Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 9. Source pages: 16.
“In my judgment this is the most sacred of all national holidays, celebrating and honoring those people who have served, and particularly those who have given up their lives in the service of this great nation.”
“And, it gives us the opportunity on Memorial Day to renew our own commitment to America and its values. And also, to remind ourselves that as ugly as war is, and as devastating as the consequences are, there truly are some things that are worth fighting for. And these wonderful Americans who stepped forward and have done that for us, we are truly blessed as a result of it.”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 9. Source pages: 1.
Senate Bill 128, a measure to create a new, optional license under the psychology board for “Specialist in School Psychology,” is sailing through with only small changes, and is scheduled for House floor debate on May 7. The bill was reported favorably out of committee last week in a 12 to 0 vote. The committee made short work of the bill, with no cards filed in opposition. The measure would add to existing psychology law, the definition of “Licensed specialist in school psychology.”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 9. Source pages: 8.
A release of emails from both the Louisiana State Board of Exam- iners of Psychologists and the Louisiana Psychological Association responding to requests for public records by the Times, points to behind the scenes interactions, some of which contributed to the historical three ballots having to be sent to voters.
In a December 31, 2013 email from Dr. Joe Comaty to Kelly Parker, Executive Director of the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (LSBEP), Comaty wrote about several concerns he had regarding the election.
He first said that he had been given emails circulated about the election, “… that we had discussed earlier,” and noted that the emails “… indicate a concerted effort on the part of this group to run Connie or get behind Robin and to clearly defeat me at all costs.”
The memo seemed to suggest that Comaty believed the emails to come from LPA. However, sources confirm that the emails referred to by Comaty came from Grassroots, a group opposing Act 251 and its consequences.
Comaty wrote to Parker, “Well, I hope that the new year will bring new opportunities to rid LPA of these malicious members.”
In this email to Parker, Comaty expressed a complaint that this group had the names of candidates before others in the voting public, and also his concerns about how the voting would be verified. “How can we be sure that some psychologists would not be encouraged to send in more than one ballot; or that there may be some manipulation of the counts?” he wrote. “Of course, I would be unfairly judging the integrity of my colleagues and making a serious allegation.”
In another email, released by the LSBEP, Ms. Parker forwarded a copy of a letter Comaty wrote to Boards and Commissions Assistant Director Holly Robinson on January 2, 2014. It is not clear how Parker came by a copy of this letter. She forwarded it to LSBEP chair Dr. Rita Culross.
In this letter, Comaty listed his concerns, beginning with, “One of the candidates currently running has a direct conflict of interest,” he wrote to Robinson.
He also noted his complaints that some LPA members had knowledge of the candidates before others did, and that some psychologists had enlisted the help of counselors to support one candidate over another, and that he had a concern that there was a lack of security measures for the ballots and the counting of the ballots.
In other emails released to the Times for both LSBEP and LPA, there were numerous back and forth discussions with Comaty about ways to resolve or answer his concerns, or explanations about why not. “We understand your concerns and will continue to try and resolve them,” wrote Dr. Bryan Gros, and explained that the group would reissue ballots and this time number and color them.
There was also an exchange regarding Dr. Conni Patterson’s consulting work for the board, where LPA president John Fanning said that Patterson had met all the qualifications.
In another topic, Comaty complained about a LPA listserve comment criticizing him while he previously served on the board. The emails discussed a solution for Comaty to, along with the other candidates, write a statement which LPA officials would send to members. (Comaty is not a member of LPA.)
Both the state psychology board and the state psychological association responded to a Times request for public records, after some delays by both. Louisiana Psychological Association President Dr. John Fanning contacted the Times and explained that the attorney had changed her initial opinion, and now felt that the emails did in fact fall under public records laws.
The attorney for the psychology board wrote the Times that the request was “unusually expansive” and the board could refuse it on those grounds, but they did not. The Times analyzed the first release of emails and asked that gaps be reviewed, and the board sent several more emails.
The Times did not receive any emails involving the two other candidates contacting either LSBEP or LPA.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
A bill to expand the scope of practice for Marriage and Family Therapists, SB121, passed the Senate by 39 to 0. The original language was amended in the Senate Commerce Committee on April 16, and then again on the Senate floor by the author. One of the amendments adds certain educational requirements, and another, adds a consultation and collaboration clause with someone licensed under the medical board or a psychiatric nurse practitioner.
The measure, by Senator Morrell, provides new language that adds the term “psychotherapy” and also “limited to prevention, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of mental, emotional, behavioral, relational, and addictive disorders” to the current law.
