Dan Mangan wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 12:01pm:



Ah,,,,,, Dan there are times you can be a wee too aggressive to the situation.  This usually only happens when elections come around.   

It's one thing when you are fighting a personal war.  After all, if someone chooses to make things personal, then "Jacta ales est"

But this is an election, you got really mean last time, and I think that hurt you.  Keep it to the facts and the issues.  Knock off the "apologist" talk.  Tell people why you are a better candidate, and how you will change things for the positive.  Stop harping on what is wrong and point out some things that are right, but you can make better.

Now, having said that, and in the interest of fairness, let me take a step as a totally independent party.  I am not a member of the APA and therefore have no dog in the fight.  I like and respect you, Pat, and Don.   

You know I would be asking them tough questions also.

Could you please answer the 100% accuracy question.  Just keep it to the facts.   

Sorry man, but someone has to be the guy to ask the tough and uncomfortable questions.  Let's all be fair and keep it relatively clean.

Dan, you have to be fair here.  Though I don't like that this pailryder guy chooses to hide behind a screen name, he asks a relevant and reasonable question.

It's unfair to ask for a debate and not answer fair questions.  You know for a fact I would be just as hard on them.   

I will say that keeping it to a yes or no is unreasonable.   

Yes or no, then explain.  This is fair Dan.  Seriously man, people are watching.  Time to shine

Good point GM.  SO Behavioral Measures and TAPE just thought that they would get away with it if their guy got caught.  So, they were either stupid and didn't think they would get caught; or they were arrogant in thinking they would get away with it.

As it turns out, Judge Evans of the 48th District Court in Tarrant County Texas let them get away with it.  So much for "justice for all" huh Dave?

But the truth is out there.  Behavioral Measures and The Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners condones the racist, sexist, and terroristic threats sent to me by a Member that was sitting in the TAPE Board of Directors and a managing employee of Behavioral Measures.  They do this though their silence, lack of condemnation, and lack of taking responsibility for their attachment.   

This is irrefutable and indisputable 

Here is a good question.

What is your position on examiners engaging and getting caught in acts like listed above; should they apologize and take full responsibility for their actions?

Should polygraphs be used in Ethics Investigations when such a test can clearly settle the issue, as written in AAPP and Arizona Polygraph Association bylaws?

Lastly

DO you think that a State Association should be held accountable and responsible if it is found that they have intentionally, willfully, and with malice, ignored or flagrantly disobeyed their own bylaws to achieve a personal vendetta; and what should be done to punish those involved with the unethical activity if they are APA members to protect the integrity of the APA?

cue crickets

Oh and no "jurisdiction" cop outs.  I am asking what you feel should be done about these issues, and the unethical people that ARE members of the APA

Dan Mangan wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 4:56pm:


ugh, so sick of the confederate flag thing.  that is a freedom of speech issue.  I don't like what it stands for, but a lot of people don't like what the original Irish Flag stood for either.   

It's acts that make one racist, not a flag.   

As we say in Boston, "irregardless,"  my question was not about flags.  My question was about real acts that were taken by an Officer of TAPE and TAPE's efforts to avoid taking responsibility for those actions or even taking notice of them through condemnation and regret.

Ah we know the story and I have proven who the guilty parties are, hands down.  Everyone who acted unethically in this situation, including the sitting TAPE president, vice president, and secretary; all also members of the APA and Maria a sitting member of the APA membership committee (according to her website).  Guess we all know what my dances would be of APA membership if my app had to pass her corrupt and unethical eyes.

Should the APA step in to correct the unethical actions of its members and condemn TAPE for not following it's own bylaws, engaging in an unethical ethics committee investigation in which such a committee lied and made material misstatements of fact, obtaining a resignation of membership without affording the accused the due process afforded the accused laid out in Bylaws, or worse,  Sitting president of TAPE 2009 Stuart Ervin obtaining the resignation through an act of fraud, as John Rios, Jack St. John, and Michale Chimeras indicated to when they say that no vote of the Board of Directors occurred.

