PEER Report #4692

Background

Statutory Authority for Regulation of Funeral Service in MississippiAccording to the International Conference of FuneralService Examining Boards, Inc.1, all fifty states and theDistrict of Columbia have boards with responsibility forregulation of the funeral service industry. The Legislatureestablished Mississippi’s Board of Funeral Service in 1983,which replaced the State Board of Embalming that wasestablished in 1918.

As provided in MISS. CODE ANN. Section 73-11-51 (1972),Mississippi law prohibits individuals from engaging in thepractices of funeral service or funeral directing without alicense. As set forth in MISS. CODE ANN. Section 73-11-41(1972), the practices of funeral service and directing areidentical with the exception that the practice of funeralservice includes the practice of embalming, while thepractice of funeral directing does not. The scope of bothpractices includes providing shelter, care, and custody ofthe human dead; conducting immediate post-deathactivities; transporting the human dead, bereavedrelatives, and friends; making arrangements for theprovision of services; and selling funeral merchandise. InMississippi, the practices of funeral service and directingdo not include persons or corporations engaged only inthe pre-need sale of funeral merchandise or service. (Thistype of activity is regulated by the Secretary of State underthe Pre-need Cemetery and Funeral Registration Act foundat MISS. CODE ANN. Section 75-63-51 et seq. [1972]).

MISS. CODE ANN. Section 73-11-55 (1972) provides forthree types of funeral establishment licenses:establishment, branch, and commercial mortuary service(i.e., a funeral establishment that embalms and transportsfor licensed funeral establishments and does not sell anyservices or merchandise directly or at retail to the public).State law prohibits funeral establishments or branchesfrom operating without a license issued by the board andrequires that the board inspect licensed establishments atleast once every two-year licensing period. MISS. CODEANN. Section 73-11-69 (1972) authorizes the Board ofFuneral Service to license and regulate crematory facilities.This section prohibits operation of a crematory facility

1The International Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards began in 1903 when a groupof state licensing boards came together to discuss common problems concerning thetransportation of bodies across state lines. In 1928, the conference established a system ofgrading and approving schools of mortuary science. In 1930, the conference established the firstNational Board Examination. The conference also develops state examinations at the request ofmember boards. The conference serves as an information, educational, consulting, and advocacyresource for state regulatory boards.

PEER Report #469 3

without a license from the board and requires the board toinspect each licensed crematory at least annually. MISS.CODE ANN. Section 73-11-67 (1972) requires retail sellersof caskets to register annually with the board; however,these sellers are not subject to regulation or supervisionby the board.

Title 73, Chapter 11 of the CODE establishes a regulatoryregimen by which individuals engaging in funeral serviceor directing are licensed. MISS. CODE ANN. Section 73-11-57 (1972) provides for administrative penalties forviolations of laws, rules, and regulations governing thefuneral service profession. This section authorizes theboard to revoke or suspend a license, reprimand thelicensee, place the licensee on probation, and/or assessand levy a monetary penalty ranging from a minimum of$50 for a first violation to up to $5,000 for a third orsubsequent violation. CODE Section 73-11-59 (1972)provides that any person, partnership, corporation, orassociation who violates state funeral service laws shall beguilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not lessthan $500 nor more than $1,000 and/or imprisonment inthe county jail for not more than six months.

Federal Regulations Affecting Funeral Service IndustryBoth the Federal Trade Commission and the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration of the U.S. Departmentof Labor (OSHA) enforce rules and regulations affectingthe funeral industry.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Funeral IndustryPractices Rule, more commonly referred to as the “FuneralRule,” (16 CFR 453), which went into effect in 1984,requires sellers of funeral goods and services to giveconsumers who visit a funeral home a written itemizedprice list (referred to as a general price list) and to discloseprice and other information to callers who request it overthe phone. In accordance with federal law, MISS. CODEANN. § 73-11-61 (1972) requires every funeral director orfuneral service licensee to provide, before the rendering ofservices, the funeral establishment’s general price list,casket price list, outer container price list, and a statementof goods and services to the person (or persons) whoauthorizes the services and is responsible for payment ofthe expenses, in a manner and format as prescribed by theFuneral Rule and any future changes with regard torequired disclosures. State law further specifies that thegeneral price list must be made available to any personupon request. The federal Funeral Rule also requiresfuneral providers to inform consumers in writing of theirright to select and purchase only the funeral goods andservices that they want (with some exceptions, such asspecific items that may be required in state or local law).

PEER Report #4694

The rule further requires funeral providers to seekauthority before performing some services such asembalming.

While OSHA general industry standards apply to funeralhome employers as they would to any other workplaceemployer (e.g., building safety standards), as discussed inmore detail on page 8, two OSHA standards areparticularly relevant to the funeral home industry: 29 CFR1910.1030 governing bloodborne pathogens and 29 CFR1910.1048 governing formaldehyde use.

Board CompositionMISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-43 (1972) creates the Board ofFuneral Service, consisting of the following sevenmembers:

• one funeral service licensee and one funeral directorlicensee from each of the state’s three Supreme Courtdistricts; and,

• one public member appointed from the state at-large.

Exhibit 1, page 5, lists the current members of the Boardof Funeral Service.

Members of the board serve four-year terms and areappointed by the Governor with the advice and consent ofthe Senate. MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-47 (1972) requiresthe board to hold not less than two meetings annually toconduct the business of the board and to examineapplicants for licenses. The board meets at least quarterly,according to its Executive Director.

StaffMISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-49 (1972) directs the Board ofFuneral Service to employ an administrator--i.e., theExecutive Director--to supervise and direct the office of theboard, including supervision over field inspections andenforcement of applicable state laws and boardregulations. State law also authorizes the board to employother clerical assistants and employees as necessary. Forthe purpose of carrying out inspections, state lawauthorizes the board to designate the administrator toperform inspections or to hire an inspector or to contractwith any other individual or entity to carry outinspections.

PEER Report #469 5

Exhibit 1: Members of the Board of Funeral Service (As of March 2004)

Name Representationof Appointee

City SupremeCourt

District

Arthur N. Willis, Jr. funeral director Jackson 1st

J. Charles Riles funeral service Vicksburg 1st

Theodore R. Williams,Jr.

funeral director Gulfport 2nd

Guy B. Roberts, Jr. funeral service Biloxi 2nd

A. Gene Phillips funeral director Olive Branch 3rd

Terry W. Gentry funeral service Baldwyn 3rd

Fred E. Nabors public Tupelo At Large

SOURCE: Board of Funeral Service.

The board presently has two employees: an executivedirector and an administrative secretary. Inspections arecarried out by the Executive Director and board members,with some assistance provided by the Executive Director’shusband and a former board member. The board isrepresented by an Assistant Attorney General who attendsboard meetings and assists with administrative hearings.

Revenues and ExpendituresThe Board of Funeral Service is a special fund agencysupported by funds collected from application, licensure,inspection, permit, and examination fees as set forth inMISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-56 (1972). CODE Section 73-11-57 (7) (1972) requires that fines the board collects fromdisciplinary actions be deposited to the state’s generalfund. Exhibit 2, page 6, shows the agency’s revenues,expenditures, and cash balances for fiscal years 2000through 2003.