In the Senate Commerce committee, a provision for educational requirements was added. The new language is, “E. A licensed marriage and family therapist engaged in the diagnosis of individuals shall furnish satisfactory evidence of the following to the board: (1) The applicant has graduated from a program of graduate study which in addition to the standard training in the professional application of psychotherapeutic and family systems theories, will also require a minimum of six credit hours in diagnostic psychopathology, whereas students are taught to systematically collect and analyze data based on one or both of the two standard diagnostic systems employed, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, for the above purposes. However, licensed marriage and family therapists who have satisfied all other criteria for licensure as required by the board on August 1, 2014, shall be allowed to diagnose individuals upon completion of the continuing education requirements of this Section.” And, (2) As diagnosis is constantly being enhanced by emerging empirical research, the licensed marriage and family therapist shall receive six hours of credit in continuing education that focuses on diagnosis.”
Also added was similar language to the current Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs) practice law, amended by Act 320 in 2012 and then changed by a later law, which outlined LPCs work with persons with “serious mental illness” and set out requirements for the consultation and collaboration with a practitioner who is licensed under the state medical board or an advanced practice registered nurse.
“(3) Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to authorize any person licensed under the provisions of this Chapter to assess, diagnose, or provide treatment to any individual suffering from a serious mental illness, as defined by this Section, when medication may be indicated, except when a licensed marriage and family therapist, in accordance with best practices, consults and collaborates with a practitioner who holds a license or permit with the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed by the Louisiana State Board of Nursing who is certified as a psychiatric nurse practitioner."
The bill is next to be heard in the House Health and Welfare Committee.
The proposed law amends the present law and defines "practice of marriage and family therapy" to mean the rendering of professional marriage and family therapy and psychotherapy services, limited to prevention, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of mental, emotional, behavioral, relational, and addiction disorders to individuals, couples, and families, etc.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 9. Source pages: 8.
At its February 2014 meeting members of the Louisiana Board of Examiners of Psychologists discussed the issue of Emeritus psychologists having to meet continuing education require- ments. According to the minutes, the members reviewed the emeritus requirements and current CE exemption. “Dr. Culross moved to keep the qualifications for emeritus alone as is but require CE via rule promulgation.” (sic) The Board discussed the motion and it passed by roll call with no opposition, noted the minutes.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 8. Source pages: 4.
A bill put forth by Representative Simon would provide for greater access to telehealth services by providing for standards of care, confidentiality, and insurance coverage; expands the definition of telemedicine; creates the La. Commission on Telehealth Access. The proposal directs that a patient receiving telemedicine services may be in any location at the time that the telemedicine services are rendered and a telemedicine provider may be in any location when providing telemedicine services to a patient.
The proposed law defines "telemedicine" as the practice of medicine and transfer of medical data using interactive telecommunication technology that enables a physician and a patient at two locations separated by distance to interact via two-way video and audio transmissions simultaneously or through the use of asynchronous store-and- forward technology.
The proposed law repeals present law and requires any person authorized by LSMBE to use the same standard of care as if the healthcare services were provided in person. The proposal further provides that the telemedicine provider is not required to conduct a patient history or physical examination of the patient before engaging in a telemedicine encounter if the telemedicine provider conducts a patient evaluation sufficient to meet the community standard of care for the service provided. The patient evaluation may be performed using telemedicine.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 8. Source pages: 6.
Governor Jindal awarded the Duck Commander, headquartered in West Monroe, Louisiana, the inaugural Governor’s Award for Entrepreneurial Excellence. The Governor’s Award will be periodically given by the Governor to homegrown Louisiana businesses that grow and provide more opportunity, more jobs, and more commerce for the State of Louisiana.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 8. Source pages: 6.
Department of Health and Hospitals and the Office of Citizens with Developmental Disabilities amended the provisions for the Children’s Choice Waiver in late March with an Emergency Rule.
The notice said that this was to clarify and adopt provisions for self-direction initiative which will allow participants to receive services through a direct support professional rather than a licensed enrolled provider agency.
The emergency rule provides for opportunities for Medicaid eligible children identified in the Melanie Chisholm, et al vs. Kathy Kliebert class action litigation who have a diagnosis of Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Autism Spectrum Disorder, and are in need of Applied Behavioral Analysis services.
The department has amended and promulgated several rules. This latest rules states that “Subsequent to the publication of the February 22, 2014 Emergency Rule, the Behavior Analyst Practice Act (R.S. 37:3701 et seq.) became enforceable thereby making it a misdemeanor for any individual not licensed, state certified, or registered by the Louisiana Behavior Analyst Board to engage in the practice of behavior analysis. As a result, certain providers authorized to provide ABA services under the provisions of this Emergency Rule may no longer provide services without being in violation of the Behavior Analyst Practice Act, thus necessitating an amendment to these provisions.”
