Article archive / December 1, 2013
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 4. Source pages: 1, 4, 5.
In 2010 Act 251 took effect, moving medical psychologists from the state psychology board to the state medical board. Designed by LAMP and the medical board, Act 251’s definitions included, “ ‘LAMP’ means the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists.” Act 251 directed medical psychologists to obtain 25 percent of their continuing education from LAMP, the law noting, “A minimum of twenty-five percent of a medical psychologist's continuing medical education shall be provided by the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychology.”
Act 251 also specified that members of the new Medical Psychology Advisory Committee would be nominated by LAMP. “… Four members shall be medical psychologists selected from a list of names recommended by the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists.”
Rules were published in 2011 and included the definition, “LAMP―the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists.” And, for the Continuing Education Requirement, the Rules noted, “A minimum of 25 percent of the continuing medical education required by this Section shall be provided by LAMP.”
The Rules also described that it was “LAMP” that would recommend members of the Medical Psychology Advisory Committee, “[…] four medical psychologists selected by the board from a list of names recommended by LAMP.” And also, LAMP would help recommend the physician member. “ […] one physician selected from a list of names submitted by the Louisiana State Medical Society, and recommended by Louisiana Psychiatric Medical Association and LAMP, […].”
But who exactly is LAMP? Is LAMP a professional organization or a Political Action Committee (PAC)? It is not all that clear, and it matters, because a PAC must tread carefully on the rights of citizens. Who is LAMP?
While Act 251 and the associated Rules define LAMP as “Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists,” an official footprint for this organization does not appear to exist.
Nola.com business finder lists “Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists,” at 913 S. College Rd, Lafayette, but with none of this information has been “claimed” or verified by anyone. Follow the Money lists it as an “institution” and also registered as a lobbyist. And Wellness.com lists it at 1003 Leycester Drive in Baton Rouge, but with no information claimed.
A 2012 and Spring 2013 search of the Louisiana Secretary of State’s list of corporations produced no listing for “Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists,” or any similar terms, or with the term “LAMP” that fit any of the expected characteristics. And, “Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists” appears to have no website or social media presence.
Many in the community report that LAMP maintains closed communi- cations, and this has been born out over the last years when repeated requests by the Times for information from LAMP leaders, for both political and non-political topics, have not been returned.
While LAMP doesn’t have a presence or footprint as a professional organization, the “LA Academy of Medical Psychologists PAC” does. This LAMP is listed under the State Ethics Board and is a Political Action Committee (PAC).
Is this the same organization written into Act 251 that provides continuing education?
While LAMP President Dr. Cathy Castille refused to provide information about the 2012 LAMP conference, saying, “LAMP has no interest in having anything published by you,” other sources eventually sent the LAMP 2012 continuing education program information to the Times. Presenters for the LAMP conference included Dr. Cecil Reynolds, Dr. Matthew Tull, and Dr. Kim Gratz.
In a review of LAMP-PAC documents filed for April 2013, these same three presenters were paid by the PAC, each receiving $1,200 for “Professional Fees.” This, and other expenditures, suggested that the PAC was delivering continuing education for medical psychologists.
Was a PAC requiring a contribution in order for medical psychologists to fulfill requirements of Act 251, which had been written by that PAC?
Medical psychologists in the community routinely refer to “LAMP dues.” Even then President Dr. John Bolter wrote in an email to members from the LAMP listserv in 2010, said “The annual dues for LAMP members is set at last year’s amount of $2,500.”
But, have any medical psychologists been hindered in their efforts to obtain the required training? This appeared to be the case, after several undisclosed sources reported problems with LAMP and their requirements to the Times.
What A Muddle
Are LAMP dues (or contributions) required of medical psychologists who must attend the training as directed by Act 251, which was written by LAMP?
While professional associations or corporations might be able to charge for continuing education and reject those who do not pay, it is not clear that a PAC has this right.
