Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 9. Source pages: 4, 10, 11, 16.
“Problems with bill as I see it: 1. Putting two entities who can't agree on fundamental issues together for them to decide upon regulatory issues to protect the public is, on its face, ludicrous; 2. Omni boards have not worked effectively anywhere they have been tried and have been roundly abandoned; 3. The public is already confused enough about which mental health professions do what and this will simply further complicate matters; 4. Particularly for specialty areas such as forensic or neuropsych, issues will be decided upon by six out of nine people who have no training or understanding of the unique issues faced by these psychologists.” — Dr. Alicia Pellegrin
“Wow, what unintended consequences will come out of that bill! I suspect that lack of knowledge is the appalling answer to why such actions are taken. Let’s hope sane minds prevail.” –Times reader (name withheld by request)
“SB 226 is a problem since then there would be 6 of 9 on a board regulating professional behaviors about which they have no clue. What knowledge would they have about a system for hiring and promotions? Test construction? Jury selection? Forensic consultation? PSYCHOLOGY IS MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN HEALTH CARE!” – — Dr. Tom Hannie “This is unbelievable. … What a stupid idea. The big change would be different composition in this proposed board, so less effective in overseeing either profession. Where is the help to the consumer in this?? –Times Reader (name withheld by request)
“This would be extremely harmful to psychology as an independent profession, almost certainly wouldn't eliminate issues between psychology and the LPCs, and would probably generate a whole new set of regulatory problems for both groups. A couple of coworkers at my workplace are LPCs, and they also oppose this bill.” –Dr. John Fanning "Why don't we have a new Board composed of Dentists and Lawyers? We'll use the Dentists' sense of ethics for the Lawyers, who no doubt would appreciate the guidance about pulling teeth. If you think this analogy is not particularly apt, consider trying to use marriage and family ethics for psychological testing, and you will get some of the same idea. Regarding the childish tactic of putting us all in the same room to work things out, consider putting feral cats and dogs in the same room, and see how much harmony you will get." – Times reader (name withheld by request) "While the bill may have good intentions, I view the most significant problem is that it will allow the practice of psychology to be regulated, at least in part, by representatives from another profession. Our board would be merged with another profession that operates under a different training paradigm, under different ethical principles, and under practice statutes that markedly differ from our own. I don’t see any strengths and I don’t like it." — Dr. Bryan Gros
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.