Article archive / June 1, 2014
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 10. Source pages: 7, 8.
Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (LSBEP) has latched on to an appeal made by a candidate for a position on the board, medical psychologist Dr. Joe Comaty, and run with it all the way up to the state Ethics Administration.
In an unprecedented move, the psychology board asked the state Ethics Administration to give them an Advisory Opinion about whether someone who has information about certain cases would present an “obstacle” for the LSBEP if appointed.
The board’s line of reasoning mirrors that from a January letter sent by Comaty to Boards and Commissions, where he argued that Dr. Constance Patterson “has a direct conflict of interest.” His line of reasoning was that because she has certain information about cases, she would have to recuse herself, impairing the board’s ability to function.
Whether out of caution or an attempt to influence the outcome of the Governor’s appointment, the LSBEP picked up Comaty’s ideas and elevated the matter to the state Ethics Administration. However, they failed to note the low number of recusals that would be expected from this situation, and continued to blur the lines between ethics and board efficiency, that characterized Comaty’s original complaint.
This latest action follows the LSBEP April 25 letter to the Louisiana State Psychological Association, warning of their concern about the “integrity of the election process” and suggesting to some that the board might still challenge the outcome of the election. The basis of the concern was the idea that opponents to Comaty would resort to election fraud.
However, when the votes were counted on April 26 and Patterson the clear winner, the issue regarding honesty and accuracy of the voting process seems to have faded, and this new issue, about Patterson and recusals, is taking its place.
This most recent issue prompted an emergency meeting by the LSBEP that was held off-schedule on Tuesday, May 6. Attending the meeting were Drs. Rita Culross, Marc Zimmermann, Darla Burnett, and Executive Director Kelly Parker. The members voted 3 to 0 to ask for the opinion from the Ethics Administration.
Tulane’s Dr. Constance Patterson worked as a consultant on cases for the board between 2011 and December 2013, when she resigned after deciding to run for the board.
On May 7 the LSBEP sent a Request for Advisory Opinion, signed by Chair Culross, in overnight mail to the Ethics Administration, and copied officials at Boards and Commissions in the Governor’s office.
In a copy of the letter obtained by the Times, Culross asked about a potential ethical conflict. “Is there a potential ethical conflict if an appointed Board member knows previous, detailed information about a licensed psychologist that may present to the Board in that same disciplinary matter or a future disciplinary matter?” she wrote.
She also asked, “Would this Board member be required to recuse oneself from the cases?”
And, “Since the law requires at least an affirmative vote of 4 of the 5 members, will this create an obstacle for the Board to appropriately discipline psychologists with a former Board Investigator/Complaint’s Consultant as a member of the Board?”
Culross noted in her concluding remarks that, “… the Board has no vested interest in the outcome of the election. However, we want to ensure that the integrity of our Board is not compromised.”
According to sources, the Ethics Administration will review the board’s questions at their meeting on June 20, and Dr. Culross and Kelly Parker will attend.
The Louisiana Psychological Association (LPA) also sent a letter to the Ethics Administration, dated May 19, obtained by the Times in a public records request in late May.
In the letter, LPA President Dr. John Fanning wrote, “This year there has been a considerable amount of post-election activity pertaining to this position. You have been asked for an opinion by LSBEP regarding the most appropriate course of action in certain hypothetical situations involving the winning candidate, given her past work as a board investigator.” He attached copies of correspondence LPA had sent to the Boards and Commissions, addressing complaints lodged by Dr. Comaty about how LPA handled the election, and a copy of the LSBEP-LPA election agreement.
LPA released additional emails to the Times which included discussions between Comaty, the LSBEP, and LPA officials, about problems and resolutions regarding ballots and vote counting.
Also included in this latest release of public documents from LPA were emails from Executive Director Kelly Parker asking Fanning to give LSBEP whatever LPA had released to the Times.
In late April the Times asked Boards and Commissions for documents having to do with the election. The custodian released 30 pages covering the time from January to April 24. These included 29 pages from Dr. Comaty to Assistant Director Holly Robinson. The remaining page was a letter from LPA providing the formal results of the election.
Comaty’s communications included a January 2014 letter to Robinson, which he had copied to LSBEP Executive Director Kelly Parker, and previously released to the Times by the LSBEP [See article in May issue of Times].
In this letter, Comaty listed five complaints, ranging from security of ballots, to criticisms about campaigning in the election and political liaisons, and his view that Patterson has a conflict of interest requiring her to recuse herself.
The remainder of the 29 pages were copies of emails between Dr. Comaty and LPA officials Drs. Fanning and Bryan Gross involving Comaty’s complaints and their possible resolutions. An exchange of emails between Comaty and Dr. Robert Storer was also included, where the two agreed about problems.