The new amendment to the Rules includes some changes to recipient qualifications, admission denial or discharge criteria, allocation of waiver opportunities, and service cap. Service Definitions include “Applied Behavioral Analysis-Based Therapy.”
Provider Requirements for enrollment note that ABA service providers are exempt from these enrollment requirements.
Under Professional Service Providers: “I. Applied Behavioral Analysis-Based Therapy services must be provided by persons enrolled in Medicaid Program who:
1. meet the following licensure and/or certification requirements:
a. be a board-certified behavior analyst (BCBA) who has applied for licensure with the Louisiana Behavior Analyst Board;
b. be licensed by the Louisiana Behavior Analyst Board; or
c. be a currently Louisiana licensed psychologist whose education, training and expertise includes applied behavior analysis services.”
Other provider requirements are listed.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 8. Source pages: 7.
Act 308 of the 2013 legislative session repealed parts of the existing laws governing standards for mental health clinics and substance abuse/addiction treatment facilities. In compliance with the directives of Act 308, the Department of Health and Hospitals proposes to adopt provisions to establish licensing standards for these facilities and also behavioral health service providers. The Notice of Intent puts forth 42 pages of new Rules, published last month in the Louisiana Register.
Some of those exempt from the licensure requirements for BHS providers include: n individual licensed mental health professional (LMHP), whether incorporated or unincorporated, or a group practice of LMHPs, providing services under the auspices of and pursuant to the scope of the individual’s license or group’s licenses. Licensed Mental Health Professional (LMHP)⎯an individual who is currently licensed and in good standing in the state of Louisiana to practice within the scope of all applicable state laws, practice acts and the individual’s professional license, as one of the following: 1. medical psychologist; 2.licensed psychologist; 3.licensed clinical social worker (LCSW); 4. licensed professional counselor (LPC);5. licensed marriage and family therapist (LMFT); 6.licensed addiction counselor (LAC); 7.advance practice registered nurse (APRN); or 8. licensed rehabilitation counselor (LRC).
A public hearing on the proposed Rules is scheduled for Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in the Bienville Building, 628 North Fourth Street, Baton Rouge. At that time all interested persons will be afforded an opportunity to submit data, views or arguments either orally or in writing.
Individuals may submit written comments to Cecile Castello, Bureau of Health Services Financing, P.O. Box 3767, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-9030 or by email to MedicaidPolicy@la.gov. Ms. Castello is responsible for responding to inquiries regarding this proposed Rule.
The deadline for receipt of all written comments is 4:30 p.m. on the next business day following the public hearing.
The introduction to the Rules explains that Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) hereby establishes licensing standards for behavioral health service (BHS) providers. The purpose of these Chapters is to provide for the development, establishment and enforcement of statewide licensing standards for the care of clients receiving services from BHS providers, to ensure the maintenance of these standards, and to regulate conditions of these providers through a program of licensure that shall promote safe and adequate treatment of clients of BHS providers.
Providers tp be licensed under the BHS provider license include: substance abuse/addiction treatment facilities; mental health clinics; and any other entity that meets the definition of a BHS provider.
The Notice says, “Behavioral Health Service (BHS) Provider or Provider⎯a facility, agency, institution, person, society, corporation, partnership, unincorporated association, group, or other legal entity that provides behavioral health services, presents itself to the public as a provider of behavioral health services.”
Also exempt are hospitals licensed under R.S. 40:2100 et seq.; crisis receiving centers licensed under 40:2180.11 et seq.; psychiatric residential treatment facilities and therapeutic group homes licensed under R.S. 40:2009; facilities or services operated by the federal government; and federally qualified health care centers (FQHCs) certified by the federal government, among others.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 8. Source pages: 7.
La. Psychological Association Opting Out of Conducting Board Elections, Says President Process took too much time and energy, and other states or getting out of their arrangements, according to president.
The Louisiana Psychological Association terminated its agreement with the state psychology board which required them to help conduct elections for the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists.
“We voted to do that by an eight to 1 margin,” said President John Fanning told the Times in an email last week. The vote occurred at the March meeting of the group’s Executive Counsel.
This follows two recalled mailings of election ballots for a current board position, which reportedly were due to clerical errors in the ballots and communications.
Fanning explained to the Times that he found the experience of handling the election costly and timely, and something “… we don’t want to find ourselves repeating in the future.” He said that handling the elections took valuable time and resources that could be better used in other ways.
