Article archive / July 1, 2014
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 11. Source pages: 1, 4.
In a brief review of facts and a short comment by Dr. Rita Culross, members of the Louisiana Board of Ethics found nothing in their Code that applied to the questions posed to them by the state psychology board regarding Dr. Constance Patterson’s qualifications to serve.
During the short discussion, the investigating attorney said, “She has no conflict of interest,” referring to Patterson and her previous work as a consultant to the psychology board, and the applicable law under the Ethics Administration.
The investigator’s comment occurred in the context of the discussion about the sort of conflict described by
the psychology board, and that this was not the type of conflict the Ethics Board decided on, so no conflict of interest was noted.
After their review of the facts and brief discussion among the Ethics Board members, they offered Dr. Culross an opportunity to comment. She said, “The difficulty that we have is that there is some [unclear] by the individual about whether there is an ethical violation, whether they can participate …”
“But the other issue under our rules we can’t take any disciplinary action unless there are four of the five board members voting in the affirmative on it. And
unfortunately there are cases in which one board member already must recuse themselves,” she said, “because they’ve worked with the individual, they were a trainer of the individual, etc. So we foresee that we could be put in a position where we don’t have four board members who can vote.”
Chair M. Blake Monrose, the Ethics Board Chair from Lafayette, said he understood the issue about people on a board recusing themselves. “We sometimes have to deal with that same problem on our board,” he said. But, he explained that those issues do not involve the Ethics Board.
He said, “These questions you’re asking don’t involve us.”
“Why did you bring this to us?” Vice Chair Julie Blewer of Shreveport asked Culross, who commented about concerns regarding having enough members to vote on disciplinary issues if Patterson recused herself.
In their draft opinion, the Ethics Board outlined the two areas of their laws which could apply, R.S. 42:1112A, which prohibits a public servant from participating in a transaction involving his government entity in which he has a substantial economic interest. The board did not find this to apply to Patterson.
Also, the Ethics Board’s draft opinion cites La R.S. 42:1120.4. This section of the law provides an exception for appointed members of a board or commission to recuse themselves from voting and debate, on matters that violate section 1112 of the Code.
The psychology licensing law directs the board to follow the La. Administrative Procedures Act, which allows for recusals.
The meeting took place on June 20 at the State Ethics Administration in Baton Rouge. Also attending was Dr. Joe Comaty. Comaty is a candidate for the current position on the board, coming in with 77 votes to Patterson’s 116 in the recent election. Patterson did not attend the Ethics meeting.
Dr. John Fanning, then president of the Louisiana Psychological Association also attended, but did not comment. It was not necessary because Patterson did not have a conflict of interest, he told the Times.
The complaint that Patterson has a conflict of interest appears to have first originated in a letter that Dr. Joe Comaty sent to the Louisiana Boards and Commissions in January, 2014. In this letter, Comaty said that Patterson had a direct conflict of interest. He also listed other complaints about the security of ballots, voting, and some concerns about political liaisons and statements. He restated his views again in another letter to Boards and Commissions on April 28.
Executive Director Kelly Parker obtained the January letter and forwarded it to Dr. Culross. During the first part of the year, the board was concerned about election security, writing to the state psychological association, who conducted the election, about their concerns. Then in May, they called an emergency meeting and voted to request an advisory opinion from the state Ethics Board.
The psychology board has said a number of times that they have no interest in the outcome of the election. In a June 30 communication to licensed psychologists, Parker wrote, “ […] Please note, 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. […]”
The Times asked several past board Chairs about recusal problems. Dr. Janet Matthews said, “We operated with four members for much of one year when I was on the Board due to a resignation. We never had a situation where we had insufficient members to make a decision due to recusal so I don't know what would have happened in that case. I know we asked about a one year person (or slightly less than a year) and were told that would not happen.”
Past Chair, Dr. Roy Allen, said about his five- year tenure, “During my time on the board, complaint investigations ended by a vote for either dismissal, minor remedial measures, or
rarely, a consent decree. We did not have a disciplinary hearing while I was on the board. If there was any occasion when a board member recused for the vote on a disciplinary matter, I don't recall it. The board functioned for one stretch of eight months with four members and we did not have a problem resolving any issues."
Based on the board’s statics, about six percent of complaints eventually rise to the level of a disciplinary affirmation, with 94 percent being dismissed or handled in some other manner. Disciplinary actions to remove or suspend a license require at least four affirmative votes.
Dr. Culross and Executive Director Ms. Parker had declined requests to be interviewed by the Times.
Psychology board chair, Dr. Rita Culross (front) and Ethics board member, Jean Ingrassia from Gonzales, listen to issues at the recent meeting of Ethics Board.
Above: Dr. Rita Culross waiting to comment about the psychology board’s Request for Advisory Opinion regarding Dr. Conni Patterson’s suitability to serve on the board.
Dr. Joe Comaty and Dr. Culross wait for meeting to begin. Dr. Comaty, a candidate hoping to serve on the board, first brought concerns about Patterson. The board says they have no interest in the outcome of the election.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.