According to the law regulating PACs, Louisiana Election Code (R.S. 18:1505.2) prohibits PACs in certain actions that coerce contributions or cause individuals to lose opportunities that are of benefit, based on their contributions to a PAC. “D. (1) No person shall knowingly coerce or attempt to coerce another person to give or withhold a contribution.” And, “(2) No person based on an individual's contribution, promise to make a contribution, or failure to make a contribution shall directly or indirectly affect an individual's employment […]”
The law goes on to specify that a contribution to a PAC cannot deny, deprive, or threaten a person with, “… any employment or position. […] the loss of any compensation, payment, benefit, or other emolument derived from or related to such employment or position.” Or, “[…] the loss of any compensation, payment, benefit, or other emolument derived from or related to such membership or participation in any organization.”
So, it does not appear that a PAC is allowed to require contributions, or restrict anyone from “benefits” of continuing education, in this case the education needed to obtain a medical psychologist certificate.
Efforts to talk with LAMP officials to clarify this were not returned. So, instead I asked the Ethics Board for their opinion about these issues.
Request for Advisory Opinion
In October 2012, I submitted a Request for Advisory Opinion from the Louisiana State Ethics. I gave the above facts and asked whether medical psychologists were required to donate to a PAC in order to maintain the professional license granted by the state. “My question is: Does R.S. 37:1360.65 [Act 251] and/or the LA Academy of Medical Psychologists violate the Louisiana Election Code (R.S. 18:1505.2) having to do with coerced contributions?”
My request was dropped. It was explained to me that Requests for Advisory Opinions are not provided for past behaviors, only for the future.
However, in non-confidential communications with the Ethics Board, it was also explained that, in general, PACs and professional organizations (such as those offering required continuing education, for example) would be required to have separate checking accounts, separate accounting, and organizations, so that people always understand if they are making a contribution to a PAC or not. On July 22, 2013, a new corporation was filed with the Secretary of State’s corporate listings named the “Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists, Inc.” Dr. Cathy Castille is the organization’s President, according to state records. The registered agent is R. Grey Sexton of Baton Rouge. According to LAMP-PAC reports the PAC paid Mr. Sexton $1,320 for legal fees in April and in May 2013.
Sources attending a recent closed meeting of LAMP told the Times that President Dr. Castille informed members that the group was having to create a new organization. "We don't have to pay any fines, but it cost us a lot of money to get this fixed," Castille was reported to have said.
Also according to sources the group has created a new financial arrangement. Medical psychologists are now to pay $1500 to the new non-profit corporation. It was said that this will include the continuing education. LAMP members are to contribute the other $1000 to the PAC, according to sources.
This new organization band-aids the problem of Act 251 which wrote into law a Political Action Committee by using the term “LAMP.” It may also protect medical psychologists since members of corporations have certain rights under Louisiana corporate law.
Is a PAC an Approved Provider for Continuing Education?
This leaves open a question about the validity of the continuing education hours purchased from LAMP-PAC.
The Times asked current Continuing Education Chair on the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, Dr. Marc Zimmermann, who is also a medical psychologist, if a PAC was an approved entity for offering professional Continuing Education. He wrote the Times, “Dr. Nelson, I am responding to your query concerning LAMP CEs. Specifically, you asked about the status of CEs granted by LAMP prior to the division of LAMP as a regional organization and LAMP as PAC. The Board has not considered this issue. I will try to have it placed on the agenda for our December meeting.”
The Times also asked Continuing Education Analyst at the Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners, Mr. Peter Zengel, if a PAC could offer continuing education. He said, “No, I don’t think so.” He also noted that there were a lot of calls and confusion by licensees and he viewed things as still being “ironed out.” And, “While we stick to the major organizations, such as ACCME [Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education] you never know how much politics plays a part,” he told the Times.
Should Nominations to a State Board Come From a PAC?
A final issue is the appointment of members of a state regulatory board who have been nominated by a PAC.
Act 251 specifies that “LAMP” makes recommendations for the Medical Psychology Advisory Committee (MPAC). A search of the minutes of the MPAC and the state Medical Board did not produce any information about how the current members were recommended. When the MPAC was created in 2010, the current members would have been nominated by the existing PAC. The Ethics Board said that this issue was not under their jurisdiction.
Dr. Jillandra Rovaris, Chair, and Dr. Joe Comaty, Vice Chair, serving on the state psychology board in 2010. The Times has been working to understand why the 2009 psychology board failed to alert psychologists that Act 251 would move the practice of psychology (by medical psychologists) to the medical board.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.