Death Care Law Blog : Kansas Death Care and Preneed Lawyer & Attorney : Stalter Legal Services Law Firm : Funeral Law, Elder Law : Kansas City

Earlier this week, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors posted their agenda for the September 27-29th meetings, which includes 65 pages of regulation proposals or revisions. The Board has probably heard the same complaint that we have: what the industry needs is less regulation, not more. However, regulations can serve a useful purpose in clarifying ambiguities in applicable law (and Senate Bill No. 1, and this past year’s SB 340 have their share of ambiguities and conflicts).

While most of proposed regulations involve death care licensing issues, the proposals do include some preneed issues. One of those issues is the exemption of cemeteries from Chapter 436 and another is the relationship (or non-relationship) between the preneed seller and the trust investment advisor. Both issues have been addressed in earlier posts to this blog. The debate continues.

The Board’s agenda also includes a modest legislative agenda. Well, modest but slightly controversial. The Board’s decision to raise the trusting requirement from 85% to 100% remains the main proposal.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri’s preneed regulator, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, will meet June 2nd to continue its discussion of agenda for the upcoming legislative session. Due to the lead time required to formulate legislation, the State Board is forced to begin discussions before its 2011 legislative agenda (SB325) even becomes law on August 28th. With the examination process having only begun this past January, the State Board does not even have the basis to evaluate crucial provisions of Senate Bill No. 1. Accordingly, the State Board faces decisions about what its legislative goals should be for the next year.

For the June 2nd meeting (and its prior May 18th meeting), the State Board staff went back to the various legislative proposals made during the summer of 2010 as a starting point. The temptation of Board may be to go through those proposals and evaluate each one on its merits. But the better approach would be to evaluate each proposal in terms of need and consistency with the legislative intent for SB1.

For example, page 9 of the June 2nd agenda includes changes intended to take preneed trusting to 100%. The proposal was discussed on May 18th, put up for a vote, and then withdrawn for further discussion on June 2nd. While it would be worthwhile to have a discussion on the merits of the proposal (including how 100% trusting would benefit both the consumer and the industry), the more important questions are whether the proposal is needed, and whether it is consistent with the legislative intent of SB1.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Rules and regulations provide an important framework for the operation and maintenance of a cemetery.  However, cemeteries should retain the flexibility to revise their rules to adapt to changes in operations, business and customs.   It's difficult to understand why a cemetery would risk complaints and the prospect of losing business by rigidly adhering to a set of rules and regulations that are almost 80 years old.

It's the family's names that are etched in stone, not the cemetery rules and regulations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks