Article archive / September 1, 2015
Originally published: . Volume 6, No. 9. Source pages: 2.
The Opposite of Participative Government by J. Nelson
The August appointment of the 3rd place candidate, Dr. Lambert, a member of LAMP (Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists), and the steps that occurred politically in order for Dr. Lambert to be appointed, and Drs. Stubblefield and Patterson to not be appointed, confirm that the state psychology board is so entrenched in politics that only an intervention can help.
1) During the legislative session the LSBEP worked to pass a law that would have removed the Louisiana Psychological Association (LPA) from the nomination process for the board.
The magnitude of the proposed change slipped past an oblivious LPA until it came into focus during the legislative session, but the real issue is that the board entered the political fray, not so curiously on the side that benefited the special interest group, LAMP.
This story included irony of Shakespearean proportions, when the board convinced FARB, an association of regulatory boards, to write a letter of support, based on the 2014 Supreme Court ruling that special interest shouldn’t be motivating decisions on regulatory boards. It is doubtful that FARB had any insight that their support aided the special interest group that has consistently exercised its political power for years on the LSBEP.
2) After a failed confirmation of a LAMP member, Dr. Comaty, the psychology board held a surprise Monday morning meeting in June, not properly communicated to the citizens by the way, and voted to give themselves authority to reinterpret the meaning of the 1964 state psychology licensing law regarding nominations/appointments.
This is astounding. By their action they declared that they are the authority to interpret the meaning of a 40-year old section of language about names going to the Governor.
Consistent with textbook group process errors, the lack of logic in their motivated action escapes them. They say the law means that “all results” of an election must be reported to the Governor. But if this were true––it is not––then the authors of the law would have created a method without a logical selection hurdle for service on a state board. The authors would have been suggesting a random, chaotic, and illogical methodology, which at best would be a clerical task with wasted energy on a farce of an election.
3) The board also published an Emergency Rule that appears to give them even more power to dictate and define the nomination process. This move eliminated another top-vote getter from consideration to fill the stop left by the failed confirmation of the LAMP member.
4) During the legislative struggles, LSBEP rejected out- of-hand, a request for democratic solutions to citizens’ political disputes, a request for a democratically designed nomination committee. (We have to ignore for now the related problem that those in the larger social environment keep “asking permission” for their own rights and obeying in Milgram style a board that exists only because the citizens themselves created it.)
It doesn’t matter that LAMP is the group behind the scenes pulling strings, it could be any political, self-interest group. We should invoke John Adams’ warning that we all need knowledge, wisdom and virtue if we expect to retain our liberties and if our social system is to thrive.
The LSBEP problems are dire. The politics continue to govern who holds seats on the board, rather than the combined voice of those voting as to who will do the best job. People are regularly placed on the LSBEP, not because they are experienced, wise and virtuous, but because they are members of a political group.
Second, the actions of the LSBEP show a strong and problematic overlap with the political, even Machiavellian, culture with norms that are the antithesis of what psychology is about and the principles we rely on. These norms directly affect LSBEP’s critical-thinking and judgment. We can predict that the quality of the board’s decisions and outcomes are similarly affected across its services.
And then, perhaps most significant long-term, the impact of the recent actions is to destroy citizens’ participation in their own government. The result of this is increased apathy, less energy and productivity, poorer decisions and problem solving, and less creativity and innovation.
But my preaching is not helping the LSBEP or anyone else for that matter. The patient is not motivated to change; the patient doesn’t have the KSAOs needed to change; the larger context is blocking change, etc., etc.
An AA truism might apply. Perhaps we must hit bottom to get better.
The question is, “Where’s the bottom?”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.