“There were some electoral machinations from outside LPA, which took up time and energy for the EC to address,” he also said.
Fanning explained that most states do not involve themselves in the elections in this way, and that those that do are trying find ways to remove themselves from the task.
The Council gave the state psychology board their notice to terminate “A Cooperative Endeavor Agreement Between the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists and the Louisiana Psychological Association.”
Ended the arrangement is allowed by the agreement. According to the Agreement, the “Cooperative Endeavor serves public interests by facilitating the appointment of members whose responsibility will include the protection of the public through the regulation of psychologists (R.S.37:2351).” It sets out policies and procedures for the board’s election.
Terminating the agreement will also allow the group to lobby regarding elections, with was prohibited by the Agreement, explained Fanning.
Members of the psychology board at that time preparing to present at a 2011 meeting of the Louisiana Psychological Association (LPA). The LPA Council recently decided to end a decades long agreement with the board that involved LPA helping conduct elections for the state board. Above, L to R: Current Executive Director Kelly Parker, previous Ex. Director Jaime Monic, Drs. Rita Culross, Lee Matthews, and Tony Young.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 8. Source pages: 7.
Ballots for the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists election have been sent to licensed psychologists for the third time, after two efforts that ended in decisions by officials to resend new ballots.
Candidates are Robin Chapman, PsyD, Joseph Comaty, PhD,MP, and Constance Patterson, PhD.
Ballots are due by April 22.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
SPECIAL REPORT Do the Boards Support “Direct Participation?” What Citizens Should Know by J. Nelson
The larger and more complex government becomes, the less likely the public is to be informed about its decisions or to have any chance of participating in those decisions. The day-to-day tasks of boards are to grant licenses and review complaints about practitioners. Boards also make other decisions that amplify and expand their control. In the Louisiana mental health community we have a number of regulatory boards for mental and behavioral health professionals, charged with being open and transparent as they go about their tasks. But, this is not a given: the board has a good deal of leeway in how it meets its obligations to be open.
For this special report, I’ve reviewed characteristics of some boards in our community. It is only a snapshot, a rough estimate and incomplete. For some boards I have much more experience than with others. And, it was confusing to try and locate postings and it looks like technical problems are often involved, but this is what the average citizen would encounter in trying to follow the breadcrumbs. With all these limitations in mind, I hope the review provides readers some ideas about how to participate in their government.
The Public’s “Right to Direct Participation”
The public’s right to know and participate in government is set forth in the Louisiana Constitution, Article 12, Section 3, “Right to Direct Participation.” The section states, “No person shall be denied the right to observe the deliberations of public bodies and examine public documents, except in cases established by law.”
Two sets of laws put this principle into more specific terms, called the Open Meetings Laws and Public Records Laws. Within these laws there is a good deal of support for citizen rights. A reminder about the spirit of the law is set out:
“It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. Toward this end, the provisions of this Chapter shall be construed liberally.”
Boards are prohibited in all the ways they could try and avoid public scrutiny, such as “… any manner of proxy voting procedure, secret balloting, or any other means to circumvent the intent of this Chapter.”
While executive sessions are allowed for specific reasons, such as discussions about security issues, on-going investigations, or discussions of character, the law warns that these sessions cannot “… be used as a subterfuge to defeat the purposes of this Chapter.”
Another plus for a citizen who wants to participate is §14. This section tells us that a board “… shall allow a public comment period at any point in the meeting prior to action on an agenda item upon which a vote is to be taken.”
The law makes sure that citizens have prior notice about what the board will discuss in the form of agendas. Unfortunately, a board can change its agenda with as little as 24 hours. However, open meetings law requires that if an issue is taken up by a board not on the agenda, it must be described in “reasonable specificity” in the minutes. “The public body shall not use its authority to take up a matter not on the agenda as a subterfuge to defeat the purposes of this Chapter.”
Another place in the law that supports the spirit of openness and public participation is in the minutes. Minutes must include, “The substance of all matters decided….” Also, the law instructs that minutes “shall be available within a reasonable time after the meeting.”
If a board makes a decision without allowing for direct knowledge and participation, the decision can be voided. However, the citizen must exercise his or her right to void the decision by filing a lawsuit within 60 days.
Public Records Law lists another set of rights. RS 44:31 gives a citizen the right to examine public records, and the records custodian “shall extend to the person all reasonable comfort and the facility for full exercise of the right…” While there are many specific exceptions to what is public, most common sense, the law states that if a question is raised as to whether a record is public or not, the custodian should notify the person about this in three working days. Otherwise, if the record is available and not in use, it is to be “immediately presented…”
So with these powerful laws, the spirit of openness is mandated. In practical terms, it is harder, both for the boards and for citizens. To get a sense of both the letter and the spirit of the law when it comes to our boards, I looked at the following characteristics.
