APA Elections

Division 31 Endorsements for APA President

Candidate statements are listed below.

Why Your Future Depends on this Year’s APA Presidential Election

Jeffrey E. Barnett, Psy.D., ABPP
Past President, APA Division 31
(State, Provincial and Territorial Association Affairs)

Heard all across the nation in response to my pleas that psychologists from the State, Provincial, and Territorial Psychological Associations participate in the upcoming APA election and support the three candidates who support SPTA issues:

“I never vote in those elections. What do they have to do with me anyway?”

“What difference can one vote make?”

“Who cares what they do at APA? It’s what happens at the State level that matters.”

“It’s all so political. I’m a clinician. I’m not interested in that stuff.”

“I’m too busy trying to make a living. I can’t be bothered wasting my time with elections.”

“The staff does everything at APA. What does it matter who the president of APA is?”

I’m assuming that pretty much covers it. If I left some out, please e-mail them to me. The ballots for the APA Presidential election will be sent to each APA member on October 15th. Why should this matter to you? I’m sure you have more mail than you care to look at. Yet, this ballot may be one of the more important pieces of mail you receive this year.

The APA President has great power and influence. Each president leads the APA Board of Directors and runs the meetings of the APA Council of Representatives, and, therefore, has great influence over issues that are addressed by the Board of Directors and Council and how much attention (staff time and money) they receive. Each year the APA budget of approximately $100 million (that’s a lot of money!) is dispersed to a wide range of initiatives and activities. Since we can’t do everything, many tough decisions need to be made. The influence of the APA President should not be minimized in the making of these decisions. Will APA’s Council of Representatives invest its energy in addressing managed care issues, health care reform, insurance reform, Medicare reimbursement, prescriptive authority, health and behavior CPT codes, licensure issues, mobility, specialization and guidelines, and related legal and regulatory issues of importance to the States and State psychologists? Will a significant portion of the APA budget go toward addressing these issues; or will it go elsewhere? Who we elect in the next APA presidential election will have a great impact on how these questions are answered.

Over the past 15 years between only 15% to 31% of eligible voters have participated in the APA presidential election. The science community typically has had a very well coordinated election campaign in recent years. They had an informed electorate who participated in the election. It is no surprise, therefore, that they have won several recent Presidential elections. To be successful and to ensure that the issues that are so important to our survival and success are addressed fully, we need to do two things. First, every SPTA member who is a member of APA must vote in this next election. I can assure you, every single vote counts! Second, we must each understand the election system used by APA and make it work for us.

APA uses the HARE system in the presidential election. Each voter receives a ballot with the five candidates for APA president-elect listed. Voters must rank order each candidate, that is, place a 1 next to your first choice, a 2 next to your second choice, and so on until all candidates have been ranked. In some of the elections in the past the States’ candidates would have won the presidential election if all State voters had done this. But, because many only ranked their top choice or top two choices, these candidates lost out on many possible votes. The way the HARE system works is that first the candidates receives all their number 1 votes. Then, based on each candidate’s number of votes, the 2 votes are apportioned to candidates, followed by the 3 votes, 4, votes, and 5 votes. If a States’ candidate receives the most votes in the first round, she or he may still lose if not receiving a lot of 2 and 3 votes. They all count! We must use this system and make it work for us. Doing so can win an election for us.

So what does this mean to you when you participate in this election? You must give your first three votes to the three States’ candidates running in the APA presidential election. Just giving our top candidate your #1 vote isn’t enough. It is important that the non-
State candidates not be ranked number 2 or 3. If they receive these rankings on the ballot it will divide the State vote and provide more support to their competitors.

This year there are five candidates running in the APA presidential election. All five candidates were contacted and asked to complete the same six questions. Of the five offered the opportunity reply, the following three candidates responded: Ronald Rozensky, Melba Vasquez, and Robert “Bob” Woody. All of the candidate statements are posted below for you to see.

Of the candidates that responded, the Division 31 board considered the candidates based on their knowledge of and support of SPTA needs and issues. The Division 31 board chose to endorse Melba Vasquez and Ronald Rozensky equally and encourages you to rank them in the #1 and #2 spots in the order of your preference and then rank the remaining candidates in slots #3, #4 and #5 according to your preference.