PEER Report #4696

Exhibit 2: FY 2000-2003 Revenues, Expenditures, and Cash Balancesof the Board of Funeral Service

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Beginning Cash $225,183 $146,752 $199,734 $162,185

Special Funds (Fees) $76,235 $208,077 $109,000 $225,840

Subtotal $301,418 $354,829 $308,734 $388,025

Total Expenditures ($154,666) ($155,095) ($146,549) ($187,861)

Ending Cash $146,752 $199,734 $162,185 $200,164

SOURCE: The Board of Funeral Service’s budget requests for fiscal years 2002 through2005.

PEER Report #469 7

Conclusions

Does Mississippi need a Board of Funeral Service?Risk factors associated with the funeral service profession create a need for stategovernment to protect workers in the industry and the public. The Board ofFuneral Service, if it fulfills its function properly, should diminish or eliminate theprofession’s potential risks.

State government is responsible for protecting the public’shealth, welfare, and safety. When potential risks to theseexist, measures such as establishing a board to regulate aprofession are available to diminish or eliminate thepotential for risk.

Risks of the Funeral Service Profession

The practice of the funeral service profession entails risks to practitionersas well as to the general public, if hazardous chemicals and infectiousmaterials are not properly handled. These risks require practitioners to beregulated and properly trained.

The handling of human remains involves the risk ofspreading infectious and contagious diseases to employeesthrough pathogens spread through blood and body fluids(e.g., human immunodeficiency virus, infectious hepatitis)as well as to the general public through the improperdisposal of clinical waste--e.g., contaminated sharps likesyringes and needles used in the embalming process,laboratory wastes, human tissues/organs, and infectiousmaterials from the embalming process. Clinical waste ispotentially dangerous, as it may carry disease, as well assharps like needles and scalpels that can cause physicalinjury. If improperly disposed of, waste collectors and thepublic may inadvertently come in contact with clinicalwaste.

The funeral home industry also uses chemicals that arepotentially harmful to human health if improperly applied,stored, and disposed of. In particular, funeral serviceoperations use powerful chemicals such as formaldehyde(the primary chemical used in embalming) andglutaraldehyde (a toxic disinfectant and sterilizing agent)in the embalming process. These and other toxicchemicals must be properly used, stored, and disposed ofto prevent health hazards. The health effects offormaldehyde exposure include respiratory, eye, and skinirritation; dermatitis; and respiratory sensitization.Formaldehyde is also a suspected human carcinogen that

The handling ofhuman remainsinvolves the risk ofspreading infectiousand contagiousdiseases throughblood and body fluidsas well as through theimproper disposal ofclinical waste.

The funeral homeindustry also useschemicals that arepotentially harmful tohuman health.

PEER Report #4698

is linked to nasal cancer and lung cancer. Glutaraldehydeis irritating to the lungs and respiratory tract and cancause allergic skin reactions and asthma.

Additional risks to the public include the possibility thatfuneral establishment operators could mislead or defraudthe public through unethical or unprofessional funeralindustry merchandising and/or practices. This risk isheightened because funeral establishment operatorsusually interact with consumers at a time when they areparticularly vulnerable.

Need for Regulation

State regulation of the funeral service profession is necessary to reduce oreliminate risks of the profession.

The typical regulatory functions of licensure andenforcement of applicable laws, rules, and regulationsprovide a safeguard against risk for workers in theprofession and the consuming public. Without thesafeguards of licensure and enforcement in place, thelikelihood of untrained or unscrupulous practitionersinjuring themselves or placing the public at risk couldoccur.

For example, OSHA standards require the identificationand evaluation of hazardous materials in the workplaceand the communication of such hazards to employers andemployees. OSHA’s bloodborne pathogen standardrequires the creation of a written Exposure Control Planthat describes how the employer will protect employeesfrom exposure. OSHA’s personal protective equipmentstandard requires the employer to assess the workplace todetermine if hazards are present which necessitate the useof personal protective equipment and if so, to provide theequipment and ensure that employees are properly trainedin use of the equipment. OSHA’s respiratory protectionprogram requires funeral homes to identify what airbornecontaminants are present; conduct air monitoring todetermine whether employee exposure exceeds OSHA’spermissible exposure limit; to implement engineeringcontrols such as ventilation systems to reduce employeeexposure to the allowable limit; and to provide appropriaterespiratory protection to employees when other optionsare not feasible.

As discussed on page 4, the federal Occupational Safetyand Health Administration has established exposure limitsand work environment requirements for employees whowork with formaldehyde. Also, while not subject to aspecific standard, OSHA has established exposure limitsfor glutaraldehyde as a hazardous material.

Another risk is thatoperators couldmislead or defraud thepublic throughunethical orunprofessionalmerchandising and/orpractices at a timewhen consumers areparticularly vulnerable.

Without thesafeguards oflicensure andenforcement,untrained orunscrupulous funeralservice practitionerscould injurethemselves or placethe public at risk.

PEER Report #469 9

Also, MISS. CODE ANN. § 41-39-13 (1972) requires theaffixing of a tag on the body of any deceased personidentified as having an infectious or communicabledisease, or its causative agent, to alert funeral serviceworkers to take all necessary blood/body fluid precautionsin handling the body.

As with other regulatory boards, the Board of FuneralService should protect the public by screening licensees,requiring continuing education and knowledge of laws andregulations, and serving as an investigative body. Underthe current regulatory scheme, as outlined in Mississippilaw, the Board of Funeral Service’s regulatory functions donot duplicate those of other agencies.

What are the board’s responsibilities in regulating the practice of

funeral service?The board’s responsibilities in regulating the practice of funeral service consist oflicensing professionals and enforcing applicable laws and regulations.

The Board of Funeral Service exists as a separate stateagency whose purpose is to protect the public’s health,safety, and welfare as it is affected by the funeral serviceprofession. The state’s regulation of funeral serviceshould ensure that funeral service and funeral directorlicensees meet and maintain qualifications for competencyand practice in a professional manner in accordance withlaws and regulations governing the profession. Failure toperform these duties could result in negative outcomessuch as exposure of funeral service employees and thegeneral public to health risks associated with improperusage, storage and disposal of chemicals and clinicalwaste.

The major regulatory duties of the board are licensure andenforcement. The licensure function includes processingapplications, administering the NBE exam, collecting fees,and issuing licenses. The enforcement function includesprocessing and investigating complaints, inspectingfuneral establishments, and sanctioning the practice offuneral service and funeral directing.

PEER Report #46910

Does the board’s licensing process provide assurance of competency

of professionals?Through the use of a national licensure examination, the Board of Funeral Serviceassures the competency of practitioners. However, the state’s funeral service lawdoes not require practitioners to earn continuing education hours to remaincurrent in their profession.

A major function of the Board of Funeral Service is tolicense individuals who want to practice in Mississippi.Licensing should involve a fair process that assurescompetency to practice. State law requires that the boarddetermine that an individual engaged in funeral service ordirecting meets certain standards pertaining to generalqualifications, education, and testing.

