Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 10. Source pages: 6.
In their meeting on Tuesday, May 31, Grassroots members expressed concerns about psychologists not being included in the language of 268, and voicing the view that this is another move to bring more pieces of mental health under medicine. A number of members also indicated disapproval regarding LPA’s legislative actions and are considering asking for an amendment to include psychology.
The Times attempted to contact Dr. Jessica Brown, Chair of Legislative Affairs for LPA, for comment, but no response has been received by press time.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
When asked what has been especially fulfilling for him as a police psychologist, Dr. Charles Burchell reflects an impressive career-long level of satisfaction.
“Early on it was doing the therapy and the counseling, marital help, helping them serve in their jobs to help society. When I did the trauma work, and with SWAT teams, there was the satisfaction of dealing with traumatic events and helping people get through that. The last part of my career, working with Penny, taking people from the general population and making sure we are sending the Police Academy a qualified group . . . this is fulfilling.”
Dr. Burchell, former president of the Louisiana Psychological Association, brings 27 years of experience in providing psychological services to sworn police officers and their families. He began working with police in 1984 at the New Orleans department, and is an associate of Dr. Penny Dralle, Consulting Psychologist for the NOPD, directing pre- screening procedures of officer candidates for the NOPD academy.
“It's a wonderful profession, protecting the public while enhancing the professional and personal lives of a class of people who do something very necessary. It's important now, more than ever. There is growing suspicion of government and police agencies—New Orleans has a lot of people who view police officers as unfair, brutal, can't be trusted—and one thing police psychologists can do is to help departments make sure their agencies are truly professional.”
Currently based in Texas, Dr. Burchell has served on the faculties of Southern Univ. and Louisiana State Univ. in Baton Rouge, and LSU Health Sciences Center and Xavier Univ. in New Orleans. He earned his degrees at Southern and Louisiana State universities, and interned at Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute at the University of California Medical Center, San Francisco. He has worked for both Hammond and Tulane police departments, the EAP (Employee Assistance Program) for DEA and Border Patrol, and also offers high-risk assessment to client organizations.
He has provided training in stress reduction, diversity issues, and disaster response. He has also provided on-site consultation with SWAT teams dealing with hostage and barricaded suspect situations. Fitness- for-duty examination is also his specialty.
Dr. Burchell’s practice in other areas has concerned assessment of employees felt to be a significant risk to the safety and emotional well-being of others in the workplace. He also has worked as a Military and Family Life Consultant providing stress management and psycho-educational intervention to military members and their families.
Dr. Dralle and Dr. Burchell have studied and built fitness-for-duty assessment processes that are comprised of a series of psychological tests and a structured interview, plus collateral interviews with others who interact with the individual.
Problems in fitness for duty, Charles explains, have to do with officers in the field who began to exhibit behaviors that could cause decreased functioning in their roles, since they are, in fact, “licensed to kill, in certain circumstances.”
Police psychology has evolved in ways that few might have imagined, as changes in planetary weather and patterns of crime affect the public consciousness and international law enforcement. As it has changed and grown, Charles notes, “My career has morphed.”
“In terms of duties, as an African-American man, I had ambivalence about the police department. I knew it was necessary. Most of my experiences had been positive, though not all; I knew there were backgrounds that encouraged racism. I understood the basis for feeling that you didn't call the police unless you really, really needed to. But I talked to some African- American community leaders, and they felt, as I came to feel, that it was important, because they would have an African-American psychologist that could deal with the racism in the department, possibly a change agent in keeping that type of behavior to a minimum.”
“There are always going to be issues involving negligence in hiring and retaining. Corporations and governments have a responsibility to see that the people they hire are capable; they must avail themselves of people who can do that. Psychologists provide tests and interviews for potential recruits regarding background and criminal behavior. In this respect, we first rule out psychopathology. There's no one test, so psychologists use a battery of tests as a matter of ethics and fairness.”