Please don’t dilute your State vote and reduce the likelihood of our top candidates. It is crucial that you vote and rank all five candidates as mentioned above. Each one must be ranked. The outcome of this election will have a profound impact on each of us for years to come.

Please vote for the States’ candidates in the order they are endorsed. Please rank them #1 and #2, according to your preference on your election ballot. Then, be sure to rank the other candidates #3, #4 and #5, also according to your preference. Every single vote is important and really can make a difference. Melba and Ronald are knowledgeable, experienced, and effective leaders who are state advocates. Let’s not miss out on this important opportunity!

Should you have any questions about any of these issues and if you would like to help further SPTA interests within APA please contact me at drjbarnett1@verizon.net

Acknowledgements: Special thanks are extended to Drs. Ruth Paige and Dorothy Cantor for their helpful feedback and suggestions on an earlier version of this article. Thanks are also extended to Garnett Coad, of the APA election office, for providing the election data quoted in this article.

Candidate Statements

Ronald H. Rozensky, Ph.D., ABPP

Division 31: Question #1. Describe your activities on the national level which have strengthened or benefited SPTAs.

I was appointed by the US Secretary of Health and Human Services as a member of HRSA’s Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary Community Based Services in the Bureau of Health Professions. I now serve as Chair Elect of that committee. My responsibilities include assuring the Committee’s annual report to Congress and the Secretary recognizes funding for healthcare services provided by psychologists and the importance of education and training funding for psychology’s next generation. For the last six months I have been actively and directly involved in the actual writing of healthcare reform recommendations in my role as Chair-Elect. In concert with three other advisory groups within the Bureau (Medicine, Nursing, Dentistry), we have just completed a letter to the Secretary of HHS and the Congress detailing recommendations for the funding of, and clinical services within, healthcare reform; herein is the future of practice. These recommendations focus on the importance of interdisciplinary healthcare, its quality and efficiency, and they clearly identify the role of all health professions, including psychology, as key to a meaningful, “reformed,” and integrated system highlighting the importance of all healthcare providers working together for the benefit of patient care. As one of eight co-signers of that letter, I believe I have represented psychology well in both our roles as strong members of the healthcare team and as an independent discipline providing patient care to the fullest extent of our license and scope of practice. My evolving leadership role in the Bureau of Health Professions further reinforces psychology’s voice in the future of healthcare as details of healthcare reform are worked out. This will help strengthen the long term role of psychologists and, in turn, enhances the mission of SPTAs and will bring members to our associations as the more and more realize that organized advocacy, with a strong voice for psychology, will help build our future.
I have been a longtime advocate for SPTA issues within APA; twice elected as Division 31’s Representative to APA’s Council of Representatives and once as Illinois’ Representative to APA Council, before being elected to APA’s Board of Directors. In those roles I have supported the issues key to STPA’s as your voice on Council.
As past President of the Illinois Psychological Association (IPA), one of the activities I focused on was working with then APA’s CEO Dr. Raymond Fowler to help initiate a national, model program to increase SPTA membership by attracting academic psychologists to SPTAs.
I followed that up by presenting an APA convention workshop, co-sponsored by Division 31 and Psi Chi, for undergraduate faculty, on advocacy for SPTA issues, encouraging inclusion of “advocacy for psychology” within undergraduate psychology curricula and working to engage a potential new cadre of SPTA members and an expanded grassroots advocacy workforce at the state level.
I have focused on hospital practice advocacy at State and National level:

I was APA’s appointed representative to JCAHO, successfully advocating for our inclusion as team leaders in accredited facilities;
I was an invited speaker, State Leadership Conference, co-presented workshop, with Dr. Russ Newman, on advocacy for, and “how to” engage in hospital practice,
I testified for hospital practice in the Illinois Senate.
I received APA’s Heiser Presidential Award for Advocacy for these hospital practice efforts.

