Article archive / July 1, 2014
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 11. Source pages: 2.
The recent actions of the state psychology board (see front page stories) should concern anyone licensed under them.
They claim they “have no vested interest” in the election and the appointment, but their determination to make a mountain out of a mole-hill about Dr. Conni Patterson says the opposite. And so does the chit-chat I witnessed between the chair and Dr. Comaty at the Ethics Board meeting. Does the term “boundaries” mean anything?
The board has taken up complaints about Dr. Patterson’s qualifications, made by Dr. Comaty, her political competitor, and who wrote to Boards & Commissions that Patterson has some sort of “direct conflict of interest,” with what is extremely thin logic.
They’ve honed in on the issue of recusals, for the first time in history. Now the issue is to be that Patterson will be an “obstacle” to the “integrity” of the board, because she will have to recuse herself. Recusal is what one does to avoid an ethical problem.
The board holds an emergency meeting and crafts a letter that looks more like they are throwing anything up against the wall to see what sticks. They run it up the flagpole all the way to the Ethics Board. The Ethics board members, while being respectful, basically dismissed it as nonsense. That was the body language. It looked like they were thinking, “What?”
The psychology board also continues to ignore their own statistics and a fair estimate that Patterson might recuse herself one, maybe two times. Only six percent of complaints even reach a board vote of this type. Other chairs and boards have been able to get their jobs done, but now, for some reason, the situation is dire.
Last month the board made a public statement contradicting Dr. Tom Hannie (not a good move on their part) and the Times, to the
psychologists at the state convention. Hannie went over to the board meeting Friday and asked them to explain the contradiction, showing them the laws that backed him up.
They refused to explain anything. They claimed they couldn’t say anything because of attorney-client privilege. They aren’t attorneys! They aren’t covered by attorney-client privilege. The rationale, or substance of their decisions is supposed to be public. But magically, it is now private and protected. Of course, they also refuse to be interviewed by the Times. Does the term “transparency” mean anything?
So, here we are with a board that is defensive, keeping secrets, and doing whatever it wants to do without being accountable. Sounds familiar.
LAMP has maintained three or more positions, a majority vote, on the psychology board since Act 251 despite the fact that MPs represent only about 5 percent of psychologists. They do this in order to protect their interests. Why is the board fighting so hard to disqualify Patterson? If she is appointed LAMP will lose its majority on the board, for the first time since Act 251 was passed.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.