Article archive / March 1, 2015
Originally published: . Volume 6, No. 3. Source pages: 1, 3.
Grassroots Initiative, a group composed of psychologists and retired psychologists, has asked the state Ethics Board if certain decisions made by the state psychology board, with a majority of medical psychologists serving, constitute a conflict of interest.
Grassroots has opposed a number of decisions made by the psychology board and believe that those actions or lack of actions have harmed independently practicing psychologists, say sources.
Spokesman for the group, retired clinical and forensic psychologist Dr. Tom Hannie, said, “It is apparent that since the LSBEP [Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists] always has 60 percent of the votes from medical psychologists that it has been a problem. In a number of decisions they should have, in my opinion, recused themselves from voting.”
In the “Request for Advisory Opinion” submitted to the Ethics Administration this January, Grassroots asked for a review of how decisions have been made by the LSBEP. Sources at Grassroots say the request should be reviewed this month or perhaps in April.
A number of examples were listed in the Request, where Grassroots members felt that medical psychologists (MPs) may have had an obligation to disqualify themselves from either discussion or voting or both on decisions that harmed licensed psychologists.
The Request for Advisory Opinion included a description of the LSBEP 2009 discussion about Act 251 during the period that it was being lobbied by Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists (LAMP). At that time all five members of the psychology board were affiliated with LAMP but none of the five disqualified themselves from the discussion of Act 251.
Dr. Hannie told the Times, "They have refused to request an Opinion from the Ethics Board about a conflict of interest even after the Attorney General recommended it twice.”
Last year the LSBEP asked state Ethics if the top candidate, a non-MP, Tulane professor Dr. Constance Patterson had a conflict.
Grassroots also wrote in the Request that the state Attorney General suggested the psychology board seek an Advisory Opinion from Ethics about the possibility of conflict of interests for Medical Psychologists serving on the psychology board but the board did not appear to have complied with that suggestion.
Hannie said, "I think that what we did is a result of them [LSBEP] going to the Ethics Board on the absurb and ridiculous issue that Conni Patterson had a conflict. That they did that let us know where we should go.”
"I also wanted to do it because they [LSBEP] refused to explain their actions,” said Hannie. “They would not explain their view that the governor couldn't appoint a replacement, as the law indicates. They wouldn't tell me what they based their decision on, saying that it was attorney-client privilege,” he said.
"They are operating in the dark and I think somebody has to cast some light on it,” Hannie said.
The Request for Advisory Opinion also noted that the term “psychologist” was of economic and market value to licensed psychologists, and LAMP’s legislation misappropriated the term when they used it to create a new profession.
Grassroots asked the Ethics Board if those serving on the psychology board at the time had a duty to act in some way to protect the title and the practice of psychology, which appears to be one of their duties, or at least to recuse themselves from the discussions, because of their professional association and membership in LAMP and support for its business goals.
The Request also outlined the decisions made by the LSBEP regarding the supervision of psychology interns when the board, with a majority of medical psychologists serving, voted to qualify medical psychologists (MPs) as supervisors of psychology interns even when the MP no longer held a state psychology license.
Also included were several other examples where MPs serving did not recuse themselves from decisions that would benefit MPs, including decisions about continuing education, negotiating of Rules with the Medical Board, and reinstatement fee reductions for MPs. The Request discussed that, while benefitting MPs, the decisions diminished psychologists and constituted unfair competition.
[Editor’s Note: The publisher of the Times, Dr. Julie Nelson, is a member of Grassroots. She has actively opposed parts of Act 251. She signed the Request described in this story and has helped gather information about the psychology board’s actions.]
The psychology board at a 2010 meeting. The then board Chair, Dr. Jillandra Rovaris, listens to Dr. Joe Comaty. Dr. Comaty is also now serving on the psychology board for a second term.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.