Application Procedure

The Board of Funeral Service requires that applicantsseeking licensure submit a notarized application and alicensing fee and nonrefundable application fee. The feefor the initial license is prorated in proportion to theamount of time from the date of issuance to the date ofbiennial license renewal as cited in MISS. CODE ANN.Section 73-11-51 (5) (1972).

The board must receive copies of the applicant’stranscripts from high school (or GED) and from theaccredited mortuary school or college from which theapplicant graduated. Two individuals that currently hold afuneral service or funeral director’s license must attest tothe good moral character of the applicant.

The board uses several screening methods to verifyapplicants’ qualifications such as educational credentials,employment as a resident trainee, and record of specifiedsupervised funeral service activities.

Licensure Requirements

Mississippi state law establishes licensure requirements for individuals whoengage in the funeral service profession.

MISS. CODE ANN. Section 73-11-51 (1972) states that “noperson shall engage in the business or practice of funeralservice, including embalming, and/or funeral directing orhold himself out as transacting or practicing or beingentitled to transact or practice funeral service, includingembalming, and/or funeral directing in this state unlessduly licensed.” The CODE section further authorizes theBoard of Funeral Service to examine applicants for licensesfor the practice of funeral service and funeral directing

PEER Report #469 11

and to issue such licenses to those persons whosuccessfully pass the applicable examination.

To be licensed for the practice of funeral directing orfuneral service in Mississippi, a person must:

• be at least eighteen years of age;

• have a high school diploma or the equivalent;

• for funeral directing licensure, have served as aresident trainee for not less than twenty-fourmonths under the supervision of a person licensedfor the practice of funeral service or directing inMississippi, or, for funeral service licensure, havecompleted twelve months of instruction from anaccredited funeral service education institution andhave served as a resident trainee for not less thantwelve months under the supervision of a personlicensed for the practice of funeral service inMississippi and in an establishment licensed inMississippi;

• have successfully passed a written and/or oralexamination as prepared or approved by the board;and,

• be of good moral character.

After initial licensure, funeral service or funeral directinglicensees may have their license renewed every two yearsby filing an application with the board and paying theapplicable renewal fee.

Licensure Examination

As is the practice in most other states, the Board of Funeral Service requirescandidates to achieve a passing score on a national examination prior toinitial licensure.

The Board of Funeral Service utilizes the National BoardExamination (NBE) developed by the InternationalConference of Funeral Service Examining Boards toexamine candidates for licensure. With the exception ofCalifornia, all states utilize the examination to determine acandidate’s funeral service competencies.

The NBE contains two separate sections--a 170-item Artssection and a 170-item Sciences section. The Arts sectiontests competencies in the following areas:sociology/funeral science history, psychology, funeraldirecting, business law, funeral service law, funeral servicemerchandising, and, accounting/computers. The Sciencessection tests competencies in the areas of embalming,restorative art, microbiology, pathology, chemistry, andanatomy.

Through the use of an extensive job analysis survey, theInternational Conference developed a task inventory to

The board utilizes theNational BoardExamination developedby the InternationalConference of FuneralService ExaminingBoards to examinecandidates forlicensure.

PEER Report #46912

determine the significance/importance of various activitiesperformed by practitioners. From analysis of this data, theconference developed a practitioner-oriented outline thatis the basis for the NBE. The conference takes the positionthat the NBE possesses substantial content validity and ishighly representative of the content/knowledge domainthat it intends to measure.

The NBE is administered on a daily basis by theInternational Conference at select H & R BlockComputerized Testing Assessment Centers throughout thenation. In addition, the Board of Funeral Serviceadministers the NBE each February and August.Candidates for a Mississippi funeral service or funeraldirecting license may take the NBE or the Mississippilicensure examination, which is administered in Februaryand August also. (The Board of Funeral Service contractedwith the International Conference to design a Mississippilicensure examination for applicants who choose not totake the national examination. Questions for theMississippi examination are taken from the same bank ofquestions used to construct the NBE. In essence, the NBEand Mississippi’s licensure examination are identical tests.)All applicants taking the NBE or the Mississippiexamination must achieve a score of 75% to be licensed inMississippi.

During calendar years 2002 and 2003, the Board of FuneralService tested twenty-eight applicants each year for afuneral service or funeral directing license. The majorityof the applicants tested by the board failed to achieve apassing score of 75% on the licensing examination. Thefailure rate in CY 2002 was 54%, while the rate was 61% inCY 2003.

Continuing Education

The state’s funeral service law does not require practitioners to earncontinuing education hours to remain current in their profession, thusdiminishing the board’s ability ensure the competency of licensees.

The purpose of continuing education is to provide aneducational program through which licensees cancontinually become more competent and remain qualifiedto engage in activities for which they are licensed. Suchactivities involve facts and concepts about which licenseesmust be knowledgeable in order to conduct funeral serviceactivities safely, confidently, in the public’s best interest.

Until 2002, MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-51 (1972) requiredall applicants for licensure to have completed at leastthree hours of continuing education units in areas relatedto federal OSHA standards. However, now, onceindividuals receive their licenses, the state’s funeralservice law does not require licensees to earn continuingeducation hours to remain current in their profession.

In 2002 and 2003, themajority of theapplicants tested bythe board failed toachieve a passingscore on the licensingexamination.

PEER Report #469 13

The board’s lack of a continuing education requirement isa variance from requirements of other Mississippiregulatory licensure boards and funeral licensing boards inother states. For example, state law and the Board ofCosmetology require licensed instructors to acquiretwenty-four hours of continuing education every twoyears. Also, the Board of Chiropractic Examiners requireslicensees to acquire twelve hours of continuing educationcredit each year. Finally, funeral licensing boards in thirty-one other states require licensees to earn continuingeducation credit, ranging from four to twelve hoursannually.

The lack of a continuing education requirement forrenewal of licenses diminishes the board’s ability toensure the general competency of licensees to performfuneral service activities.

Licensing Reciprocity

The board issues reciprocal licenses to applicants whowere initially licensed in a state other than Mississippi.The applicant must satisfy the board that he or she hasheld a license in another state and that the license is in fullforce and effect. The board must determine that theapplicant has met licensing qualifications at leastsubstantially similar to the requirements of Mississippilaw and that the applicant has scored at least 75% on theNational Board Examination.

Does the board effectively enforce regulatory requirements?The Board of Funeral Service does not effectively enforce regulatory requirementsbecause it does not have a rigorous, fully documented process to investigatecomplaints; it does not perform periodic, uniform inspections of licensed funeralestablishments; and it does not ensure that its disciplinary actions are consistent.

The enforcement of funeral service law and regulations isgreatly dependent on how well the board administersprocesses for receiving and handling complaints againstpractitioners and the expediency and uniformity withwhich the board takes disciplinary action against violators.PEER examined the board’s complaint, inspection, anddisciplinary processes.

Complaint Process

The board’s rules require that it investigate a complaint regarding funeralservice within thirty days.

Rule 702 of the Board of Funeral Service states that it shallbe the duty of the board or its designee to investigate anylicensee who is accused of violating any law, rule, or

The lack of acontinuing educationrequirement is avariance fromrequirements of otherMississippi regulatoryboards and funerallicensing boards inmost other states.