As chair of APA’s Board of Professional Affairs, we focused on promulgating practice guidelines educating practitioners but not restricting practice. This helps build practice capacity thus enhancing the possible increase in new members.
I have been a regular participant at APA’s State Leadership Conference; advocated on Capitol Hill for numerous SPTA-practice issues. I was Chair of the Board of Educational Affairs when we founded the Education Advocacy Trust which brought an entire new group of advocates for psychology to the Hill.
I have presented day long workshop in Hawaii on advocacy for psychology thus encouraged additional, state-focused growth in our grassroots network.

Division 31: Question #2. What do you perceive as being the issues of greatest concern to SPTA associations and to their memberships?

Key issues for SPTAs include:

Recognition of psychological services within healthcare reform including equitable reimbursement for our services;
Improved healthcare reimbursement rates in general;
Mental health parity legislation and its meaningful implementation for the day-to-day practice of psychology;
License mobility;
A balance between a national (APA) model licensing act that defines expectations of quality education and training, core competencies, a the sequence of training leading to practice and the autonomy of local governments to set their licensing standards;
SPTA membership growth;
Fair, equitable SPTA representation on APA’s Council and within governance;
Balancing resources needed to accomplish our local-SPTA legislative agendas while supporting national advocacy agenda like prescriptive authority.

Division 31: Question #3. If elected to the APA Presidency, what would you do to address these issues?

I have always represented STPA interests on APA Council as Division 31’s and Illinois’ representatives and, as APA President, I will advocate for those issues key to the growth and wellbeing of SPTAs and our members.
I would listen closely to SPTA Presidents, elected SPTA leaders, Executive Directors, and members to hear the most current issues and concerns and integrate those into my presidential year.
Having a successful, former SPTA president as your APA president will help keep the focus on SPTA concerns. I will continue to press Council to adequately address SPTA membership on Council;
Successfully moving forward the SPTA and APA agenda and achieving the goals I established for my presidency < www.rozenskyforapapresident.com/presgoals.htm > involves building cross-constituency coalitions and consensus so that psychologists support each other to build the strongest future for all – this will continue to bring members to SPTAs.
I would ask that the APA Membership Board work with SPTA representatives to look for ways to enhance membership of both the APA and SPTAs in a time when members’ dues dollars are limited.

Division 31: Question #4. Have you ever been a member of your SPTA? If so, when? If not, why not?

I have been a member of both the Illinois Psychological Association and the Florida Psychological Association.

Division 31: How long have you been a member and what offices have you held in your SPTA?

Member of Illinois Psychological Association since 1977 and joined the Florida Psychological Association in 1998 when I relocated there; continued my IPA membership.
In Illinois: IPA President, State Disaster Relief Network coordinator; APA Council Representative from Illinois; various committee chair positions in Illinois.

Division 31: Question #6. Describe your activities and accomplishments at the state, provincial or territorial level which have strengthened SPTAs.

Initiated the first SPTA–Red Cross training-service relationship following a 1990 tornado in Illinois – this served as a model for the national relationship between APA and the Red Cross;
Initiated a rewrite of Illinois’ bylaws when I was President to assure the association was current with state and federal laws;
Served as IPA’s acting executive director during my presidency while we recruited a new executive director;
Initiated a strategic plan for IPA still viable after ten+ years and is the core of ongoing revisions of the IPA strategic plan; I have been informed that other associations have used this plan as a model.
Worked with members while President to help them establish the Association’s Section on LGBT Issues;
Named Illinois Distinguished Psychologist for my contributions to the IPA;
Awarded the APA Heiser Presidential Award for Advocacy recognizing my hospital practice advocacy activities.

Melba Vasquez, PhD, ABPP

Division 31 Question#1: Describe your activities on the national level which have strengthened or benefited SPTAs.