• Notices and agendas
The first hurdle for the citizen is to be informed of what the board is going to discuss. This done through notices and agendas. Are they timely? Are they complete?
• Minutes – Timeliness, substance, and completeness
Are the minutes published quickly? Is the writing complete and does it explain the “substance” of the board’s decisions? Do the authors include sufficient detail for the public to understand and participate?
• Response to informal requests
Does someone at the board respond quickly and in a friendly manner to requests?
• Does the board/committee exhibit an open, participative spirit
While imprecise, I’ve rated the culture of each board by feel. Do they make it easy for someone to ask for information? Are they friendly, open, and supportive?
For this article, I reviewed some boards and committees on March 23, 2014, as a snapshot. I searched different websites. I also sent a pop- test, an email request for the most recent minutes, to see if and how they responded to an inquiry. And, I included some past experiences.
This is a broad brush, I’m sure with some errors, because there is not only a lot of data, but apparent technical issues too. But with that in mind, here’s what I found.
Addictive Disorders Regulatory Authority
The Addictive Disorders board meets six times a year. They post public documents on the Boards & Commissions website (B&C) and the notices for dates of meetings match the posted minutes, and all the minutes are available to download.
The agenda seems a little bit succinct, but adequate for someone who has some background knowledge. A positive is the direct invitation in the agenda for, “Public Introductions and Representation” and “Public Questions or Comments.”
Overall, the minutes are very good, with the “substance” usually made clear. The author explains the discussion well and a reader could follow what was discussed and why, including a train of reasoning. The board’s representative responded the next day to my email request for the most recent minutes, saying that they would be posted soon on the site. The message seemed friendly.
I gave this board good marks, despite my limited contact with them. The minutes showed a sincere attempt to inform people of what the board is working on and why. They directly invite participation in their meeting format. Timeliness is a problem however, because the system for approving minutes and then having them posted, creates a serious delay.
Behavior Analyst Board
The new Behavior Analyst Board seems to post their notices quickly. However, the agenda listed topics but did not give much additional detail. For example, “The Board may discuss policies and procedures” is too board, leaving the public to try and guess what is going to be reviewed. And, the board has ample room to discuss many different topics while adhering to the letter of the law about notices.
The December 2013 minutes are posted. (They meet six times a year.) The minutes themselves seem fairly complete, with a good amount of detail. While there were some gaps where topics were summarized rather than fully explained, most items were detailed and reasonably complete.
The Executive Director responded immediately, within one hour, to a request for most recent minutes, noting that that approved minutes were posted.
The high points for the new BA board are the detailed minutes and quick response from their office to a general, simple question.
Licensed Professional Counselor Board of Examiners
This board meets every other month. They have postings on the B&C website, but these are confusing. Notices don’t regularly include the agendas, some of the dates don’t match, and some dates seem to be missing. So, people need to go to the LPC board website for documents, which is more reliable and consistent for retrieving documents
The most recent minutes on the LPC site were for November 8, 2013. (September on the B&C site.) Agenda topics are listed, but not always much about what or why. An example, “Telephonic Counseling,” is listed in old business. However, the minutes seem complete with fairly good detail. Perhaps there is a little too much jargon for citizens unfamiliar with terms, but for those in the field, the descriptions should work.
I have interacted with the board’s staff on several occasions and they have been open and friendly. Calls were returned quickly by Executive Director (ED) or staff. In the past, the ED has been quite cordial and quickly provided requested public documents without resistance or delay. In the pop-test, she returned the message within two hours.
Overall, the board has an open feel, with adequate minutes and agendas. The quick response regarding public documents was refreshing. Timeliness of posting minutes is a problem. There is a bit of a jumble going on between the two websites, but it can be overcome with persistence on the part of the public.
Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists
This board meets monthly and appears to post its documents on the B&C website. Not all of the minutes are available.
In regard to the substance of the agendas, they are sketchy. For example, “The Board may discuss continuing education requirements.” The public has very little advance warning about what or why the topic is going to be addressed, or how to guess what decisions might be made.
The January minutes were the most recent posted, so this is a long delay. In respect to the substance of minutes, this is mixed. Some topics are explained in good detail, more so with straightforward and administrative topics. But others lack the “because” or “why” part of substance.
The problem can be seen in this example with a too board agenda item and a narrow description of what and why something was decided. The agenda item posted in advance was, “The Board may discuss issues concerning Continuing Education.” What happened was described in the minutes this way: “Dr. Culross addressed the group about the retention of CE records. The Board discussed the issue carefully. Dr. Culross moved to issue a Board opinion that all psychologists should retain continuing education records or certificates for 6 years. The motion passed by roll call vote …”
In response to the pop-test, the Executive Director responded immediately, within an hour of the request, pointing out that approved minutes were posted.
They list a “Pubic Hour” and at many meetings I’ve attended, the chair has asked for public comments. This should help the people feel invited. Also, has also been a push to hold and invite the public to planning meetings.
However, in a recent communication the board directed that all contacts must go through the board office and questions must be received in the US mail. Also, in requesting public documents in the past, and also currently, the Times has encountered resistance.
The psychology board expresses a mixed culture when it comes to openness. Good efforts to invite the public to its long-range meetings and other formal efforts are commendable. But, the agendas and minutes need to be improved. Access to public documents has been very difficult and in some cases perplexing.
Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
The public is directed from the B&C site to the state medical board. However, during most of 2013 the medical board’s minutes were in a muddle, many documents unavailable on either site. This appears to have been corrected with their new website.
The agendas are brief and not completely clear as to what topics will be discussed. The most recent minutes are January 13, 2014, and appear to be mostly complete, with some areas of limited detail. There is no specific notation regarding public input.
The Times’ experience with obtaining documents from the medical board has been mixed. I have had to send certified mail requests in the past to get documents, but at other times the ED has responded quickly. The assistant to the ED responded within two days to the pop test, sending the requested minutes and also indicating that the minutes were posted. (They weren’t, but then she acknowledged this.) Budget information is not posted on the B&C website even though Act 12 of 2009 requires it.
It seems that the medical board is open when it is asked to be, as if it hasn’t occurred to them it is needed. They seem to stick to business, much like the social work board, below.
Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners
The LSBSWE posts agendas on its own site, and only 4 are posted on the B&C site. The public might need a link to the board’s site, which is more consistent for retrieving documents.
The agendas list specific topics and seem reasonably detailed and complete.
The minutes are some of the best minutes I found. They give the why and the what of the discussion, and seem to be very complete. The topic, facts, reasoning, and conclusion are included much of the time. A member of the public would be well informed by these reports. The reasons for the Executive Sessions are spelled out in detail. Perhaps supporting this is the specificity of the topics, the Social Work board seems to stay within a well-defined scope of activities.
However, there was no response to the Times’ request for recent minutes. In a previous contact, it required extra requests to get a reply to a general question about the financial data posted on the B&C site.
The culture of this board seems formal and it is difficult to get extra information, but their attention to their minutes and notices is very good. This gives them the feel of a very transparent group. So, while they are not all that open, the public can still get a sense for what is going on and why, even if participation is low.
Marriage and Family Therapy Advisory Committee
The minutes of this committee are included in the body of the LPC board’s minutes, and they track the same timelines. The report is a short narrative summary and seems to include the topics and some of the discussion about why and what is relevant. Because these reviews are rather brief, citizens might have questions about what was decided and why.
In a previous experience with this committee however the Times was encouraged to attend and observe, and the chair was friendly and inviting. The pop-test request for recent minutes was returned by the ED (LPC board) quickly.
The climate of this committee seems open, but they could do better informing the public about their work. However, since this is a committee, they may not have the same duty to report under the law.
Medical Psychology Advisory Committee – State Board of Medical Examiners
This committee falls under the medical board, and so like the marriage and family therapy committee, may not have the same duty to report. And, the medical board only requires that they meet twice a year.
There are no notices posted on the B&C site, and only 6 minutes over 4 years. On the medical board site, they have a page, with postings, but these are jumbled. Only three sets of minutes are available on the medical board site, the most recent August 2011. There are inconsistencies in what is published.
Overall, the agendas are very succinct with little detail. The minutes are also succinct, with little additional detail. It is not clear where meeting notices will be posted on the new website, because it does not have a news page. There was no response to a request for most recent minutes, or to other requests over the years.
Conclusions
The boards each seem to have their own culture, with strengths and weaknesses. Some however, could do a much better job of adhering both to the letter as well as the spirit of the laws for, “direct participation.” Probably, without a newspaper in the community, and with citizens who are most interested in a board’s actions being those also under its authority, this area has not had the attention it deserves. Here are some specific conclusions.
1. Delays in publishing minutes is a big problem. There is a serious delay in posting minutes. This seems to be tradition, waiting until the next physical meeting to approve minutes. But in the digital age, this can be easily remedied. And, video recording of meetings would make this problem disappear.