PEER Report #46914

regulation or any licensee who is accused of gross orwillful malpractice of the practice of funeral service,funeral directing, or the science of embalming. The rulerequires the board to conduct an investigation withinthirty days of the receipt of a complaint. The licenseeabout whom a complaint has been lodged must respond inwriting to the board within thirty days of receipt ofnotification of the board’s investigation. Failure torespond within the time limit is deemed to be anadmission of the truth of the allegations.

The board requires that all complaints be submitted on aform provided by the board, which is accessible by callingthe board office and requesting that a form be mailed orthrough the board’s website. Upon receipt of the writtencomplaint, the Executive Director reviews the complaintand assigns it to a board member for investigation andrecommendation to the full board for disposition. TheExecutive Director selects the board member that sheconsiders to be most knowledgeable in the area of thecomplaint to handle the investigation. For example, shewould not select a board member who is licensed only as afuneral director (and is not eligible to embalm) toinvestigate a complaint regarding an unsatisfactoryembalming.

During calendar years 2002 and 2003, the Board of FuneralServices received thirty-four and fifty-two, respectively,complaints regarding alleged violations by funeral serviceand funeral directing licensees. Dissatisfied customerslodged the majority (70%) of the complaints for the twoyears, while the board and other funeral establishmentsfiled the remaining number (21% and 9%, respectively) foralleged noncompliance.

Board members’ investigations and board actions to resolve complaints arepoorly documented in the board’s investigative files and meeting minutes.

Upon receipt of a formal written complaint, the Board ofFuneral Service’s staff opens an investigative file andtracks the progress of the investigation through a “check-off sheet.” One step in the investigative process (and anitem on the check-off sheet) is to provide the investigatingboard member with a copy of the complaint form, therespondent’s response to the complaint, and a“Determination of Jurisdiction” form to be used by theboard member to document his or her analysis of state lawor board regulations relative to the complaint and stepstaken by the board member to investigate the complaint.

Despite being provided “Determination of Jurisdiction”forms, investigating board members do not consistentlycomplete the form and/or formally document theirfieldwork and conclusions regarding a complaint. PEERrandomly reviewed files for seven of the thirty-four

If the licensee aboutwhom a complaint hasbeen lodged does notrespond in writingwithin thirty days ofnotification of theboard’s investigation,the board interpretsthis as an admissionthat the allegations aretrue.

PEER Report #469 15

complaints handled by the board during CY 2002. Six ofthe seven files either did not contain a “Determination ofJurisdiction” form or contained a blank form that had notbeen completed by the investigating board member. Noneof the seven files contained any evidence of investigativesteps taken by the investigating board member todetermine the validity of the complaint. (Board membersstate that they typically investigate complaints bytelephoning the parties involved to obtain relevantinformation.) None of the seven files contained formalfield notes and analytical information with which theinvestigating board member developed a recommendationto the full board to resolve the complaint.

In addition to board members’ investigations being poorlydocumented, the board’s meeting minutes do not fullyreflect actions taken by the board to resolve complaints.Of the thirty-four complaints handled by the board duringCY 2002, thirty-two had been completely processed andclosed as of January 2004. For those complaints, theboard’s meeting minutes do not include a summary of thecomplaint, results of the investigative board member’sinvestigation, or a recommendation of action to be takenby the board in response to the complaint. Also, for morethan one-half of the thirty-two closed complaints for CY2002, the board’s minutes contain no explanation forclosure or only a cryptic entry that the complaint was nota violation of board regulations. The minutes reflect forthe remainder of the closed complaints that the partieshad settled their differences or chose not to pursuefurther action by the board. The minutes indicate that theboard imposed a monetary penalty in only three of thethirty-two complaint cases closed by the board during CY2002.

Licensees who have punitive actions taken against them bythe board in response to a complaint investigation havethe right to appeal the board’s decision to circuit court.Therefore, it is imperative that the board have a rigorousinvestigative process that fully documents the rationalefor any actions taken by the board. The lack of such couldresult in penalties being inconsistently imposed or boarddecisions being overturned on appeal to circuit court.

Inspection Process

State law requires the Board of Funeral Service to inspect funeralestablishments at least once during each licensing period.

State law requires the Board of Funeral Service to inspectfuneral establishments at least once during each licensingperiod. [See MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-55 (2) (1972).]According to the Executive Director, a licensing periodbegins on January 1 of each odd-numbered year andexpires on December 31 of each even-numbered year.

The board’s lack of arigorous investigativeprocess that fullydocuments therationale for itsactions could result inpenalties beinginconsistently imposedor board decisionsbeing overturned onappeal.

PEER Report #46916

Thus, for the most recently completed licensing reviewperiod (January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002), all442 of the state’s funeral establishments should have beeninspected at least once. PEER was unable to determine thetotal number of funeral service establishment inspectionsthat the board completed during the 2001-2 licensingperiod because the board’s Executive Director stated thatcomputer problems prevented her from providing thisdata. PEER could not confirm the dates or types oftechnical difficulties that prevented compilation of thedata.

Concerning who is responsible for inspections, as noted onpage 4, MISS. CODE ANN. §73-11-49 (4) (1972) states thatthe administrator of the Board (the Executive Director) hassupervisory responsibilities over field inspections andenforcement of regulations. Subparagraph (8) providesthe board with the following options for conductinginspections of funeral establishments:

• designate the Executive Director to conductinspections;

• hire an individual to conduct inspections; or,

• contract with any other individual or entity toperform such inspections.

The board’s rules and regulations do not state specificallywho is responsible for conducting inspections. TheExecutive Director stated that she and several boardmembers conduct these inspections. The board’s minutesindicate that the Executive Director’s husband and aformer board member have also conducted inspections.

According to state law and the board’s rules andregulations, funeral establishments are inspected for thefollowing elements including, but not limited to:

• proper facilities for preparation and arrangementfor burial and cremation;

• to ensure consumers are informed of the servicesprovided by the funeral establishment and theircosts; and,

• that the facility is clean and sanitary.

The individual conducting the inspection uses aninspection form created by the board. (See Exhibit 3, page17.)

Although the board’srules and regulationsdo not statespecifically who isresponsible forconductinginspections, theExecutive Director hassupervisoryresponsibility overinspections andenforcement ofregulations.

PEER Report #46918

Because of insufficient staffing and the lack of a systematic approach to completinginspections, the Board of Funeral Service has not fulfilled its inspectionresponsibilities and thus cannot assure the protection of the health and safety offuneral establishment employees and the public.

PEER examined a random sample of fifty-two files from a total of 442establishments that the board should have inspected in 2001 and 2002and found that the board had inspected only thirty-three of theseestablishments.

During the licensing period of January 1, 2001, throughDecember 31, 2002, Mississippi had 442 funeralestablishments that the board should have inspected, asrequired by CODE Section 73-11-55 (2) (1972). PEER staffrandomly selected and reviewed fifty-two of the 442funeral establishment files and found that the boardactually inspected only 63% of the funeral establishmentsincluded in the sample. The board had inspected thirty-three of the funeral establishments and had not inspectedsixteen establishments. Because of the board’s poorrecordkeeping, PEER could not determine when the otherthree establishments had been inspected.