I have been involved in various activities on the national level that I believe have strengthened on benefited SPTAs including:

Attendance at numerous State Leadership Conferences in numerous roles as participant and as presenter;
Served as Chair of the Task Force on Council Representation to try to ensure that SPTAs were fairly represented, given the structure of the apportionment system;
Promoted fairness in membership dues, either through dual membership discounts in APA/SPTA or the discontinuation of discounts to others to promote fairness;
Supported full funding for the February Council of Representatives meeting expenses, knowing that many SPTAs experienced significant hardship to send a representative;
Delivered numerous Continuing Education workshops to SPTAs over the years, and am scheduled to provide several more in the next few months.
Published various books, chapters, and journal articles related to the practice of psychology, including How to Survive and Thrive as a Therapist: Information, Ideas and Resourcs for Psychologists in Practice (2005, with Ken Pope) and Ethics and Psychotherapy and Counseling: A Practical Guide (2007, 3rd ed., also with Ken Pope).

Division 31 Question #2: What do you perceive as being the issues of greatest concern to SPTA associations and to their memberships?

Issues of greatest concern include:

Membership recruitment and retention – most SPTAs struggle to retain membership despite the fact that they do more than ever to promote the profession and discipline of psychology for psychologists. Economic challenges for psychologists and failure to fully appreciate the benefits are partly reasons for these struggles.
Legislative issues: Challenges from subdoctoral groups at the state legislative level to obtain the title and independent practice of psychology; the goal to pass prescriptive authority legislation; attending to other legislative issues, e.g. specific laws and regulations affecting practice are constantly introduced; and resources to deal with those that SPTAs need to support vs. defeat are critical.
Helping members prosper

Division 31 Question #3: If elected to the APA Presidency, what would you do to address these issues?

At both the state and national level, psychology must be re-branded in order to help the public understand psychology and how it helps, both individuals as well as with society’s social problems and “grand challenges.” We must reclaim disaffected and demoralized psychologists by showing them that we are building a better public image, and that we are applying many of our relevant services for them. Structuring activities for special diverse groups (racial/ethnic minority, LGBT, older adults, etc.) can help provide a “home” for those with professional and research interests to gather. Harnessing the creativity and energy of students and Early Career Professionals in particular is an excellent strategy.

We must promote a strong legislative advocacy program at the state and national levels to pass prescriptive authority, to preserve the doctoral standard for the title of psychologist and for the independent practice of psychology, to ensure inclusion mental health parity, and appropriate reimbursement rates in health care reform. This particular set of strategies can be partly supported through our Practice Organization, with its 501c(6) organization.
We can help our members prosper by implementing many of the recommendations from the 2009 Practice Summit, including generating additional resources for practitioners and the profession, e.g., expanding applications of psychology in the healthcare arena, collaboration with primary care providers and new business opportunities including with the use of new technologies. We may wish to develop training experiences and consultations for SPTAs in order to help members understand and implement strategies to ensure the future of their psychology practices. Providing these models and strategies at State Leadership Conference, APA and SPTA conventions as well as through our enhanced website are possible methods to accomplish this.

Division 31 Question #4: Have you ever been a member of your SPTA? If so, when? If not, why not?

Yes, I have been a member of the Texas Psychological Association since 1983 to the present.

Division 31 Question #5: How long have you been a member and what offices have you held in your SPTA

I have very much enjoyed my various roles in TPA. The following are offices that I have held:

President-Elect Designate, 2004; President-Elect, 2005; President, 2006; Past-President, 2007
Board Member, 1999-2000 ex-officio member, 2001-2004
Board Member, Texas Psychological Foundation (1991-2005) Founder, Manuel Ramirez III Ethnic Minority Fund
Founder & Chair, Special Interest Group, Women in Psychology, 2000-2003; member to the present.
Co-chair, Special Interest Group, Diversity in Psychology, 2001-2004; member to the present.
Executive Committee, Public Affairs Officer (1998-1999)
Program Co-Chair, 1988 Convention
Chair, Ad Hoc Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs (1985 - 1989)

Division 31 Question #6: Describe your activities and accomplishments at the state, provincial or territorial level which have strengthened SPTAs.

The state’s 12 year Sunset Review of its licensing laws and board occurred during my tenure as president, so I engaged in significant advocacy activities at the state capitol. We were successful, and three of us were nominated for and received the APA Karl F. Heiser Presidential Award for Advocacy in August, 2007.