“We try to prevent people with serious mental disorders from becoming officers. We try to rule in those persons who have a particular combination of traits, such as integrity, assertiveness, having a good energy level, ability to concentrate, an ability to work well with others but also ability to make decisions on one's own. Cops often don't have a situation where they can consult with others before making decisions.”
Another aspect that society will continue to need is therapy and counseling for police officers and their families. Charles keeps two goals in mind, both rewarding to the dedicated counseling professional. First, this interaction with struggling public servants “gives you the ability to alleviate stressors and other problems, helping them to do a better job. Anxiety, depression, decreased concentration can interfere with their work, so you can help them. It also increases their quality of life. The other thing is that it helps the public: it keeps them from interactions with the public when their functioning is significantly compromised–'til they get better. Police psychologists know the culture: they know the unique stressors, and can interface with the supervisory administrators.”
The collaborative approach encourages faith within the force, as psychologists show increasing knowledge of and respect for the daily grind of police work.
“They know that we accept them and that we support them. Psychologists who affect things most deeply are the ones who are most familiar with them, their days and schedules; we are part of them, not just sent by the city. In the best departments, depending on our duties, they see us as part of management, or as making counseling available.”
The most successful police psychologists also recognize boundaries. “Before I did the pre- employment screening, a partner and I split the management duties and counseling to avoid inappropriate overlap and ensure confidentiality.”
Dr. Burchell served as an on- scene consultant with the NOPD Special Weapons and Tactics division in their calls for hostage and barricaded suspect situations. Here, as elsewhere, awareness of trouble in the law enforcement camp, as well as in the public, improves results.
The DEA provides counseling services, training, and other response to trauma employees may experience, involving threats, narcotics gangs, suicides, or being hurt in the line of duty.
“When I was with the DEA EAP, '86 to '10, as part of the trauma-response team, I responded to Hurricane Andrew, in Homestead, and also [to events] in Puerto Rico. I responded to the bombing of the Murrah building in Okla., worked at least 12-hour days supporting agents who came in to help—assisted with death notification, supporting families who had lost someone, debriefing agents—a very rewarding experience, and very stressful. There had never been an act of home-grown terrorism like this, so focused on the government.
“Before I left, I visited the site and could smell death. I handled that not only by interacting with my fellow clinicians and also with the program manager, who offered an hour at a time as needed. Also I would call a friend every night. In the face of death like that, it was necessary. What trauma does is change our perception of the stability and predictability of the world. The brain is an organ of predictability; it's one of the things that makes us feel safe. When we have a trauma, we don't know what's going to happen. The same thing took place with Katrina, and is now in Joplin, Mo.”
Time is a “big healer,” though Dr. Charles Burchell teaches that memories, once fragmented, can come back unexpectedly. “'Your feelings, problems are normal for what you've been through.' It's very difficult for them to hear that sometimes. The brain always wants completion, understanding, and sometimes you have to go on without complete understanding.”
“Everywhere, in every setting, for example, people break up. Sometimes there's the fantasy of closure, reuniting, explaining what had happened; but sometimes you will never know—the person may not share, may not be there, may not understand it themselves,” Dr. Charles Burchell said.
“There are small mysteries and there are larger mysteries, and that is the state of our existence.”
Dr. Tom Hannie (L) with Dr. Charles Burchell. Dr. Burchell has served as an on- scene consultant with the NOPD Special Weapons and Tactics division in their calls for hostage and barricaded suspect situations.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 10. Source pages: 11.
The newly formed Lafayette area of psychologists will meet on June 23, according to founder Dr. Gail Gillespie. She told the Times that the next meeting will be June 23, at 7:00, but that the exact place has not been determined. All those interested psychologists can contact Dr. Gillespie at gailgill@msn.com.
A new regional New Orleans group is being formed and Gail is assisting the organizers with ideas. Both groups are looking into the bylaws used by the Baton Rouge Area Society of Psychologists, (BRASP).
BRASP was founded by Dr. Marc Zimmermann. Other early members included Drs. Tom Stigall, Darlyne Nemeth, and Christine Angelloz. BRASP meets regularly in Baton Rouge.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 10. Source pages: 16.