The Board of Funeral Service has insufficient staff with which to conductthe inspections mandated by law.

As noted above, MISS. CODE ANN. §73-11-49 (4) (1972)states that the administrator of the board (e.g., theExecutive Director) has supervisory responsibilities overthe field inspections and enforcement of regulations. Thelaw states that the Executive Director may conductinspections, hire an individual to conduct inspections, orcontract for such inspections.

The board’s rules and regulations do not state specificallywho is responsible for conducting inspections. As notedon page 4, the board has only two staff members—theExecutive Director and an administrative secretary.Because of the lack of staff designated to conductinspections, the Executive Director and several boardmembers conduct these inspections (see discussion of thisin next section).

Because MISS. CODE ANN. Section 73-11-55 (1972) requiresthat the board inspect each funeral establishment at leastonce every two years, and because that section also laysout minimum inspection criteria, it is the board’s duty tohave these inspections carried out. Also, although CODESection 73-11-49 (4) (1972) states that the ExecutiveDirector may conduct inspections, this one individualcould not be expected to conduct approximately 442inspections in a two-year period, as well as manage otherbusiness of the agency.

The board is not ableto implement fully anytype of organizedinspection programwithout personnel toconduct theinspections.

PEER Report #469 19

Thus the board is not able to implement fully any type oforganized inspection program without personnel toconduct the inspections.

Because the board has no rule that requires members who haveconducted inspections to recuse themselves from disciplinary proceedingson the establishments they have inspected, the potential exists for theappearance of bias or impropriety.

As noted above, several of the board’s members haveconducted inspections of funeral establishments. Becausethe board has no rule that prohibits such, board memberswho have inspected a funeral establishment couldparticipate in the full board’s determination ofnoncompliance and any resulting disciplinary penaltiesregarding that same establishment. The board membercould be, or appear to be, prejudiced in favor of or againstan establishment due to contact made during theinspection and in theory his or her vote could reflect thisprejudice.

Although PEER has no evidence that any board memberhas prejudged any funeral establishment in reference todisciplinary proceedings, it is the board’s responsibility toavoid the appearance of bias or impropriety.

Although the board’s minutes of January 16, 2003, statethat board members are no longer to conduct inspections,PEER found documentation in the files showing that boardmembers continued to conduct inspections subsequent tothat date.

The lack of a board rule or policy addressing potential biasin the disciplinary process could result in some of theboard’s disciplinary decisions being overturned on appealto circuit court.

The board has no formal process or plan in place to inspect allestablishments within the two-year time frame mandated by law.

The Board of Funeral Service does not have a systematicapproach for completing funeral establishmentinspections. The board has not addressed through rules orpolicies such issues as assigning inspections based ongeographic location, how many inspections should beconducted per month, method of selection for completingall inspections within the required timeframe, or methodof documenting the inspections that have been completed.

Without a formal process for completing funeralestablishment inspections, the board cannot ensure thatall inspections will be completed within the licensingperiod, particularly with the limited number of individualsavailable to conduct inspections. Thus the board cannot

A board member couldbe, or appear to be,prejudiced in favor ofor against anestablishment due tocontact made duringan inspection and intheory his or her votecould reflect thisprejudice.

The lack of a boardrule or policyaddressing potentialbias in the disciplinaryprocess could result insome of the board’sdisciplinary decisionsbeing overturned onappeal.

PEER Report #46920

assure the public that funeral establishments are incompliance with state law and board rules and regulations.The public and/or funeral service establishmentemployees may suffer from unscrupulous or hazardouspractices.

Neither state law nor the board’s rules and regulations containrequirements for follow-up inspections.

Although the board’s inspection form includes a blank toindicate whether the inspection is a “reinspection,” neitherthe Mississippi Code nor the board’s policies andprocedures require the board to conduct follow-upinspections for those funeral establishments who arefound to be out of compliance. Without a follow-upinspection, the board cannot determine if corrective actionhas been taken for each violation.

The Board of Funeral Service does not utilize specific criteria whenconducting inspections of funeral establishments. Thus the board cannotconduct uniform inspections and cannot ensure the safety of funeralestablishment employees and the public.

Although individuals who conduct funeral establishment inspections use astandard inspection form with very general guidelines, they cannotconduct uniform inspections because the board does not have specificcriteria with which to determine whether a funeral establishment is incompliance.

As noted on page 3, state law requires the Board ofFuneral Service to inspect funeral establishments at leastonce during each two-year licensing period. Theindividuals conducting these inspections use the formshown in Exhibit 3, page 17.

Although the inspection form lists the elements that arerequired to be reviewed during the inspection, it does notprovide any formal criteria for these elements and theboard could not provide PEER with documentation of anycriteria that it uses in conducting inspections. Forexample, item 8 on the inspection form, “Proper quarterfor rites and ceremonies” does not operationally define“proper.” Item 9, “Adequate arrangement room/office,”does not operationally define “adequate.” Without specificcriteria, the board cannot ensure that it conducts uniform,thorough inspections. The following paragraphs discussother examples of inadequate criteria for inspection itemsrelated to worker health and safety.

To gauge the types of standards needed for suchinspections, PEER compared the board’s standards tothose of the federal Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA). As noted on page 8, OSHA’s

Without follow-upinspections, the boardcannot determinewhether correctiveaction has been takenfor each violation.

The board’s inspectionform does not definewhat is “adequate” or“proper” in terms ofthe elements to bereviewed.

PEER Report #469 21

purpose is to protect against workplace safety and healthhazards and its standards apply to private-sectoremployers with one or more employees. While OSHA hasauthority to inspect funeral homes meeting the “ one ormore employees criteria,” its routine inspections focus onworkplaces that pose a higher risk for a greater number ofemployees. Most OSHA inspections result from employeecomplaints. OSHA has developed mandatory job safetyand health standards and enforces them through worksiteinspections, employer assistance, and citations and/orpenalties. While OSHA has no standard specific to funeralestablishments, there are several regulations withinOSHA’s industry standards that apply to funeralhomes—e.g., formaldehyde regulations, personalprotective equipment standards, and disposal ofhazardous waste standards. (See Exhibit 4, page 22.)

The following are two examples of PEER’s comparison ofsimilar standards of the Board of Funeral Service andOSHA:

• Ventilation— Rule 402 (3)(E) of the board’s rules andregulations states:

The room shall be properly ventilated andcomply in respect to ventilation with federal,state and local laws or ordinances andregulations.

However, the rule does not specify how the ventilationshould be inspected and what types of ventilationsystems are acceptable.

Item 2 (d) of the board’s inspection form has thefollowing checklist item:

All operating and preparation rooms equippedwith ventilation.

The inspection form does not indicate what the boardwill accept as “ventilation.” The Executive Directorstated to PEER that most funeral establishments havefans in the embalming room, which implies that theboard would accept the establishment’s possession ofa fan as “ventilation.”

In comparison, OSHA’s concern with ventilationfocuses on whether whatever ventilation system usedis adequate to protect employee health. Rather thanissuing specifications for a ventilation system, OSHArequires funeral establishments to implement systemsthat keep airborne contaminants below maximumlimits. OSHA standards require funeral establishmentsto determine what airborne contaminants are presentin a facility and monitor the air to determine whetheremployee exposures exceed OSHA’s permissible limitfor the identified contaminants. In their inspections,OSHA employees conduct their own scientific

PEER Report #46922

Exhibit 4: Industry Standards of the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) that Apply to Funeral Establishments

OSHA Standard: Requirements of Standard:

Hazard Communication

(Right to Know Law)

• identify and evaluate chemical hazards in theworkplace

• communicate hazard information to employersand employees

Bloodborne Pathogens • create a written Exposure Control Plan thatdescribes how the employer will protectemployees from exposure to blood or otherpotentially infectious bodily fluids

Personal Protective Equipment • assess work area to determine if hazards are orare likely to be present which necessitate the useof specialized protective clothing or equipmentand make the equipment and clothing available toemployees

Respiratory Protection • create a written respiratory protection program

• identify which airborne contaminants are present

• conduct regular monitoring to determine whetherexposure levels exceed OSHA limits

• implement engineering and administrativecontrols where exposure levels exceed limits tobring levels within limits

Formaldehyde • monitor employee exposure unless employer candocument that presence of airborne formaldehydewill not exceed OSHA limits under foreseeableconditions

Eye/Face and Wash/Shower • provide suitable facilities for quick drenching orflushing of the eyes and body for employees whomay be exposed to injurious corrosive materials

Medical and First Aid • if not close to an infirmary, clinic, or hospital,have an individual trained to provide first aid

• maintain first aid kits on-site, filled according toOSHA specifications

Storage of Chemicals • segregate incompatible chemicals to preventadverse outcomes (e.g., fires, explosions, releaseof toxic gases)

Hazardous Waste Disposal • comply with disposal requirements established bystate and local authorities

SOURCE: PEER analysis of information from OSHA.

PEER Report #469 23

monitoring of air quality to determine whether thelevels of contaminants exceed limits. Air qualitymonitoring devices, such as diffusion badges, areavailable for purchase and use by inspectors. Theprice of these devices includes analysis of the resultsby a laboratory.

• Cleanliness of rooms and instruments--Rule 402(3) (F)of the board’s rules and regulations requires that:

. . .the preparation or embalming room bemaintained in a clean and sanitary condition atall times. All instruments and other appliancesused in embalming dead human bodies shall bethoroughly cleansed.

Several of the checklist items on the inspection formrefer to floors, tables, instruments, or rooms being“sanitary” or “clean,” but do not state how this shouldbe determined (see Exhibit 3, page 17.) The board’srules contain some specifications regarding types ofmaterials to be used for the floor, tables, walls, etc.,but do not specify how sanitizing is to beaccomplished. The Executive Director stated shedetermines if instruments and tables are sanitary andclean through a visual inspection and could notprovide documentation of any criteria used in thedetermination of compliance.

In comparison, OSHA requires that facilities thathandle toxic or hazardous substances, such as funeralestablishments, utilize a bloodborne pathogensprogram to protect employees against the hepatitis Bvirus and human immunodeficiency virus. OSHArequires engineering controls such as sharps disposalcontainers for needles and scalpels, exposure incidentprocedures that provide specific tasks to be performedin the event of exposure with infectious materials, andsterilization procedures that ensure destruction ofbacteria on instruments.

PEER contends that a visual inspection alone is notsufficient to determine cleanliness and that the boardcould adopt procedures for ensuring that funeralestablishments are adhering to proper controls ofbloodborne pathogens and proper decontamination ofinstruments and rooms. For example, the inspectorcould determine whether proper disinfectants arebeing used and whether there is a written procedurefor cleaning instruments and rooms.

The effect of having general inspection guidelines withoutspecific criteria is that the board cannot ensure uniforminspections because each individual conductinginspections may have a different concept of howcompliance should be measured. The lack of operational

PEER Report #46924

definitions for terms such as “clean” and “sanitary”increases risk to the public of health hazards.

PEER compared results of the Board of Funeral Service’s inspections ofthree funeral home establishments to the results of OSHA inspections ofthose same funeral establishments. For two of these establishments,OSHA had cited multiple serious violations, while the board had cited noviolations. The board had not inspected the third establishment.

To gauge the effectiveness of the Board of FuneralService’s inspections, PEER also compared the results ofinspections of selected establishments by the board toresults of inspections of the same establishments byOSHA. Although the board’s inspection responsibilitiesinclude matters other than the condition of the workplace(e.g., consumer protection matters), OSHA standards givesome reasonable basis of comparison.

Exhibit 5, page 25, describes the results of OSHA’sinspections of three Mississippi funeral establishments. Atone of the establishments, OSHA cited eight violationsincluding not updating their Exposure Control Plan,employee overexposure to formaldehyde, and no controlsto protect employees from the high levels of aircontaminants. OSHA fined the funeral establishment$6,425. The Board of Funeral Service inspected this sameestablishment within ten days of the OSHA inspection andfound no violations, most likely because of its lessstringent criteria. The board only checks to see whetherthe home has some form of ventilation; it does notmonitor air quality as does OSHA. Also, the board has nowritten requirements to look for and evaluate exposurecontrol plans as does OSHA.

At another establishment, OSHA found six violations andfined the establishment $3,150. Violations includedfailure to decontaminate sinks and tables in theembalming room (as documented through observation ofprocedures and materials used by employees) and failureto train employees annually that are exposed to blood orother potential infectious material. The board does notinclude a review of training requirements in its inspectionroutine even though such a review would serve to betterprotect funeral home employees.

OSHA also cited a third selected funeral establishment forviolations, but a review of the funeral establishment’s fileincluded no documentation that the Board of FuneralService had ever inspected this establishment. State lawrequires an initial inspection before the funeralestablishment is allowed to open for business andsubsequent inspections once every two years.

Both the Board of Funeral Service and OSHA are oversightbodies responsible for helping reduce risks of disease orbodily harm. When the board and OSHA conduct

When the Board ofFuneral Service andOSHA conductinspections of thesame establishmentsand OSHA findsmultiple violationsbecause of a morerigorous inspectionprogram and the boardfinds none, the board’seffectiveness inconducting inspectionsis called into question.

Exhibit 5: Comparison of Inspections of Selected Funeral Establishments by OSHA and Board of FuneralService

Establishmentand Date of

OSHAInspection

Findings of OSHA Inspection PenaltiesAssessedby OSHA

Establishmentand Date of

Board ofFuneral

Service’sInspection

Findings ofBoard’s

Inspection

PenaltiesAssessedby Board

Establishment A

5/23/03

Emergency eye wash did not have a quick opening valve

Employee did not sign the Hepatitis B vaccination statement

Employer modified the statement on the Hepatitis B vaccination statement

No fines Establishment A

File contains noevidence ofinspection withinlicensing period

notapplicable

notapplicable

Establishment B

09/13/02

Exposure Control Plan not updated since 1992

Training records for bloodborne pathogens did not include the contents or summary oftraining sessions.

