Article archive / February 1, 2011
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 6. Source pages: 2, 3.
Dear Colleagues,
In August 2010 LPA member Alicia Pellegrin initiated a discussion about a resolution, drafted by several members in response to Act 251, which supported the independent practice of psychology. The new LPA president, Kelly Ray, promptly took the position that this topic was off the table.
Alarmed by this closed stance on such a critical matter, I decided to conduct an independent telephone survey of members about the resolution. Ignoring the issue seemed unfair to those who needed some way to voice their concerns. 105 members contacted voted in favor of the resolution.
In the following letter to the EC I describe what happened next, along with my observations and recommendations. Essentially, the survey results were summarily dismissed, momentum for a special meeting was squelched, an attitude of distrust prevailed, and my good faith efforts were rejected.
I believe that LPA needs an outside facilitator to teach us how to resolve conflicts constructively and to guide us through the complex and pressing issues of identity facing our profession. Anything less, such as a town hall meeting or members’ forum, would only scratch the surface of our problems.
Where is the leader willing to take this risk on our behalf?
January 14, 2011 Dear Members of the LPA Executive Council,
The last contact I had with you was on Friday, October 29th, at 4:19 p.m., when I sent you a resolution petition for a special meeting about the autonomy of psychology in Louisiana, prompted by your vote against a resolution in support of the autonomy of psychology at the EC meeting on Friday, October 22nd.
I now believe, based on three key events, that LPA leadership is closed to an open discussion about the autonomy of psychology, or to any honest dialogue with those erroneously perceived as outsiders.
The first event was the EC meeting in which the autonomy resolution was voted down. The process walled off outside input and authentic discussion about this and other matters. For example, during membership discussions, no EC member acknowledged information offered earlier about academic dues options. A protracted but vague description of legislative threats served to heighten the wall of exclusion.
The second event was the formal email response to my petition, requesting an exact purpose for the meeting that, despite careful wording to the contrary, came across as resistance to such a meeting. I would have expected a phone call to discuss how to iron out any problems with the petition, demonstrating a willingness to work together toward compromise. Instead, I sensed that obstacles were being placed in the path of getting a special meeting.
The third event was the breech of boundaries that occurred when the special meeting petition signees list was forwarded promptly to LAMP leader Jim Quillin. I wondered why no one contacted me. I would have been happy to help verify signees’ identities. This action confirmed my impression that EC leaders show favoritism toward the LAMP agenda, distrust my sincere intentions and actions, and are unwilling to genuinely address the will of the broader membership.
I have concluded that further pursuit of a special meeting, forum, or program of any kind on the autonomy of psychology, though vital to the health of our association, is premature until our leadership better understands and is more open to the importance of this need. I look forward to that time.
Sincerely, Susan Dardard
Dr. Susan Dardard at Gray Ranch on Cattle Penning Day. (Photo courtesy of Kent LeDoux, Gray Ranch manager.)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.