The current election involves a five-year position on the psychology board. There is a struggle over control of the board between LAMP (La. Academy of Medical Psychologists) and those who oppose the goals of LAMP’s Act 251, which restructured clinical psychology in Louisiana and placed MPs under the state medical board. [See “Who Paid for Act 251 and Why?” in the September 2012 issue of the Times.)
Patterson, a Tulane Professor, is not a medical psychologist nor is she associated with those psychologists opposing Act 251, Grassroots. Patterson captured 116 votes in the recent election and Comaty was second with 77. Governor Jindal can appoint either, or chose someone else entirely.
In the LSBEP letter to the Ethics Administration, Dr. Culross asked if the appointment of someone who had knowledge of complaints posed an obstacle. Culross noted 31 cases that this person may have information or “access to,” and that 19 of those are closed. This suggested, but it was not written, that 12 remain.
Patterson said previously to the Times that she expected the majority of complaints she assisted with to be closed or closing, by the time she would serve, if appointed.
Based on statistics from the LSBEP website, affirmative disciplinary votes are rare. Over the last four years 85 complaints have been received, and only 5 resulted in an affirmative disciplinary vote.
Regarding inconvenience of members recusing themselves, any relationship that could influence the objectivity of a board member, such as with professor–student, supervisor–intern, or business partners, are handled by recusal when they arise.
The Times spoke with Emeritus forensic psychologist and past LSBEP chair, Dr. Tom Hannie, who explained that in those occasions where a board member recuses him or herself, a replacement can be appointed.
“It is a piece of cake to handle,” Hannie told the Times. “A call to the Governor’s office and he can appoint a person, usually a past board member, to sit in if needed.”
According to Patterson, much of her consultation was educational in nature. “In my role of consultant, I had been focused on issues like subtleties of the APA ethics code, practice guidelines for different specialties, and discussing the use of various ethical decision-making models– generally helping the new investigator consider issues from the perspective of a professional psychologist,” she said. “Formulating recommendations to guide decision making to resolve those ethical complaints was not my role at that point.”
Analysis
Is the LSBEP exhibiting an abundance of caution in responding to the complaints levied by Dr. Comaty? Or, is their action an attempt to influence the election outcome?
The politically powerful LAMP would surely prefer to continue its majority vote on the psychology board, thereby protecting the medical psychologists’ interests. LAMP has flexed its muscles many times with the Governor’s office, and its influence is typically well-hidden.
There is also a question as to the neutrality of the board’s executive director. Several sources reported that she has expressed a preference for Comaty’s appointment. In a candid letter from Dr. Comaty to her he confided, “Well, I hope that the new year will bring new opportunities to rid LPA of these malicious members.” This suggests that, at least from Comaty’s standpoint, the executive director was viewed to be sympathetic.
Based on the Ethics Administration’s code it seems unlikely that they would find a problem with Patterson’s previous work as a consultant. A review of their recent Opinions uncovered nothing along this theme, their advice having to do with economic conflicts of interests or business issues.
However, Louisiana politics is always the wild card. LAMP–PAC lobbyists have long-standing connections at the Ethics Administration, so there is a risk to the right decision coming out of the June 20 meeting.
Perhaps the more serious threat to fairness is that because the LSBEP has chosen to elevate a complaint, despite being based on a faulty line of reasoning which blurs the concepts of ethics (right and wrong) with work efficiency, the board may be giving the idea credibility with the Governor’s office.
It would not be surprising if LSBEP’s actions result in framing and priming the issue, and thereby swaying the Governor’s appointment, even if the matter escapes politics at the Ethics Administration.
[Author’s Note regarding Her Conflicts of Interest: The publisher of the Times and author of this article, J. Nelson, is a licensed psychologist. She declares no financial conflicts of interests. Regarding principled conflicts of interest, readers should be aware of the following: Nelson has publically stated her opposition to a psychology board dominated by medical psychologists, and she has publically criticized Dr. Comaty for his actions regarding freedom of information during his previous service on the board. Comaty has stated that he has ethical concerns about Nelson’s actions. Also, Nelson campaigned and voted for Dr. Patterson in the recent election.]
Officials from Louisiana Psychological Association checking election ballots. Drs. Paula Zeanah and John Fanning. Psychology board at meeting earlier this year. Videotaping vote counting in the last election. Dr. Lucinda DeGrange (L), Drs. Carolyn Weyan and John Fanning seated. Dr. Phillip Griffin (L) and Dr. Joe Comaty observing the counting of votes in recent LSBEP election.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.