While the ASPPB jumps on the bandwagon of denial, and tries to assemble a response sometime this year, we will respond to messages from concerned psychologists interested in the recently exposed ASPPB Licensure Scheme.
Here is the first of the following series:
#1 ASPPB Conflict of Interest
#3 ASPPB Restricting Economy/Trade
#4 ASPPB/Regulatory Boards’ Liability
Collusion: noun. abetment, act of working together, agreement, agreement for fraud, alliance, association: An agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her rights or to obtain something that is prohibited by law.
Can you honestly tell Wisconsin, the public, and fellow psychologists that your ASPPB/WI Board Members have refrained from taking on professional roles when personal, professional, legal, financial interests, and relationships are reasonably expected to have impaired their objectivity in performing their functions as psychologists??
On 2010, the ASPPB was kind enough to “help” State Psychology Boards, including Wisconsin, to run their businesses and created this “Training Manual” for board members’ guidance. It seems more of a “Tips and Tricks” manual if you will. It is quite obvious the ASPPB knows what’s going in the Wisconsin recently reported case. Yet, the ASPPB continues to “deny any such allegations.”
An Open Records Request showed a pervasive pattern (more than 30 years of evidence) implicating specific Wisconsin State Board Members, simultaneously acting as ASPPB members, making decisions in favor of the ASPPB, instead of in the interest of the people of the State of Wisconsin and its small business development as mandated by Wisconsin Sate Law.
First and foremost, professional regulatory board exists to serve the people of the jurisdiction and board members are meant is to assist in that goal. A Board member “is a public official and a public servant when serving as a member of a regulatory board (ASPPB, 2010, Pg. 3).” Public officials, whether State or Federal, are to refrain themselves from conflict of interests and are always prohibited from engaging in business with private organizations (like the ASPPB), especially when mutual interests are involved. It is not only unethical… it is also illegal. In Wisconsin’s particular case, state law clearly states: “No member of an examining board may be an officer, director or employee of a private organization which promotes or furthers the profession or occupation regulated by that board.” Yet, the ASPPB continues to deny such allegations.
According to the ASPPB “Tips and Tricks” Manual, Board members are public officials and should conduct their public duties in a manner that avoids criticism and liability. Board members should not attempt to regulate economics of the profession through board activities. When acting as a board member, you should be both seen by others and comfortable within yourself that you can be impartial, reasonable and fair in your judgments and actions. (ASPPB, 2010, Pg. 4). Yet, the ASPPB continues to deny such allegations.
It goes on with, “Much thought should be given to the advisability of being both a board member and an officer of a professional association at the same time, or a committee member of such association, if the association’s activities could possibly influence decisions to be made as a board member. Participation simply as a member of an association should not be discouraged however. Remember, that problems are created most often by the appearance of impropriety rather than by actual misconduct. (ASPPB, 2010, Pg. 4). Yet, the ASPPB continues to deny such allegations.
It also states: “Board members who perceive even a potential conflict of interest should act swiftly to resolve the conflict. This may mean resignation from an office or committee membership. In disciplinary matters before the board it may mean that a board member is recused, unless recusal would render adjudication impossible. Remember, sometimes it is only the appearance of impropriety that leads to serious problems. (ASPPB, 2010, Pg. 4). Yet, the ASPPB continues to “deny such allegations.”
As noted in recent complaint, the individually named ASPPB-parties engaged in the following:
- From about 1984 to 1991, Dr. Asher R. Pacht, concurrently served as public official of the Wisconsin Board, including as Board Chairperson, while functioning as an official of the ASPPB and its licensing task forces from 1988 to 1994, including its presidency (1992 to 1993). He “drafted the first ASPPB Supervision Guidelines and Chaired the Committee on Education and Training for Credentialing in the years of development of model language for statutes, rules, regulations and passing points.” He was so good in helping the ASPPB, they created the ‘distinguished service award’ after his name for those who “make extraordinary contributions to the ASPPB” [Page 27].
- On October 1, 1991, while inconsistent with state law, the Board conveniently inserted Chapters PSY-1 to PSY-5 into to the Wisconsin Administrative Code (Administrative Register No. 429), to identically model the supervision requirements set by the ASPPB (Page 1). Since that time, the Board deliberately ignored psychologists’ licensing requirements set by the Wisconsin Chapter 455 (Psychology Examining Board), yet demanded prospective psychologists (competitors) to complete 3,000 hours of experience (specifically 1,500 pre-doctoral hours and 1,500 hours post-doctoral), to meet requirements set by the ASPPB.
- From about March 1994 to July 1, 2002, Dr. Barbara Van Horne, concurrently served as public official of the Wisconsin Psychology Board, including as Board Chairperson, while functioning as an official of the ASPPB and its licensing task forces from 1999 to 2005, including its presidency (2003 to 2004). On 2008, she was rewarded with the Norma P. Simon Award for “making significant contributions to the ASPPB, and to the regulation of psychology at the national or international level.”