In another contested race within LPA, current Director Dr. Sherry Desselle from Baton Rouge, and Dr. John Fanning from New Orleans, submitted their names to the membership for the chance to hold a director position in the Louisiana Psychological Association.
Ballots were sent to LPA members in May and should be returned to LPA offices by close of business, June 20. The ballots can be faxed to Executive Director Ms. Gail Lowe at 225-766-0112. All ballots must be identifiable by name or by a clear return address on the envelope.
The director position opened up when Dr. Bryan Gros, who currently holds a director position, won his bid to become the next President- Elect, following an election this April.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
SB 268, a bill to clarify scope of practice for Licensed Professional Counselors, was passed in the Senate today and is pending introduction into the House. The bill will require that LPCs work in consultation with an MD or medical psychologist (but not a licensed psychologist) if treating individuals with “serious mental illness.”
SB 268 replaces Senator Willie Mount’s omnibus board proposal that would have dissolved the psychology and LPC boards, a move that was strongly opposed by both groups.
SB 268 sets out certain limitations when counselors diagnose and treat a patient with a “serious mental illness.” The bill notes that the patient of an LPC must also be “…under the active care of a practitioner who is licensed by the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners and is authorized to prescribe medications in the management of psychiatric illness…” And that the LPC will diagnose and treat “…only in the context of an ongoing consultation and collaboration with that practitioner.”
In the present language licensed psychologists are not included in those authorized to provide this ongoing consultation and collaboration to LPCs.
SB 268 proposes new language in the section on definitions of mental health counseling services: “…rendering or offering prevention, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment, which includes psychotherapy, of mental, emotional, behavioral, and addiction disorders to individuals, groups, organizations, or the general public by a licensed professional counselor, which is consistent with his professional training…”
This replaces the existing language of “…those acts and behaviors coming within the practice of mental health counseling as defined in this Chapter, including diagnosis and treatment, which includes psychotherapy, of conditions or disorders requiring mental health counseling…”
The existing language has been a source of conflict between the psychology board and the LPC board for a number of years. Confusing text in the LPC law created conflicting interpretations. Mount introduced the replacement bill at the May 25th Senate Health & Welfare Committee meeting, saying “We also provided for limitations to the scope of practice for individuals suffering from serious mental illness so that LPCs can only access, diagnose, and treat an individual suffering from a serious mental illness if that individual is under the active care of a practitioner licensed by the board of medical examiners who’s authorized to prescribe medication in the management of psychiatric illness and only in the context of ongoing consultation and collaboration with that practitioner.”
Serious mental illnesses in the bill are listed as schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depressive disorder, anorexia/bulimia, intermittent explosive disorder, autism, psychosis (not otherwise specified) when diagnosed in a child under 17 years of age, Rett’s Disorder, Tourette’s Disorder, and dementia.
SB 268 also lists new language in requirements for increasing graduate semester hours from 48 to at least 60, beginning in 2015, and a course in each of eight required subject areas, and the completion of a supervised internship in mental health counseling.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
A bill to terminate the 47 year-old Louisiana State Board of Exam- iners of Psychologists may be heard soon in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. The bill’s author, Senator Willie Mount of Lake Charles is chair of the committee. The committee is scheduled to meet at 9 am this Thursday, May 4. As of Monday, SB 226 was not on the agenda. However, the agenda can change at any time.
Senator Mount’s pro- posal would terminate both the LSBEP and the LPC boards and consolidate their duties into a new board called the “Louisiana Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board.” The bill decreases the number of board members from five to three for psychology, and from ten to three for counselors. The last three members of the new, nine- member board are to come from the public, and these individuals are to be in “no way connected with the practice of any such profession regulated by the board,” noted the proposed legislation.