Employee exposed to airborne concentration of formaldehyde that exceeded two partsformaldehyde per million parts of air as a 15 minute short exposure time limit on12/11/00.

Engineering controls do not adequately reduce employee exposure level below the shorttime exposure limit.

Employee did not wear respiratory protection.

Company has not established or implemented a written respirator program.

Company has not instituted a medical surveillance program for the embalmers.

Employer has not provided all the training materials to embalmers as required in1910.1048 (n)(3)

$6,425 Establishment B

9/23/02

None None

Establishment C

3/24/03

Employer did not ensure that employees were not exposed to the hazard of being struckby falling roof joists in the ceiling of the garage.

Sinks and tables in the embalming room were not decontaminated after contact withblood, thereby exposing employees to the hazard of coming in contact with infectiousmaterial.

The regulated waste container in the embalming room was not a closeable container,thereby exposing employees to the hazard of coming in contact with infectiousmaterial.

Employees exposed to blood or other potential infectious material were not giventraining annually.

Exit signs throughout the facility were not suitably illuminated by a reliable light source.

Employer’s exposure control plan was not reviewed or updated annually.

$3,150 Establishment C

6/3/02

None None

SOURCE: PEER analysis of files and minutes of the Board of Funeral Service.

PEER Report #469 27

inspections of the same establishments and OSHA findsmultiple violations because of a more rigorous inspectionprogram and the board finds none, the board’seffectiveness in conducting inspections is called intoquestion.

Discipline and Penalties

After a violation has been determined, MISS. CODE ANN.§73-11-57 (2) (1972) allows, but does not require, theboard to hold a hearing to determine if a funeralestablishment is guilty of violating state law or board rulesand regulations governing funeral establishments andprovides the following options for disciplinary actions.

The board may:

• refuse to examine, issue or renew a license;

• suspend or revoke any license; or,

• reprimand or place the holder of a license onprobation.

State law also allows, but does not require, the board toassess monetary penalties against those funeralestablishments found to be guilty of a violation. MISS.CODE ANN. §73-11-57 (3) (1972) allows the board toassess monetary penalties in addition or in lieu ofrevocation or suspensions of licenses. The monetarypenalties may be assessed as follows:

(a) For the first violation, a monetary penalty of noless than $50 nor more than $500;

(b) For the second violation, a monetary penalty ofno less than $100 nor more than $1,000;

(c) For the third violation, no less than $500 normore than $5,000.

The board does not utilize disciplinary actions consistently to deter violatorsand, in at least one case, has administered a disciplinary action notauthorized by statute.

Although penalty ranges are provided for in state law, the board does nothave criteria for determining the amount of monetary penalties or lengthof probation periods to assess for specific violations.

The Board of Funeral Service does not have criteria fordetermining the amounts of monetary penalties or thelength of probation periods that should be assessed forspecific violations. Although the monetary penaltycategories are provided for in state law (see previous

State law also allows,but does not require,the board to assessmonetary penaltiesagainst funeralestablishments foundguilty of a violation.

The board has notdeveloped a penaltymatrix.

PEER Report #46928

section), the board has not developed a penalty matrix thatstates the amount of monetary penalty that should beassessed for each violation, based on the type and severityof the violation or whether it was an initial or recurringoffense. Similarly, the board does not have a penaltymatrix or written procedure for determining the length ofprobationary periods it assesses for noncompliance.

The absence of criteria for determining the amount andseverity of penalties creates the opportunity forinconsistent enforcement of laws, rules, and regulationsregarding funeral service. PEER found several examples inthe board’s files of funeral service establishments withsimilar numbers and types of violations being assesseddifferent monetary penalties and probationary periods bythe board.

If the board’s disciplinary actions are not consistent,potential violators may not be deterred. Thus the boardcannot ensure that funeral service establishments will not,as a result of either intent or carelessness, harm theiremployees or consumers.

In cases in which inspections of funeral establishments found violations ofstate law or the board’s rules and regulations that funeral establishmentpersonnel acknowledged, the board administered penalties in some casesand not in others.

Within PEER’s sample of fifty-two randomly selectedfuneral establishment files, eleven funeral establishmentswhose inspection reports noted that they were out ofcompliance with state law or the board’s rules andregulations had no action taken against them by the board.These violations ranged from “proper license notdisplayed” to “blood on table” and “no hot water.” Sixestablishments had violations regarding their pricelists—”general price list does not meet Federal TradeCommission compliance” or “no general price listavailable.” PEER’s review of the board’s minutes identifiedfour other funeral establishments that receiveddisciplinary action by the board for the same violationscommitted by the above-noted eleven establishments thatdid not receive penalties. Thus the board has notuniformly and consistently enforced laws, rules, andregulations regarding funeral service across the state.

If the board does not enforce laws, rules, and regulationsuniformly, it cannot ensure the public of protectionagainst the risks of unscrupulous or incompetentpractitioners.

PEER found severalexamples in theboard’s files of funeralservice establishmentswith similar numbersand types of violationsbeing assesseddifferent monetarypenalties andprobationary periodsby the board.

The board has notuniformly andconsistently enforcedlaws, rules, andregulations regardingfuneral service acrossthe state.

PEER Report #469 29

In at least one instance, the Board of Funeral Service has used a consentorder to implement a disciplinary action not authorized by statute.

A “consent order” is similar to a settlement in a civil actionin that the accused agrees with the accuracy and validityof the complaint against him or her and agrees to abide bythe remedy for the violation assigned by the board. Byusing a consent order, the board uses an administrativemeans to settle cases and avoid lengthy formal hearings orlitigation.

PEER found that in at least one instance, the Board ofFuneral Service used a consent order to implement apenalty not authorized in state law. On August 8, 2002,the Board of Funeral Service adopted a motion to requirethe owner of Chancellor Funeral Home to come before theboard to show cause regarding the “unlawful practice offuneral service.” The board alleged that the ownerhandled a funeral through a funeral establishment notlicensed by the board. By mutual agreement of the boardand the owner, the board did not conduct a hearing intothis matter. Instead, the board adopted a consent order inwhich the board fined the owner $1,000 and assessed him$500 for the administrative costs of the investigation. Theboard also placed the owner on probation for one year.

The board’s actions in this matter are not consistent withstate law and are not fully documented in its investigativefiles or meeting minutes, as described below.

• The $1,000 monetary fine assessed by the boardexceeded fines authorized in MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-57 (1972). This section authorizes the board toassess a monetary penalty of not less than $50 normore than $500 for the first violation of anyprovision contained in the CODE section. Licenseeswho have a second or third violation may be finedup to $1,000 or $5,000 respectively. Nothing in theboard’s minutes or investigative files indicate thatthe owner of Chancellor Funeral Home had aprevious violation of funeral service laws.Therefore, the owner’s monetary penalty shouldnot have exceeded $500.

• Neither the board’s minutes nor its investigativefiles contain information from the investigatingboard member describing how the owner engagedin “unlawful practice of funeral service.” While thefile contains some field notes, a death certificate,and related correspondence, there is no analysis todocument violations of state funeral service laws orregulations. In addition, unlike other investigativefiles reviewed by PEER, the file in this matter doesnot contain an itemization of the $500 inadministrative expenses charged to the owner.Supposedly the expense amount represents timespent by the board’s attorney in assisting with this

PEER Report #46930

matter. However, nothing in the file supports thisassertion.