2. In some cases agendas and minutes need to be better. In those cases where the agendas are open-ended and vague, this should be corrected. Minutes should always include exactly what the topic is about and why, and boards should stick to a narrow, specific agenda, knowing that decisions are made all the time, not just those voted on in a formal manner.
3. Inconsistencies in availability of documents. Past documents are sometimes lacking, or not easy to find. Perhaps I couldn’t locate them, but if so, it needs to be easier for everyone. Also, boards that don’t have a system for the public to request public records, or examine them, should develop this capability.
A meeting of the Marriage and Family Therapist Advisory Committee.
Screen clippings of the Boards & Commissions website for the psychology board. Citizens can download notices and minutes, but some are not always available.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Tulane’s Professor and Dean, Dr. Janet Ruscher, is helping launch the new series about how those in psychology should talk to the rest of the world.
The new series, “Speaking of Science,” premiered in the January issue of Observer, the magazine of the Association for Psychological Science (APS).
The new column focused on what is called “science writing,” which highlight ways psychological scientists and psychologists can bridge the gap and put complex issues into clear, understandable, and interesting ways for people outside the discipline.
The new series will focus on communicating psychology to diverse audiences such as teachers, community leaders, and the media.
Dr. Ruscher wrote the inaugural column, “The Elevator Talk.” She is an APS Fellow, professor of psychology, and associate dean of graduate programs in the Tulane University School of Science and Engineering. Ruscher has chaired three conventions for the national association.
In her column Ruscher outlines some key to communicate with clarity, brevity, and an understanding of listeners.
When asked what we do, she explains, our listeners usually hear: “’I am neither able nor willing to communicate effectively about what I do and why it matters, except to people in my own narrow discipline.’ Out come the jargon, acronyms, minutiae, and esoterica.”
Ruscher points to the concept of the Elevator Talk, sometimes also called the elevator pitch.
“It is the quick sell,” she notes, “the 2-minute drill, the abstract of the abstract, the unique DNA of each scholar’s work. It typically is 100– 150 words, about the length of a journal abstract — just long enough for a short elevator ride.”
Ruscher tells us that not only must we be brief but “accessible.” The talk must be “devoid of jargon” and use the perspective of the listener as a foundation.
She says to focus on why the work is intriguing, useful, or important. She recommends we provide the “hook” for grabbing interest and attention.
Ruscher also reminds us that we have to do the work for the audience. Saying something in fewer words takes more effort. “No jaron. No acronyms.”
“… you never should be found without a working elevator talk,” she warns. “The complexity or ‘nonsexiness’ of a scholar’s work should not prevent him or her from having an elevator talk. I’ve heard effective elevator talks about fluid mechanics, the many-body problem, robot decision-making algorithms, and protein folding. Find a way to make it work,” she wrote.
“Be creative. Use analogy. Be brief.”
Dr. Ruscher’s complete column can be found at the APS website: www.psychologicalscience.org
Tulane’s Dr. Janet Ruscher Courtesy photo
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 8. Source pages: 2.
Last week was a bummer.
In January I’d submitted a request for public documents to LPA (the psychology association) asking about the LSBEP election. Things seemed a little weird and I wanted to find out what was happening. LPA conducts the election for the state psychology board, or should we say tries to conduct the election.
Also, I had it from reliable sources that one of the candidates, Joe Comaty, had questioned another candidate’s qualifications, and I wanted to see what that was about.
After much weeping and gnashing of teeth by LPA over my request for documents, partly because they didn’t want to have to pay an attorney to help figure this out, I gave in and agreed to substitute an interview with the president, John Fanning, as long as the Council would give him the authority to tell the truth. They agreed.
So last week John tells me that LPA has reneged on the deal, not in those words of course. And, after all my co-dependent waffling, they’d gone to an attorney after all. The attorney has the opinion that they do not fall under public records laws. This in spite of the fact that they help conduct the election for a public board.
I also glean that they are afraid that if they release emails they could get sued for something or other.
First, I feel like a schmuck for ever making the deal in the first place. This is what I deserve for compromising my principles. I’m never going to admit to my journalism consultant that I did this–I’ll take it to my grave.
Second, is LPA more afraid of a candidate suing them for confidentiality (what confidentiality?!) than the Times suing them because they refuse to release information about the public’s business? I obviously am a schmuck because they aren’t afraid of me at all.
But the week was not over yet.
I had also asked for documents from the state board on this same matter the week before by email. The director told me to send the request in snail mail, so I did. The next week I received a response from the director saying that they were working on it, and that it would be processed in the order that it was received. (How many public records requests do they get?)