Based on a letter distributed to both psychologists and counselors, Senator Mount’s reason for her legislation is to cause the two groups to work together. In her letter, published last month in the Times, she wrote, “ With the history of senseless conflict and fighting and the failure of the professions to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the working group, I am left with no other options other than to introduce legislation to consolidate these boards.” (See PT Vol 2, No. 8.) Those in the psychology and counselor communities strongly oppose the legislation. In an email from LSBEP Dr. Joe Comaty to licensed psychologists he noted that licensed professional counselors, licensed marriage and family therapists, the Louisiana Association of Counselors, the Louisiana Psychological Association, the American Psychological Association, the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards, and the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, have all submitted objections to the bill. (See related story, this page.)
The bill and committee meetings can be found on Senate page at http://senate.legis.state.la.us/ses sioninfo/2011/rs/Default.htm
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
In an April 4, 2011 memo from the APA Board of Professional Affairs (BPA) to Dr. Robert Glueckauf, Chair of the Interdivisional Healthcare Committee, BPA outlined its opinions regarding issues with Louisiana’s Act 251. In spring 2010, the Interdivisional Healthcare Committee (IHC) published a report of concerns with 251 and asked three APA bodies to review the concerns and give opinions. These bodies were APA’s Board of Professional Affairs, Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice, and Board of Educational Affairs.
In the April 4 memo for BPA, Board Director Ms. Mary Hardiman said that the board had reviewed the documents submitted by IHC and they had had an “extensive discussion of the issues raised in this important item.”
The memo noted, “1. The first issue was the use of the title ‘Medical Psychologist’ that has recently been restricted in Louisiana to psychologists with prescriptive authority. Prior to the Louisiana law, the title of Medical Psychologist was used to describe psychologists who use behavioral treatments for patients with physical problems. This term has been widely used by psychologists across the states. After consideration of this item, BPA concluded that it was in concurrence with the recent statement issued by CAPP. BPA does not support the restriction of the title of Medical Psychologist to those with prescriptive authority.”
And, “2. The second issue was that Louisiana law now places prescribing psychologists under the Medical Board. BPA discussed the negative implications of this ruling on the identity of psychologists, and on the oversight and regulation of the professional practice of psychology. BPA concluded that APA through the Practice Directorate and through the Board of Directors and Council need to continue to address the implication of this ruling for psychology and take steps to avoid extension of this action into other state regulations.”
In June 2010, Dr. Sanford Portnoy Chair of CAPP wrote to Dr. Glueckauf saying, “CAPP opposes the use of the term ‘medical psychologist’ exclusively by psychologists with prescriptive authority.” CAPP had created a working group in response to the IHC concerns, which included concerns both for the public and the profession.
In November 2010, APA’s Board of Educational Affairs Chair, Dr. Janet Matthews, responded to IHC’s concerns, writing that “…the term ‘medical psychologist’ should not be used exclusively by psychologists with prescriptive authority,” and that the “BEA also expressed strong concerns about the potential implications of oversight of a psychology licensing board by a nonpsychologist health profession board at the state licensing level.”
The Academy of Medical Psychology and the American Board of Medical Psychology raised similar objections in July 2009 before Act 251 was passed.
The Interdivisional Healthcare Committee is independent of APA, but composed of representatives from seven APA divisions: Health Psychology, Rehabilitation Psychology, Clinical Neuropsychology, Society of Pediatric Psychology, Society of Clinical Psychology/Clinical Geropsychology, Counseling Psychology, and Family Psychology. The committee is well known for establishing the billing codes that allow psychologists to be reimbursed for their treatment of physical conditions.
Related stories can be found in Times Vol 1 No 3, 9,10,11 and Vol 2 No 4 at psychologytimes.com.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
How our minds work, how we retrieve “facts” and judge reality, and how we learn and reach decisions is one of the most fascinating areas of human behavior, impacting lives at every level of society and in every area of human performance. At LSU’s Office of Applied Cognition (OAC) cofounder Dr. Sean Lane and his team of researchers unravel the intricate knots between perception, attention, memory, judgments, and decision-making, and they work to apply these to real-life situations. Along with cofounder and LSU Chair Dr. Robert Matthews, the team seeks to bridge the gap between laboratory findings and real world, and to make a difference where it really counts.