PEER does not criticize the board’s use of consent orders,but they should always be used to implement adisciplinary remedy given to a board in state law. Neitherconsent orders nor other disciplinary actions shouldexceed the penalties prescribed by law. When theLegislature establishes a comprehensive scheme ofregulation, including permissible remedies for violationsof agency rules, any agency’s actions that extend beyondthe permissible remedies constitute a usurpation of theLegislature’s prerogative.

PEER Report #469 31

Recommendations

Protection of Funeral Service Workers1. The Legislature should amend MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-

11-55 (1972) to provide authority to the Board ofFuneral Service to develop a comprehensive set ofregulations to protect workers in the funeral serviceindustry from the unique risks associated with theiremployment. Such regulations should be measurableso that trained inspectors can determine compliancewith them.

Continuing Education2. No later than December 1, 2004, the Board of Funeral

Service should develop a proposed continuingeducation program for all licensees. The proposedprogram should include annual educationrequirements for each class of license and the subjectsrequired for each licensee. Upon development of acontinuing education program, the board should seeklegislative authorization to implement the program.

Agency Funding3. The Board of Funeral Service should review its current

funding structure and program expenditures todetermine whether sufficient funds are available fromexisting sources to implement recommendationscontained in this report. If sufficient funds currentlyexist, the board should seek increased appropriationsfor future fiscal years from current revenue sources tooffset expenses associated with implementation ofreport recommendations. If the board can establishthat current revenue sources will not be sufficient tooffset such expenses, the board should recommend tothe Legislature increased or additional fees sufficientto cover such expenses.

Enforcement4. The Board of Funeral Service should ensure that

individuals who serve as inspectors are adequatelytrained to conduct investigative fieldwork. Such

PEER Report #46932

training should consist of mastery of all substantivecriteria for inspections and preparation of supportingworkpapers.

5. The Board of Funeral Service should ensure that boardmembers who investigate complaints against a licenseeor funeral establishment do not participate in theadjudication of such complaints.

6. The Board of Funeral Service should consideremploying a full-time, trained professional to conductinspections of funeral establishments and investigatecomplaints.

7. The Board of Funeral Service should develop a formalprocess for ensuring that funeral establishmentinspections are completed in a timely manner andinclude the process in its policy and proceduremanual. The process could include, but not be limitedto:

• a schedule for the completion of a specifiednumber of inspections per month;

• inclusion in the board’s computer system of thetypes of inspections (reinspection, routine,initial) and the results of the inspections;

• a system to track the performance of funeralestablishments and provide data with which tomeasure the effectiveness of the inspectionprogram;

• a report of all funeral establishments inspectedeach quarter or from the date of the last boardmeeting and the results to be presented at eachboard meeting; and,

• a requirement that a report be made by theExecutive Director on October 30 of each yearin which the licensure period expires to identifythose funeral establishments that have notbeen inspected to ensure that the scheduleprovides for an inspection prior to December31.

8. The Board of Funeral Service should create a penaltymatrix to determine the monetary penalty that shouldbe assessed as well other penalties that should beassessed (such as probation) based on the types ofviolations and the severity of violations.

9. The Mississippi Legislature should amend MISS. CODEANN. § 73-11-57 (1972) to require the board toconduct follow-up inspections within thirty days of thefiling of an inspection report for funeralestablishments that the board cites as failing tocomply with state law or board regulations.

PEER Report #469 33

10. To ensure that funeral establishments are inspectedconsistently, the Board of Funeral Service shoulddevelop measurable criteria for each element includedin the inspection process.

11. When imposing monetary fines against non-compliantlicensees or funeral establishments, the Board ofFuneral Service should strictly adhere to the graduatedschedule of fines included in MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-11-57 (1972).

12. The Board of Funeral Service should review itsdisciplinary actions and consent orders for casesclosed during CY 2002 and CY 2003 to determine theircompliance with penalties authorized by MISS. CODEANN. § 73-11-57 (1972). In those instances in whichpenalties imposed varied from state law, the boardshould take corrective action to ensure strictcompliance with state law. Also, for each hearingconducted or administrative action taken by the board,the Executive Director should compile and include ininvestigative files an itemized accounting ofadministrative expenses associated with such action.

PEER Report #46934

PEER Report #469 39

PEER’s Note to Agency ResponseAugust 10, 2004

In its response to PEER’s report A Review of the Board of Funeral Service, theboard noted that some of the Committee’s recommendations would be difficult toimplement “in light of the current legislative trend of ‘borrowing’ special fund dollars.”While it is correct that the Legislature has transferred special funds to the BudgetContingency Fund in recent fiscal years to increase funds available to the Legislature forappropriation, such practices have not affected the Board of Funeral Service. Staff ofthe State Treasurer’s Office and the Department of Finance and Administration reportthat neither the Legislature nor the State Fiscal Officer transferred funds from the Boardof Funeral Service during fiscal years 2000 through 2003, the period covered in thisreport.

House Bill 1279 (2004 Regular Session) authorizes the State Fiscal Officer totransfer $83,400,000 from the aggregate of special funds in the State Treasury to theBudget Contingency Fund during FY 2005. The bill requires the State Fiscal Officer tonotify each agency that is subject to the provisions of the bill of the total amount offunds to be transferred from the agency. The State Fiscal Officer recently notified theBoard of Funeral Service that he would transfer $16,000 (in quarterly installments of$4,000 each) from the board’s account during FY 2005.

The Executive Director of the Board of Funeral Service contends that, due to itsbiennial fee collection practices, the board cannot afford to have its cash balancereduced by $16,000 during FY 2005. However, as shown on page 6 of this report, theboard consistently had ending cash balances averaging approximately $170,000 in eachof the past four fiscal years. The board’s available cash balance and revenues more thanoffset the board’s operating expenses each year. Therefore, a $16,000 reduction in theboard’s available funds should not irreparably harm the agency. Also, the boardappears to have sufficient resources with which to implement PEER’s recommendations,primarily those relating to hiring additional staff.

PEER Report #46940

PEER Committee Staff

Max Arinder, Executive DirectorJames Barber, Deputy DirectorTed Booth, General Counsel

Evaluation Editing and RecordsDavid Pray, Division Manager Ava Welborn, Editor and Records CoordinatorLinda Triplett, Division Manager Tracy BoboLarry Whiting, Division Manager Sandra HallerAntwyn BrownPamela O. Carter AdministrationKim Cummins Mary McNeill, Accounting and Office ManagerBarbara Hamilton Terry LittlefieldKelly Kuyrkendall Gale TaylorKaren LandSara Miller Data ProcessingJoyce McCants Larry Landrum, Systems AnalystCharles H. MooreJohn Pearce Corrections AuditBrad Rowland Louwill Davis, Corrections AuditorSara WatsonCandice Whitfield

Documents

A Review of the Board of Funeral Service · The Board of Funeral Service does not have a rigorous, fully documented process to investigate complaints. Board members’ investigations