Originally published: . Volume 11, No. 6. Source pages: 2.
In April I attended the board's Zoom meeting to ask Dr. Greg Gormanous, Chair of the Legislative subcommittee, questions about SB 458. I particularly wanted to know if and when the board had taken a formal vote on the legislation.
I asked Dr. Gormanous if the board had voted to put forth SB 458 and he answered "No." I considered his response to be both candid and sincere.
His answer jived with my previous review of the minutes which showed no real attention to the content of SB 458 over the last months, or any serious transparency on the matter.
Gormanous' answer was extremely important. The board has no authority to create new laws. In fact, it is prohibited by the separation of powers principle in the state constitution. From a practical standpoint, you don't give law-enforcement the power to make its own laws. An agency that can expand its own authority becomes dangerous–every time, no exceptions.
So this week I see the minutes from that April meeting and I am STUNNED. Not only was my entire discussion with Dr. Gormanous deleted, but another narrative, was substituted. Now, Jaime Monic, the minutes claimed, was said to have answered my question, "Yes."
SB 458 is bringing out the worst in the board. Someone created SB 458 in secret and sprung it on the community. Someone attempted to manipulate the audience by calling the measure "housekeeping." They have attempted to justify their behavior with the lame excuse that it is the Senator's initiative, not the board's, when in fact it is their legislation, of course. They even tried the second-grader logic that, "Everybody does it."
Jaime Monic also let it slip at the April meeting that they are finding it difficult to make changes they want through regular rulemaking because of the new restrictions legislators put on agencies. In other words, they're looking for ways to bypass checks on their power that the legislators have specifically placed on them.
SB 458 is an ambitious, candy-store bill with everything they want in it and can't get through proper channels. And their circumventing efforts were not disclosed, as required by Open Meeting Laws. The board is attempting to justify their behavior by chanting the mantra, "We protect the public," when the factual evidence might be just the reverse should anyone actually research the matter.
Are they now falsifying minutes? If a psychologist in private practice engaged in this sort of deception, that psychologist would be hauled in in front of the board to be disciplined.
I'm beginning to believe that many psychologists are, by nature, autocrats. Pour power on their head and puff, you get an arrogant, self-serving tyrant.
At the same time, I have no doubt that the individual members of the board are honorable and well-meaning. I learned early in my career, from the great Fritz Steele, that in some systems, individuals act like interchangeable parts and become pawns of that system.
We've seen this over and over. Change out the individuals and we still get the same problem. Something is rotten in Denmark in these group dynamics. It is sharp irony that the agency of law-enforcement, that passes judgment over others for ethical misconduct, should be exhibiting this behavior regarding its ambition for political power.
If the board as a group does not understand its boundaries, and the corrupting influence of power, and cannot muster the self-reflection necessary to avoid deceitful behavior, then how can it be wise enough to judge others? The situation amounts to moral hypocrisy that we should not and must not accept.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.