Article archive / June 1, 2015
Originally published: . Volume 6, No. 6. Source pages: 1, 5, 6.
Senate Bill 113, initiated by the Louisiana Board of Examiners of Psych- ologists and authored by Senator Rick Gallot of Ruston, passed the Senate on May 18 with a 37 to 0 vote. However, the measure stirred up controversy over the board’s attempt to remove the Louisiana Psych- ological Association (LPA) from the wording of the psychology law. The law currently specifies that LPA provides a list of names for appointments to the Governor.
In a May 13 meeting of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Inter- national Affairs, the proposed wording (which would have removed LPA) was taken out of the bill.
Senator Gallot said, “There have been some numerous conversations and discussions about this bill, and I think we have an amendment that I would offer that would put the bill in the posture that we’d like to move it forward which removes what has been the most contentious aspect of the bill, and that is the elections portion of the bill, that deals with the conducting of elections for the board.”
Senator Martiny asked if there was a compromise. “I’ve got all kinds of colored cards up here depending on what y’all do.”
Senator Gallot explained, “What we have is what the various stake holders don’t disagree with.”
Testimony included support from Dr. Greg Gormanous, who initiated the bill as the constituent of Senator Gallot, testimony from Dr. Rita Culross, Louisiana State Board of Examiners (LSBEP) Chair, and from Deborah Harkins, Esquire, attorney for LSBEP.
Senator Martiny said, “I was approached and told there was some offer made, plan A, or plan one and plan two. And that it was agreed upon. I got the impression, in speaking with Ms. Harkins before, that plan two, whatever plan two was, was agreed upon,” he said. “I’m sitting up here trying to figure out which cards I throw away, and which I read.”
Harkins, at the microphone, said, “We were making an attempt to resolve this matter amicably and during that attempt we had two options that were presented to the various parties.”
“Subsequent to that,” Harkins said, “we received, on April 27, 2015, a letter from the Association of Regulatory Boards, dated that day, urging us to address matters in the naming of specific boards in legislation.”
“We also wanted––the board re- met and talked with Senator Gallot––and wanted to reconsider trying to make a resolution of the matter this session and continue the dialogue. We would like to continue the dialogue,” Harkins said. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you––this is a process, this is the first step in a process– –and we’re not going sit here and tell you that we wouldn’t like to continue talking with the LPA.”
“We’ve talked with LAMP and they are in favor of what we had originally proposed. And we’ll continue that dialogue–.”
Martiny asked, “Let me cut to the chase, deal or no deal?”
“There is no deal at this time,” Harkins said. “I think this is a process, this is the first step––.”
“No, I don’t fault––that’s what the process is about,” Senator Martiny said. “I don’t have any interest it this. I just want, the sake of the Committee, if there is a deal, let’s do it, if there’s not a deal, let’s hear it.”
Harkins said, “We’re moving forward with what we can all agree on, and we’d like to opportunity to sit at the table in order to discuss concerns that should be of mutual interests to both parties.”
Senator Gallot spoke up and said, “Just for clarification, so that nobody leaves here with any misunderstanding, as the author of this instrument, whatever goes forward, will be a deal. There won’t be, I’m not choosing one side over the other. And so the only way this instrument continues to move forward is that we’ re on common ground that everybody agrees with.”
“If we get to point where it’s not that way, I’ll let it die on the vine. So I want to make sure everyone understands where I am, what my position is.”
[…] “I’m not going to pick one side or the other,” Gallot said, “This is your profession. You all have to operate within it, and so it’s incumbent on all of you to set aside any acrimony or anything that has happened in the past. It’s almost like mediating a, a custody thing, someone was late bringing the child back six months ago. I might need a psychologist.” (laughter)
Governmental Relations representative for LPA, attorney Kevin Hayes, then testified. He explained that there were concerns about the elections portion of the bill. “We’ve met numerous times, we’ve had conversations numerous times,” he said, “trying to work something out.”
He said that on May 4 he got a message from the committee, forwarding a letter from Ms. Kelly Parker, which offered two options. He said he vetted it with his client, LPA, and chose option two.
“So we thought that was the deal,” he said. “We didn’t know until yesterday that there may be other options that the board would like to see in the bill, which if they pursue those options, obviously it would go against what we perceive to be the deal that the association has with the board.”
He said he wanted to make it part of the record that they had been working on this for a “long, long time.” He later indicated that if the wording to delete LPA remained out, he could support the bill.
Kelly Parker, Executive Director for the LSBEP, came to the microphone then and said that in regard to the election process, “LPA, Louisiana Psychological Association, simply returns the results over to the Governor’s Office.”
Martiny asked, “That’s what you want to change?”
“That’s one of the issues,” Parker said, “that have been an ongoing discussion just because there are three psychological associations in the state, at this time. So at the time the law was originally written there was just one.”
The Times requested documents from LSBEP on May 21, but nothing has been released as yet.
The Times also requested documents from LPA. In the LPA documents, Parker wrote to other community leaders about the recent Supreme Court decision (See PT, Vol 6 No 3) and other legislative issues.
In one email she said, “I’m not sure where any of the 3 psychological associations stand,” on SB 381. In another email Parker wrote current LPA president, Dr. Joe Tramontana, admonishing him that psychologists were not to contact board members. “Please be advised the Board has not requested a meeting with LPA representatives. Of course, if LPA wishes to request same, please let me know as the appropriate contact for the Board – as a whole,” Parker wrote.
Tramontana responded, “Please advise Chairperson Culross that individual board members have been contacting LPA members, NOT vice versa.”
SB 113 also deletes the Emeritus title from the law, and changes procedures for out-of-state psychologists to work temporarily within the state, as well as several other changes. It is headed to the House floor at this time.
SB 113 became controversial but no records have been released so far to explain the details. Here, while Chair Dr. Rita Culross testified, Mr. William (Bud) Courson, lobbyist for the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists, chats with psychology board member, Dr. Darla Burnett and board Executive Director Ms. Kelly Parker. The video recording is available in Senate archives.
Senator Gallot listens to testimony from Mr. Kevin Hayes (at the microphone) during Commerce Committee meeting on SB 113. Mr. Hayes is lobbyist for the Louisiana Psychological Association (LPA). In the audience are (first row, L to R) Cindy Bishop, Executive Director for LPA, and her colleague, Mr. Earl Willis. Then Ms. Kelly Parker, Executive Director of the Louisiana State Board of Examiners (LSBEP) and Dr. Greg Gormanous. (Second row) Mr. Bud Courson, lobbyist for the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychology (LAMP), Dr. Darla Burnett, Dr. Rita Culross, and Ms. Deborah Harkins, counsel for the LSBEP. On the third row is Mr. James Nickel, lobbyist for LAMP.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.