She also said they are having to go to another state agency, because I didn’t narrow the dates. After this they would have their attorney review it all. Then, they’ll invoice me and then I’ll send a check and then when they’ve received my check, they’ll release the documents, she said.
Because I’m now jumping through the new hoops that the psychology board has put in place regarding openness, I decided to exercise my right to “examine documents” in person. I figured I could get the gist of the election matter, but I also wanted info on some other issues, like an Emeritus problem.
Well, of course my bad luck held. The director was off to some conference or another, and the very nice assistant was not about to give me anything and I don’t blame her.
But then, shortly after that, I got a call from the director, scolding me about something, but I wasn’t exactly sure what. I don’t think she appreciated me dropping by.
To top it all off, I contacted Joe Comaty to see if he would tell me anything, and he declined to comment until the records process was complete. Fair enough and he did respond very quickly.
But, he also took the opportunity to alert me to his view that I’m misleading readers when I sign my name with “PhD” over the publication title, The Psychology Times. He thinks this gives people the impression that my doctorate is in journalism.
Not only don’t I have a doctorate in journalism, I’ve never even taken a course. I’m not even sure if anyone gets this degree any more, since LSU journalism is under the School of Mass Communications and the blurb says it’s about “storytelling in a multimedia world.” What is that, a degree in Facebook and Twitter? Not a word about the First Amendment.
My parents were LSU journalism graduates and newspaper people. I know what they were about, and it was a lot more than storytelling. A lot more. I think perhaps that real journalists are a dying breed.
But I still remember.
And I remember what they stood for and why.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 8. Source pages: 14.
April – Cancer Control Month Cancer Survivor Spreads Hope
A cancer diagnosis can be devastating, confusing and frustrating. But Kenner North, Louisiana, Kiwanian Columbus “Lum” Ellis has made it his mission to desensitize the word “cancer” and bring patients comfort and understanding.
In February 2009, Ellis received a startling diagnosis. After experiencing progressively worsening stomach pain over the course of a month, he visited an emergency room. An assessment revealed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer that originates in your lymphatic system — a network in your body that typically fights disease.
“I was so impressed with the way they treated me,” Ellis says of Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. “Everyone loved and cared for me. So I told them, ‘If you get me well, I’ll be a volunteer.’”
He kept his word. Four years ago, he helped one of the oncology nurses initiate a chemotherapy orientation to teach patients what to expect after they are diagnosed. “Some of these people are so anxious and nervous, they don’t even want to undergo treatment, let alone do it with a willing heart,” he says.
Social psychology trained, Ellis knows the importance of building relationships, and makes time every day to interact with newly diagnosed patients, as well as chat with familiar faces to make sure they’re at ease with their medical situation.
“I see people change, through their body language and facial expressions. And when you can honestly tell them that 68 percent of the people diagnosed get over it and die of something else — that’s a bold statement, and I’ve seen it happen many times.”
Another of his strategies involves using the word “cancer” frequently — “to try to get them over thinking that’s a bad word. … We try to put ourselves in that patient’s place, and this chemo class is our best effort to make a personal relationship with the patient. We give them a tour of the lab so they understand what it looks like, and answer questions like whether it will hurt, why their hair falls out and why blood work is done.” He also reminds them of the importance of proper nutrition and exercising caution around sick family members since their immune system is already low.
“Lum has the ability to make patients feel welcomed and at home when they aren’t feeling their best. He enjoys spending time with our patients, providing support and comfort as they undergo treatment,” his supervisors say.
Even though interactions with him have changed the way patients view their prognoses, Ellis cites a study demonstrating the mental benefits of volunteering, and insists that spending two days per week with the oncology department give him much more than he could ever offer another person.
“I hope that more Kiwanians — particularly as they approach the time in their lives when they have the time and need for service — recognize its much more fun than anything than ever got paid to do!,” Ellis says.
[Editors Note: Columbus Ellis received his PhD in Sociology from Louisiana State University in 1970 and taught social psychology at Northwestern Louisiana State University from 1970 to 1976. He moved to administration and served as Assistant to the President there until 1980 at which time he moved to New Orleans Delgado Community College. He retired from Delgado as Vice President Emeritus in 1995.]
Article reprinted with Permission of Kiwanis International
Dr. Columbus Ellis (above) told the Times, “Social Gerontology has been an interest of mine for a long time and that fits well with my work at the Ochsner Cancer Center. Volunteerism is a mighty important opportunity to aid adjustment to senior citizenship. I have over the past 5 years had the significant chance to have a relationship with several hundred cancer patients. I receive much more than I give.” Photo by Stephen Legendre
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.