Letter to the President of the 

Michigan Psychological Association

January 22nd,  2002

Daniel Swerdlow-Freed, Ph.D., President
Michigan Psychological Association
2105 University Park Drive, Suite C-1
Okemos, Michigan  48864

Dear Dr. Swerdlow-Freed,
 
In the December issue of the Michigan Psychologist, the MPA announced that Governor Engler had signed legislation in October establishing mandatory continuing education requirements for licensed and limited license psychologists. With this announcement, many in the psychological community became aware for the first time of the MPA’s legislative agenda and activities in securing mandatory continuing education (MCE) for all Michigan psychologists.

The MPA has wrapped itself in the self-proclaimed and rather noble-sounding purpose of representing the legislative interests of Michigan psychologists in advancing the highest standards for the practice of psychology. And yet, the MPA initiated and lobbied for MCE legislation without the knowledge, much less the support, of its own members. And without the knowledge or support of other colleagues in the psychological community. In our opinion, such behind-the-scenes legislative strategies and tactics fall far-short of representing, much less embodying, the highest of organizational standards of conduct in MPA’s so-called accomplishment of securing the legislative enactment of mandatory continuing education. Indeed, it would appear that the MPA’s leadership and legislative team has provided the practice community with a first-rate continuing education on machiavellian legislative strategies, practices, and tactics.  Apparently, this secretive and continuing saga of the MPA’s pursuit of MCE has been going on for the past three years.

Fortunately, thanks to information received in mid-January from a spokesperson for the department of Consumer and Industry Services (CIS) in Lansing, the MPA had apparently misunderstood the current legislative status of MCE. Contrary to the announcement in the Michigan Psychologist, continuing education is not currently mandatory for Michigan psychologists. Indeed, according to a representative of the director of the CIS, the rules necessary for the implementation of MCE for psychologists will not be forthcoming at this time. Unfortunately, the actions of the MPA have embarrassed itself and those in the professional community it claims to represent. And in so doing, they bring discredit to the entire psychological community in Michigan.

Why did the MPA not consult with other psychological associations and societies-- and also, survey their own members and other Michigan psychologists--in considering such legislative initiatives and efforts to obtain MCE?

Is the MPA---or, the Board of Psychology, for that matter--aware that there is no empirical support for the implementation of MCE to achieve its stated purposes? And, that there is no empirical support for the effectiveness of mandatory continuing education?

Is the MPA aware that standardizing the criteria for continuing education with the APA-approved educratic system constitutes continuing education in ways that do not take into account other recognized and respected ways of practicing psychology that fall outside the APA’s science and pathology driven model of understanding human beingness? or, the APA’s set of practice guidelines? or, the APA’s code of ethics?

Is the MPA aware that the vast majority of psychologists already participate in continuing education? And that the Director of the APA’s Office of Continuing Professional Education estimates that only 2 - 3% do not? 

Obviously, the overwhelming majority of psychologists consider continuing education to be a defining aspect of their professional lives. And further, they have taken the responsibility to pursue those educational interests without the rather paternalistic oversight of the MPA. And without resituating their continuing education in an educratic system that triangulates the psychologist with the socio-political ideologies, discourses, and regulations of the APA, the MPA, and various governmental entities.

It is our growing impression that the leadership of the MPA has become quite disconnected from the continuing education interests and activities of its own members and from those of its colleagues in the larger psychological community. Presuming the responsibility and authority for deciding what is best for Michigan psychologists regarding matters of continuing education raises many questions, ethical and otherwise, about the How and Why of MPA’s project of securing MCE for psychologists.

At the very least, there appears to be a certain naiveté in how to best determine and represent the interests of its constituency to the legislature. And given the communications from CIS in mid-January, there appears to be a certain naiveté regarding the legislative process and what constitutes substantive law. If this is the case, such naiveté amongst the leadership does not represent the highest of professional standards for the guidance of organizational conduct. There is, however, the persistent and troubling impression that the MPA’s leadership and legislative team has been disingenuous and duplicitous with its members and the larger psychological community. And has somehow become caught up in the institutional pursuit of power, economics, and building monuments to itself. If such is the case,...

In either case--and, whatever the case--please be advised that the MPA does not represent our interests in matters of education before the legislature or in the larger community. Further, pursuing the mandatory aspect of continuing education through legislative means does not, in our opinion, constitute “... upholding the highest of standards of the practice of psychology.”  And in light of the unveiling of the MPA’s MCE project, several questions beg to be asked. Given the apparent strategies, tactics and objectives of the MPA, why would a psychologist entrust matters of professional concern, educational or otherwise, into the hands of the MPA? And... What other MPA-sponsored legislation is in the legislative pipeline that has not yet been revealed to either the MPA members or the larger community?...

Sincerely,
Patrick B. Kavanaugh, Ph.D.

