Article archive / December 2021
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 12. Source pages: 2.
by J. Nelson The “supervision issue“ has resurfaced. The issue concerns a gap in Act 251, the 2009 law that moved the medical psychologists, and most importantly their practice of psychology, over to the medical board.
The debate about this particular gap is over ten years old. The problem has to do with those individuals who will be seeking a psychology license, and whether or not their supervision is provided by someone holding a state board psychology license.
The topic brings back memories. I took this issue on and reported it to the community a decade ago. I asked the board to explain the facts behind their reversal of Opinion #12. (Opinion #12 is an intriguing, political mess, and too long a story to explain here.) Anyway, I asked for the documents and I got back a command to “… submit your press credentials for board review.” I was to demonstrate that I was “… connected with a legitimate news organization.“ The board (presumably being steeped in wisdom about journalism) would review my “credentials“ and decide when and if they were willing to answer my questions.
I'd been primed a few months earlier when I asked questions at the board presentation. Joe Comaty promptly emailed me, copied all the board members, and threatened that he had “ethical concerns” about me and my questions.
Tom Hannie wrote a letter to the editor, with his signature airtight logic and scathing critique. But I was still scared witless.
It was in the very early days of me pretending to be a journalist. I was shaky. Blown off center too easily. The foundations were all there, of course they were––I was raised by two journalist parents.
A journalist needs no credentials whatsoever, because he or she is simply a common man acting as a reporter for the convenience of other common men. It was not me that was duty-bound to prove myself, but the public officials who are compelled by duty and ethics to fully and honestly answer my questions.
In one of my mom's old books, a 1940 text, The Law of Newspapers, Arthur and Crosman wrote, “The principle of the freedom of the press as it exists today in this country, and in other democracies, is the result of a long and bitter struggle between those who believed in civil rights and constituted authority which feared the exercise of those rights.”
The battle was not only over the individual’s right to speak, write, and publish his thoughts, “but primarily to provide for the people as a whole a means of protecting themselves from the tyranny of arbitrary and oppressive government. In this––the freedom to express dissatisfaction with the acts of government, and to expose improper, illegal, or corrupt acts of governmental officers––lie one of the great purposes of this principle and its tremendous value to all people who live in a democracy.”
Ten years later, thankfully, I'm not blown over by every breeze.
I and the staff at the Times wish you a Merry Christmas and happy holidays.
[Julie Nelson is a licensed psychologist, journalist, consultant, and publisher of the Times. She also holds other positions in the community. However, her opinions here are those of her own, and do not represent any group or association. She and the Times receive no compensation other than paid advertising. Email her at drj@drjulienelson.com, ––she welcomes feedback.]
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.