“Most researchers do either basic or applied research, “ Dr. Sean Lane explained to the Times. “We take a different approach. Our theoretically-driven work is conducted in both in vivo (naturalistic) and in vitro (laboratory) settings….” This focus on real-world situations helps OAC researchers better understand the mechanisms underlying thinking and remembering, while providing a means to improve human performance in these settings.
Part of Sean’s insights for applied settings comes from his varied background. Before coming to LSU, and after starting a doctoral program in applied experimental as a professor at the U. of Nevada in Las Vegas, he worked in Silicon Valley. It was during the booming dot com era. “I primarily did research in human factors,” he said. And, “…was the Director of a User Experience group that included User Interface Designers, Graphic Designers and Information Architects. We designed web sites and software.”
But Sean missed directing his own research and so came to LSU in 2002.
At LSU his group has five major research areas. These are eyewitness memory, memory errors, education/learning/teache r expertise, experience- based (implicit) learning, and medical cognition. In these main areas the researchers push to undercover the often puzzling and counterintuitive findings regarding the quirkiness of our minds. Although Sean works in all these areas, he has long- standing interests in the topics of eyewitness suggestibility, eyewitness identification, and beliefs about eyewitness memory.
Eyewitness Memory
In 1979 Elizabeth Loftus’ research in eyewitness testimony and false memories exploded myths about the accuracy of peoples’ testimony about events, opening the door to major advancements in cognitive science that was to last for decades.
The current finding is that 75 percent of those individuals who are later proved innocent by DNA evidence have been wrongly convicted on the basis of flawed eyewitness testimony (The Innocence Project). This supports Dr. Ronald Fisher’s comment in the recent “Special Issue on Psychology and Law” (Current Directions, APS). Fisher, a friend of Sean’s, wrote, “Is there any institution that defines a culture more than its legal system? If not, then applying principles of psychology to understand and to enhance that system may be one of the noblest applications of our profession.”
Eyewitness’ memories are influenced by information that the witness is exposed to from other people, from media, from law enforcement, attorneys or counselors. This has been established, along with the role of imagery in creating false memories.
However, Sean noted, “…one issue that had not been addressed by previous research is whether it is the act of generating information that creates false memories or whether it is simply exposure to such details.”
In one of their studies, the OAC researchers had people “witness” a mock crime, and later answered a series of questions about the event that included misleading information and details that had not been seen. Then researchers had participants do one of two things. Either they were required to generate details of what they had observed, or simply read details about the event. While “generation” increased the amount of accurate memory, it increased false memories as well. And also, generation increased the claim of having a vivid (but false) recollection.
The team also studies the basic memory functions that are involved in eyewitness identification from line-ups. “…we have attempted to understand how people make identification or lineup rejection [“not present”] decisions in terms of strategies that have been intensively studied in the basic memory literature,” Sean noted. For example, basic memory research has shown that sometimes people can decide they did not see something by recalling a related item they did see. This is called recall to reject strategy. “Overall,” he noted, “our results have shown that these strategies vary in effectiveness, and in some cases can be quite diagnostic of accuracy.”
In real-world settings it is not what experts believe or know about eyewitness testimony that makes the final difference in accuracy, but the belief or behavior of the jurors.
“One key factor affecting jurors’ decisions,” noted Sean, “are the beliefs they hold about eyewitness memory…” He explained that although there have been survey studies on that topic, an important area that has not been studied thoroughly is how jurors actually behave when faced with a relevant legal situation, and how their beliefs impact their decisions regarding the testimony of an eyewitness.
“This is a reasonable question,” Sean commented, “because psychological research has documented that people do not always act in accordance with their beliefs, do not always apply what they have learned in one situation to another, and can learn and perform tasks correctly with little explicit knowledge of the features they are relying upon, called implicit learning.”