- From about December 2000 to October 2009, Dr. Don Crowder, concurrently served as public official of the Wisconsin Board, including as Board Chairperson, while functioning as an official of the ASPPB and its licensing task forces from 2001 to 2016, and was the ASPPB’s current President at the time the complaint was filed.
Now, the ASPPB/ Board Members will likely say: “oh, that was an honest mistake…we were just trying to protect the public… or that’s beyond the four-year statute of limitations.” We think that’s crappy excuse to rationalize your obvious private interests, still, it clearly illustrates the anatomy of your collusive scheme.
Nonetheless, and more recently…
- On February 8, 2012, the Board and individual Respondents Schroeder, Desmonde, and Anderson reviewed, and acknowledged receipt and understanding pertaining their responsibilities as public officials listed in the DSPS Board Member Guidebook.
- On February 22, 2012, the Board was ordered to be in compliance with the law, assist small business owners, and properly submitting any proposed rules with an economic impact. They were ordered to cooperate in identifying existing rules hindering job creation and small business growth.
- Even though, the Wisconsin Board was advised by previous Member/Chair to change rules to count the internship year as the legal requirement set by WI Chapter 455, as endorsed in 2006 by the APA, and modeled after by 11 other States, How do you think the ASPPB/ WI Board members interpreted this order? “We need to change the rules, not only please the governor and comply with the law, but we also need to figure out how to maintain our allegiance to the ASPPB…let’s create a win –win situation for all of us.”
- On January 15, 2014, Board Members Desmonde and Anderson, again deliberately ignored the DSPS Board Member Guidebook, and willingly approved of the appointment of Respondent Schroeder, a member of the Wisconsin Psychology Examining Board since 2011, to function as an official with the ASPPB Licensing Task Force; the ASBBP reported Respondent Schroeder’s involvement in its Licensing Task Force since 2013, consistent with his professional website.
- During the timeframe alleged above, Respondent Schroeder willingly a) reviewed and clarified 64 member jurisdictions pertaining to the inclusion licensure for consulting and Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychologists; b) identified barriers to licensure and methods for reducing and eliminating those barriers; c) investigated and made license-mobility recommendations; and d) recommended ASPPB member jurisdictions and education programs feasible paths to licensure for consulting and I/O psychologists.
- On or about August 6, 2015, the Board drafted Administrative Code (15-102) Rule PSY-2 (Requirements for Examination and Licensure of Psychologists) requiring the psychologist-supervised experiences to count toward licensing requirements only after completion of a doctorate degree, and again intentionally misrepresented the economic impact analysis that goes into the rule-making report, denying any impact to small businesses.
- On December 29, 2015, the Board intentionally promulgated PSY-2 rule (15-102), that not only creates a win-win situation for them, but it directly favors I/O psychologists, who would otherwise have no previous psychologist-supervised clinical experiences, to become licensed after one-year of experience.
- The ASPPB/Board Members, colluded to maintain their private interests with the ASPPB, yet deprived Wisconsin’s general welfare from qualified clinical and counseling psychologists, including Petitioner, who typically have about 1 to 2 years (2,000 to 4,000 hours) of psychologist-supervised experiences at completion of their doctoral degree.
- The Board members failed to act in good faith by presenting their private interests with the ASPPB as those of the State of Wisconsin, and at the expense of the public’s general welfare and interstate commerce as evidenced by the foregoing clear and convincing allegations noted in public records.
Now, the ASPPB will say “they were not employees, they were just volunteers …or delegate members…etc.” Well, in order to entertain that argument, one must put aside all alleged violations of the law, and ignore the public’s interest for public officials to obey the law. With that said, in both civil and common law, under the respondeat superior doctrine, the ASPPB is still responsible for illegal actions of its employees and volunteers (more on liability in the future).
At a minimum, as a member of the Board o f Directors, a ASPPB Member-at-Large attends six Board of Directors meetings, the Annual and Midyear Meetings, and will serve (as assigned in the Game Plan) on other Association committees and task forces, as well as serve as ASPPB liaison or representative to other professional groups. The Member-at-Large generally spends approximately 30-40 days a year in meetings and travel for the Association. Additional time is spent preparing for meetings. A Member-at-Large is elected for a three-year term, but may run for another office prior to completing the term. Even though the term for Member-at-Large is three years, it is most typical for the outgoing Member- at-Large to seek and obtain the nomination for President- Elect.
So, how is the aforementioned not a conflict of interest for public officials who regulate competitors of the same market?? Yet, the ASPPB continues to “deny such allegations.”
Deniers have said, “That’s purely anecdotal and coincidental”…We say four public officials in the past 30 years with almost no breaks in between??
ASPPB We Ask You Again:
After reading this…can you honestly tell Wisconsin, the public, and fellow psychologists that your people have refrained from taking on professional roles when their personal, professional, legal, and financial interests and relationships are reasonably expected to have impaired their objectivity in performing their functions as psychologists??