I have supported and been a member of the RxP Special Interest Group/Division to obtain Prescription Privileges in our state.

I have also presented numerous presentations, workshops and keynote addresses at TPA conventions over the years.

I am a member of Division 31, and have been approved to have Fellow status effective in 2010.

Also during my presidential year, I also invited the establishment of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Special Interest Group, which is now quite active, as well as the establishment of a Social Justice Task Force, now a Special Interest Group, chaired by a TPA past president, and which publishes regular articles in the TPA newsletter. This brought in members who had not been particularly interested in TPA.

Other TPA awards include:
Psychologist of the Year, Texas Psychological Association, November, 2003.
Outstanding Contribution to Public Service Award, Texas Psychological Association, 1999.

I ask for your #1 divisional endorsement and your #1 vote. Thank you very much for your consideration. Please visit my website for more information at www.melbavasquezforapapresident.com

Robert “Bob” Woody, PhD, ScD, JD, ABPP (Clinical and Forensic)

Division 31 Question #1: Describe your activities on the national level which have strengthened or benefited SPTAs.

For nearly thirty years, I have done seminars around the USA and Canada to contribute to the professional development of psychologists. The SPTAs or APA often sponsored the seminars (a partial list is under the Seminars” button on my website: www.BobWoodyHelpsPsychology.com).

In 1985, I initiated a regular “Psycholegal Notebook” column for the Florida Psychologist (FP), published by the Florida Psychological Association (FPA), and have since had an article in virtually every issue of the FP. I was gratified when other SPTAs wanted to reprint the articles. Over the years, my articles have now appeared in numerous SPTA newsletters. I routinely notify the Executive Directors (EDs) of a newly available article, and post the article(s) under the News and Articles button on my aforementioned website for easy access.

Division 31 Question #2: What do you perceive as being the issues of greatest concern to SPTA associations and to their memberships?

Being committed to systems theory, I believe that APA is dependent on the “health” of SPTAs and vice versa. There should be collaboration in developing and maintaining a positive network of communications and resources. The following are the major issues that I see.

A. SPTAs need to convey persuasive messages to psychologists of every ilk to affiliate with SPTAs. I have been concerned about the viewpoint held by some SPTA members that an association should be solely or primarily reserved for clinical practitioners. Certainly clinical practitioners should receive advocacy, but I believe there is a strong rationale for uniting academic and practicing psychologists. For example, I have talked with a number of professors of psychology with exceptionally fine credentials who would like to affiliate with their relevant SPTA, but are not eligible for full voting membership (and, thus, do not join). Likewise, I believe that the SPTAs could recognize the related contributions that school and industrial-organizational psychologists can offer to SPTAs, although there may or may not be formal affiliations.

B. SPTAs need to support societal interests as well as financial stability for practitioners. This seems to be an era in which third-party payment sources are able to impose extensive control on psychological services, including fixing fees and sidestepping legally based parity among mental health providers. For example, establishing “customary” fees without regard to the practitioner’s specific competency is illogical.

C. SPTAs need to better educate consumers about the unique benefits that will be gained from psychologists and their services. The SPTA can develop appropriate messages for the public that explain distinctions between the services of the various mental health disciplines and allow service users to make informed choices when deciding on a provider.

D. SPTAs should have a major commitment to legislative advocacy, including (but not limited to) monitoring the licensing process. They should play a role in trying to “balance the playing field” in licensing complaint cases, which sometimes involve unjust regulatory practices. For example, about six or seven years ago, I drafted a state statute that granted limited immunity to court-appointed child custody evaluators; it was adopted by the legislature and became law (Florida Statute 61.122). In the passing years, the statute has become firmly established. Nonetheless, to this day, the prosecution service unit investigates complaints against court-appointed custody-related psychologists made by a complainant who did not adhere to the statutory requirements. SPTAs have an important function in monitoring whether licensing complaints are handled fairly and in accord with legal and regulatory standards. [Much of my work as an attorney is defending psychologists facing licensing complaints, which I have done in a several states.]