Former President, MPA

Marvin Hyman, Ph.D.
Former President, MPA

Member, MPA

Back to top of page

The MPA Responds

February 14, 2002

Dear Dr. Hyman,

This is to acknowledge your letter of January 22, 2002 in which you expressed objection to the Michigan Psychological Association’s pursuit of MCE. While I understand that psychologists might hold different opinions about the necessity for MCE, I disagree with a number of your assertions and considered it necessary to respond. I recognize that Dr. Kavanaugh is no longer a member of the MPA and that you are no longer an active member and, I believe this may have contributed to your lack of awareness of the MPA’s support of MCE legislation.

As you probably recall from your term as President, the MPA only undertakes legislative activity with the knowledge and approval of the Board of Directors (formerly called the Executive Council), which is comprised of the elected officers and committee chairs. Each legislative activity that is proposed is first discussed and voted on at the Board of Director meetings, which are open to the membership, before any action is taken. Each motion that is made and its resulting vote is documented in the meeting’s minutes, and a copy of the minutes is available to the membership. At the April 21, 1999 Executive Council meeting, a motion was made, voted on and passed to adopt a position paper on MCE.

In the second quarter 2000 Michigan Psychologist, Loretta Polish, Ph.D., Chair of the Licensing Committee, wrote an article entitled, “Continuing Education for Psychologists in Michigan,” in which she referenced the MPA position paper and announced its availability from the MPA office. In the third quarter 2000 Michigan Psychologist, Dr. Polish wrote an article entitled, “Licensing—CE Information,” in which she stated that the MPA “continues to advocate mandatory continuing education,” and announced the availability of the position paper on MCE. In the first quarter 2001, Michigan Psychologist, Larry Friedberg, Ph.D., announced in his President’s Report that mandatory continuing education continues to be a priority.

In view of these public activities and publicized statements, your assertion that the MPA initiated and lobbied for MCE legislation without the knowledge or support of its members, as well as your characterization of the MPA’s efforts as Machivellian and disconnected from the continuing education interests and activities of its own members is also inaccurate. If our listserv is taken as a barometer of member sentiment, there has been no groundswell of opposition to the MPA’s support of MCE. Nor has even a single letter of phone call been received from the membership criticizing the MPA’s support of MCE, other than the letter received from Dr. Kavanaugh and you. While I appreciate your position on MCE, there is no indication that it represents the prevailing sentiment within the MPA. To the contrary, the members who have communicated opinions, on the listserv as well as informally, have supported MCE.

While the MPA will continue its support of MCE, I acknowledge your point that the Michigan Psychological Association does not represent Dr. Kavanaugh and your interests in matters of continuing education.

Sincerely,

Daniel H. Swerdlow-Freed, Ph.D.

President, MPA

Back to top of page

Bert Karon Responds

2/5/02

I received a letter from Drs. Pat Kavanaugh and Marvin Hyman, two of our colleagues, about Continuing Education.  While I do not always agree with them (or anyone else), they are two Michigan psychologists with deservedly good international reputations who have taught many of the best practitioners in the state, and I have learned to take their views seriously. I found their letter persuasive that mandatory CE was a mistake. The good people go to meetings without being required; the bad ones will simply go to junk. APA's process of accrediting does not guarantee quality; it is expensive and has a lot of paperwork for a small group that would like to continue to educate, but is not in the business of making money.  The paperwork and expense is no problem for groups primarily interested in making money.

When I was first elected an APA Council Rep from Div. 39 (9 years ago), I was surprised to learn that most of the clinical division reps were as skeptical of CE requirements as I was (I assumed that the other clinical divisions were the source of move to CE requirements), but I learned that the push primarily had come from organizations and individuals who made money putting on CE presentations.  There is at least one well-known psychologist who made a lot of money organizing cruises with CE lectures (so they become tax-deductible).

APA accredited without question a series of seminars on how to treat patients organized by Elizabeth Loftus and the False Memory Society (an organization of parents, lawyers, and some psychologists and psychiatrists who serve as expert witnesses, concerned with defending parents from accusations of child abuse).  When a psychologist filed charges against Loftus with the ethics committee, on the basis that no member of their panels teaching how to do therapy was licensed in any state as a mental health professional qualified to provide therapy, she resigned from APA, before there was a hearing.  Supposedly, this is not possible, but it was claimed that the ethics committee had not started hearing the issue, and therefore it was permissible.  Uncharitably, I suspect someone leaked the complaint to her, and that APA ducked because it did not want to take on the False Memory Society's high priced lawyers, but I could be entirely wrong about the matter, and her resignation could just be a coincidence as claimed.

We know from the experience of our medical colleagues that CE meetings are often organized and under-written by drug companies as thinly disguised marketing. Since they are cheaper than those that are not under-written they are popular.  However, they rarely discuss habituation, withdrawal effects, alternative effective treatments, etc., or anything else that would interfere with sales.  There is nothing illegal or immoral about advertising, but it is up to professionals to distinguish between advertising and balanced presentations.  Neither APA nor state organizations are particularly good at it, but individual practitioners are often very good at presenting themselves with balanced training and information.

Bert Karon, Ph.D.

Michigan State University

This letter first appeared on the Michigan Psychological Association’s e-mail discussion list (“listserv”). It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

Back to top of page