In one study at the OAC, researchers compared people’s belief about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, to their actual judgments after viewing transcripts or vignettes. “Although participants were sensitive to a number of factors in their evaluation of eyewitnesses,” Sean noted, “their performance on the transcripts did not correlate with the survey responses for most issues.” Sean said that, “…the field needs to develop measures that assess this knowledge more effectively.”
Sean explained to the Times that while he has consulted in some eyewitness cases, the Louisiana Supreme Court appears to have limited experts in this area. “In many ways,” he said, “this is a seemingly odd outcome as many states are going in the opposite direction and routinely allowing such testimony in criminal courts. That said, I think the greatest benefit to our legal system would involve working with law enforcement. The National Institute of Justice has suggested a set of low-cost changes that, if adopted, would likely reduce false identifications,” he explained. “If we can reduce such errors early in the system rather than at the time of trial, it would be much better.”
Memory Errors
Sean’s team uses Maria Johnson’s “Source Monitoring Framework” to guide their work in learning how people discriminate between memories that are accurate and those that are false. According to the model, the mind works to weigh certain types of information in a memory trace, makes comparisons between what is expected and what is actually retrieved, and evaluates the consistency or plausibility of what is retrieved.
“A recent line of research was motivated by the repeated finding in the false memory literature that although false memories are often vividly remembered, they are usually less vivid and detailed on average than accurate memories. For us,” he said, “this brought up the question of how people set the criteria for their source decisions and whether the accuracy of such decisions could be improved by selecting more diagnostic features.”
Sean said that he is probably most proud of his research that examines how people’s assumptions about a memory task influence their accuracy.
“Any time someone tries to remember something,” he explained, “– a fact on a test, which person at work told you about funny joke, or what a perpetrator did when they took your money — they have assumptions, whether they realize it or not, about what types of information will be most important to remember, what kinds of memories they will have to discriminate between, etc.”
“Our lab has helped provide evidence that such assumptions can be wrong and that we can help direct people so that their assumptions become more accurate. Most importantly, he said, this updating helps improve the accuracy of their memory decisions. For example, we have people “witness” a mock crime, and they subsequently answer questions that contain misleading information. Later, they take a memory test and have to distinguish between things they witnessed and things they only read about afterwards.” This emerged from a study by Sean and researchers Cristine Roussel, Diana Villa and Shelby Morita.
“So here’s the interesting part,” Sean said. “We give them an initial test and afterwards give them feedback by telling them the actual source of each item. When we give them a second test with brand new items, they reduce their errors by over 50%! Furthermore, most of these participants do not think the feedback helped them do any better on the second test.”
The group is currently conducting a number of studies to expand on these important findings, along with their ongoing work in dual- mind, medical errors, and other studies. “There is also some new and exciting research going in the lab on the topics of emotional arousal and memory, and the impact of lying on memory,” said Sean.
What does Dr. Sean Lane enjoy most about his work? “First, and foremost,” he said, “working with my collaborators. Bob Mathews was instrumental in bringing me to LSU and I could not ask for a better collaborator. Our work together has ranged from implicit learning to ways of helping teachers obtain greater expertise, and we have been successful in obtaining several NSF grants for our work. In addition,” he said, “I love working with my graduate students.” Sean currently advises five graduate students: Tanya Karam, Stephanie Groft, Leslie Butler, Kathleen Vieira, and Serena Fisher, and also works with Bob Mathews’ students Jon Tall and Patrick Leget. “They are funny, smart and talented,” he said, “and it would be impossible to do the range of research we do without their hard work.”
The OAC, founded in 2004 by Drs. Robert Mathews and Sean Lane, is housed in the Department of Psychology, LSU Baton Rouge campus. Find more information at http://www.lsu.edu/psychology/oac/ (and follow their blog at http://lsuoac.blogspot.com/)
OAC team at the 2010 American Psychology-Law Society Conference in Vancouver, BC. L to R: Stephanie Groft, Leslie Ann Butler, Dr. Sean Lane, and Tanya Karam.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
At an April 14, town hall meeting designed to discuss concerns about Act 251, LPA members voted to work on exploring ways to bring the regulation of psychology by medical psychologists back under the psychology board.