Division 31 Question #3: If elected to the APA Presidency, what would you do to address these issues?

Certainly the bond between APA and SPTAs should be strong. I would encourage APA to emphasize helping psychologists identify their uniqueness, such as acquiring knowledge of behavior science research and making adaptations for their daily professional activities.

I would ask APA to launch a public information program designed to improve understanding of the research-based strengths of psychology and the high standards maintained in the education and training of psychologists, as well as the continuing education that occurs. Ancillary to this initiative, I would work with SPTAs in following up on these issues at the state level.

I would address the problem of licensed psychologists who do not choose to be an SPTA member, such as explaining the benefits that they will receive from SPTA membership. Also, I would seek to provide a logical rationale for SPTA membership (including for well-qualified psychology professors and potentially other qualified psychologists). I would encourage every SPTA to aggressively “market” the importance of membership. [See my article “Becoming a Leader in a Psychological Association” under the News and Articles button on www.BobWoodyHelpsPsychology.com, which has appeared in numerous SPTA publications.]

I strongly oppose diluting training standards in order to open the door to more members. I am gravely concerned about questionable qualities in certain free standing and online training programs, regardless of APA accreditation. I believe that SPTAs should be addressing this matter, and would encourage ideas based on what is being experienced and how modifications in the APA accreditation program can remedy the situation.

Although it must be done tactfully, there needs to be better public awareness of the proliferation of unaccredited “degrees” being “bought” by some mental health practitioners (primarily nonpsychologists). That is, some legitimately licensed mental health practitioners are nefariously enhancing their marketability by using bogus credentials (I have published numerous articles on this topics and have been working personally with Florida DOH administrators of mental health licensing to eliminate the problem). Obviously bogus or vanity credentials jeopardizes the public and detracts from the distinct benefits that would otherwise by provided by psychologists.

My advocacy of improvement of the regulatory system (e.g., relevant to licensing complaints) is well established. The DOH prosecuting attorneys with whom I work would, I believe, report that I am collegial, persuasive, and professional in opposing any nuance of unfairness. I hope that SPTAs will adopt the same strategy, namely attempting to reign in unfairness and bias, yet safeguarding the public and the rights of licensed psychologists.

Division 31 Question #4: Have you ever been a member of your SPTA? If so, when? If not, why not?

As discussed in the next section, I have been a long-standing member of the FPA. I am committed to demonstrating support for our FPA Executive Director and FPA Board of Directors. I would encourage anyone to verify my contributions with the FPA Executive Director, past or present.

Division 31 Question #5: How long have you been a member and what offices have you held in your SPTA?

Because of my involvement in professional development, my affiliation with FPA began in 1984. The following is a summary of my activities (note that my work at the national-level with APA was a result of my work with FPA):

American Psychological Association: Florida Representative to the Council of Representatives, 2002-2007; Member of the Board of Directors and Treasurer, Division 12 (Society for Clinical Psychology) (2000-2002); Member of the APA Ethics Committee, 1997-99; Member of the Division 17 (Counseling Psychology) Awards Committee, 2005-2008; and Member of various committees in Division 16 (School Psychology) and Division 17 (Counseling Psychology), 1969-Present.

Florida Psychological Association: President Elect, 2000; President, 2001; Past President, 2002, Board of Directors 2000-2008; Education Committee, 2001-2011 (Chair, 2006-2011); Elections and Awards Committee, 2002; President, Division of Forensic Psychology, 2002-2005; Author of the Psycholegal Notebook, 1985-Present.

Division 31 Question #6: Describe your activities and accomplishments at the state, provincial or territorial level which have strengthened SPTAs.

I believe any FPA Executive Director, past or present, would attest to my contribution at the organizational level--assisting them to be more effective, fostering professional development of the membership, and addressing governmental and legislative issues in a professional manner.

I am especially pleased with the feedback from numerous SPTA sources about the usefulness of the articles that I have written, mainly on ethics and law, that I have provided on a gratis basis to SPTAs. I hope that I have been and I can continue to be a positive force for improving psychology for the benefit of society, SPTAs, and individual psychologists.