After lengthy discussions LPA members voted favorably on a motion made by Dr. Tom Hannie.
Dr. Hannie made a motion that the association initiates a conversation among members of four groups: the Louisiana State Medical Society, the Louisiana Psychological Association, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, and the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists.
He explained to the Times that his motion included that “this conversation would be initiated to explore ways to address the dual licensure issues created by 251.” His motion also included that “there would be a particular focus on finding a way for psychologists to regulate the psychological practice of all psychologists, while leaving physicians to regulate the prescriptive practice of medical psychologists,” said Dr. Hannie.
In the discussion of the motion, members agreed to add the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychology to the four groups to be involved in the conversation, he said.
The motion passed overwhelmingly.
Dr. Hannie said to the Times, “There are no apparent reasons for any of these groups to oppose this idea. If that is the case, next year legislation for this could go through with little or no opposition. If there is opposition from any of these groups the reasons might be of interest to us all.”
The Executive Council scheduled the town hall for the annual meeting after gathering opinions and feedback from members in a survey which indicated that up to 74 percent of respondents were concerned about Act 251.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 9. Source pages: 2.
Senator Mount’s bill to terminate the 47 year-old psychology board is puzzling. She says she is left with no option. Ignoring lots of other creative approaches to the problem, not the least of which is the do nothing option, she decides to force the two professional groups into a new, strange, superficial and simplistic structure. Is she actually that sure of herself, her methods and her ideas? Hmm…
For a variety of different reasons the legislation is not good. Both groups oppose it. Logically SB 226 should not pass.
But if it does pass, or if it even comes close, we will know that there is some real political muscle behind it and not just one senator, exercising her power, who feels she knows best.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 9. Source pages: 2.
I conducted “Man on the Street” interviews for comments from some community members about Senator Mount’s Bill. These and a few succinct spontaneous comments from readers can be found throughout this issue. (Thank you to Dr. Alicia Pellegrin who called it the “Chick on the Street” interviewing method.)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
On April 26, Chair of the psychology board, Dr. Joe Comaty, emailed Louisiana psychologists about SB 226, encouraging them to contact their home district Senator if that Senator serves on the Senate Health & Welfare Committee. He suggested that psychologists “express grave concerns about the bill.”
He attached an April 21 letter he wrote to members of the Commerce Committee. In it he described his views on why SB 226 is flawed, noting, “I have a responsibility to bring to your attention fundamental flaws in the proposed legislation…”
In the letter to the Senators, Dr. Comaty noted that appointing three lay people who “would have no pertinent professional knowledge or experience in either the practice of psychology or in licensed professional counseling,” as tie-breaking members is “not sound public policy.”
He explained that composite boards have been tried in other states and in “all cases but one or two” the practice of psychology has been returned to an independent board.
He also noted the serious problem that comes from trying to combine two “…markedly different disciplines, with markedly different educational and training standards, differing scopes of practice, and differing ethical principles.”
And he wrote, “Sound public policy, though, requires individuals who have specialized professional knowledge, training, and experience be the ones who make the profession’s regulatory decisions, not those who lack the pertinent professional knowledge and expertise.” He pointed out that not only is the training for psychology different than LPCs, “it is significantly more extensive.” Dr. Comaty also pointed out that while “state law provides for ‘one’ psychology license, psychologists work in an array of settings and client populations. The proposed board has only three psychologists and cannot provide the expertise needed to “span the specialty areas.” Comaty concluded that the consolidation would “…weaken, not strengthen public protection.” In his email to licensed psychologists, he wrote “If the bill passes out of committee to the floor of the Senate, we will again notify you to contact your Senator.”
Links to Help You Find Information http://www.legis.state.la.us/
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 9. Source pages: 4.
In an April 22, letter addressed to Louisiana Senators in the Commerce Committee, Executive Director for Professional Practice in APA, Dr. Katherine Nordal wrote saying, “APA is strongly opposed to combining licensing boards for different mental health professions,” and that “The most serious problem with the ‘omnibus’ board structure is that it attempts to combine into one group different disciplines with different educational and training standards, scopes of practice, and ethical principles.”
“This raises questions about the ability of such a board to ensure public protection,” she noted.
Nordal also wrote that “…it is essential that the licensing board and disciplinary body for a profession be comprised of individuals who themselves are thoroughly educated and trained in the discipline.” And, “Not only does the education and training for psychology differ from that of MFTs and LPCs, but it is significantly more extensive and variable.”
She wrote that there is little support for this approach, and that “attempts to develop this type of legislation have been defeated in states such as Alaska, California, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah. Colorado had such a system in place and dismantled it in 1998.”
“…SB 226 would not serve the citizens of Louisiana well…” she wrote and urged the Senators to reject the proposed structure.
For a copy of this letter contact thepsychologytimes @drjulienelson.com.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
“Problems with bill as I see it: 1. Putting two entities who can't agree on fundamental issues together for them to decide upon regulatory issues to protect the public is, on its face, ludicrous; 2. Omni boards have not worked effectively anywhere they have been tried and have been roundly abandoned; 3. The public is already confused enough about which mental health professions do what and this will simply further complicate matters; 4. Particularly for specialty areas such as forensic or neuropsych, issues will be decided upon by six out of nine people who have no training or understanding of the unique issues faced by these psychologists.” — Dr. Alicia Pellegrin
“Wow, what unintended consequences will come out of that bill! I suspect that lack of knowledge is the appalling answer to why such actions are taken. Let’s hope sane minds prevail.” –Times reader (name withheld by request)
“SB 226 is a problem since then there would be 6 of 9 on a board regulating professional behaviors about which they have no clue. What knowledge would they have about a system for hiring and promotions? Test construction? Jury selection? Forensic consultation? PSYCHOLOGY IS MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN HEALTH CARE!” – — Dr. Tom Hannie “This is unbelievable. … What a stupid idea. The big change would be different composition in this proposed board, so less effective in overseeing either profession. Where is the help to the consumer in this?? –Times Reader (name withheld by request)
“This would be extremely harmful to psychology as an independent profession, almost certainly wouldn't eliminate issues between psychology and the LPCs, and would probably generate a whole new set of regulatory problems for both groups. A couple of coworkers at my workplace are LPCs, and they also oppose this bill.” –Dr. John Fanning "Why don't we have a new Board composed of Dentists and Lawyers? We'll use the Dentists' sense of ethics for the Lawyers, who no doubt would appreciate the guidance about pulling teeth. If you think this analogy is not particularly apt, consider trying to use marriage and family ethics for psychological testing, and you will get some of the same idea. Regarding the childish tactic of putting us all in the same room to work things out, consider putting feral cats and dogs in the same room, and see how much harmony you will get." – Times reader (name withheld by request) "While the bill may have good intentions, I view the most significant problem is that it will allow the practice of psychology to be regulated, at least in part, by representatives from another profession. Our board would be merged with another profession that operates under a different training paradigm, under different ethical principles, and under practice statutes that markedly differ from our own. I don’t see any strengths and I don’t like it." — Dr. Bryan Gros
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 9. Source pages: 9.
Members of the Louisiana Psychological Association elected Dr. Bryan Gros for President-Elect, Dr. Alicia Pellegrin as Secretary, Dr. Wesley Brockhoeft and Dr. Joe Tramontana as the two new Directors.
The election was conducted by mail ballot with final votes cast at the association’s annual meeting on April 14. Participation in the election was up by over 40 percent from last year, according to numbers from the Executive Director, Ms. Gail Lowe.
The increased turnout is likely due to continuing focus on issues surrounding Act 251, according to several sources.
Newly elected President-Elect Dr. Bryan Gros directs traffic at the registration table for the Louisiana Psychological Association, held in April in Baton Rouge.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.