Do these acts, by APA members, reflect poorly on the APA, and as such, should something be done to protect the APA's integrity?  Um, other than punishing the whistle blower

Should the APA, condemn the clearly racist, sexist, and threatening emails?  Should the APA condemn the coverups that TAPE and Behavioral Measures engaged in?
Should the APA at least say something that condemns actions taken by it's members that call the integrity of the polygraph community into question?

I have an idea, and lets keep this simple with one issue at a time.  Dan, you are still on the hook for the 100% accuracy rate thing.

anyway

To either candidate or even to Mr. Nelson. 

Should polygraph examiners be held to the test they sell under the following proposed bylaw?

If so, how would a bylaw like this be so objectionable? 

If the bylaw is objectionable, why does the Arizona Polygraph Association have it in their bylaws and why does the AAPP have a similar bylaw?


2. Should the Ethics Committee deem a polygraph test necessary in an investigation of injurious conduct, the following shall be adhered to:

a. If the Ethics Committee’s investigation of injurious conduct of a member indicates a polygraph examination of that member is desirable to refute or substantiate those injurious conduct charges..the Committee will appoint three (3) member polygraph examiners to conduct that polygraph examination. Those member examiners will conduct that polygraph examination at the direction of the Chairman of the Ethics Committee and submit their reports of the outcome and / or opinion of the truthfulness of the member subject in writing to the Chairman.

b. Should injurious conduct charges be made against a member by another member and the Ethics Committee deems it desirable to have those charges substantiated, they will appoint three (3) member examiners to conduct a polygraph examination on the member making the charges and report the results of the examination in writing to the Chairman.

c. Should the Ethics Committee deem a polygraph examination desirable on the accused or the accuser. the Committee must have the approval of 3/4 of the quorum of the elected members before the polygraph examination is conducted. The President would then Call a special meeting of the elected members for this purpose.

d. Members appointed by the Ethics Committed Chairman to conduct polygraph examinations on members regarding injurious conduct charges will serve without remuneration.

e. Should a member refuse to submit to a polygraph examination under any of the aforementioned terms. that member will be subject to termination of membership.

I have to be honest, I have a hard time with people selling and making money of a product that they won't use themselves in the same or similar situations.  This is problematic for me.

It's an integrity issue

Dan even in that study, it seems crazy that we wouldn't use our own test.

Quote:


Why would someone not dig those odds? 

I have to admit I am having a hard time with the numbers man.  100% accuracy with a 2% inconclusive rate?   ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh I don't know, sounds too good to be true with all due respect.

Regardless, even with the APA study of 89 to 93%, I like those odds too.  

If you're not willing to drink the koolaid, don't serve it up to anyone.  To do otherwise is unethical, in my opinion.  This is why when all this started, I thought polygraph was the way to solve the controversy once and for all.  I found it hard to believe that we were an industry that didn't believe in its own product.  

Like I said, it's an integrity issue.  

So, what you and the rest of the polygraph industry is saying, is that I am an idiot for believing in the product I use to determine peoples future?  

Ray, here is a good time to weigh in.  Is polygraph accurate and reliable enough to sell honestly to the American Public?  If so, why isn't it good enough to solve issues within our own industry?

If polygraph is not as accurate and reliable to sell hostly to the American Public, who are we allowed to sell it with the sales pitch we have been using in regard to accuracy and reliability?  

If it is accurate and reliable enough to honestly sell, how can we do so while insisting that examiners are above the test we sell with any kind of credibility?

It's time for some clear answers that does not dodge or dance around the subject.

If the test is good, why is it not good enough or us?

If the test is not as good as we all say it is 89% to this 100% accuracy I just read about, why are the people at the top of the polygraph food chain feeding us studies that lead us to commit a fraud on our customers every day.

Let's get everyone on the record.  Does the APA stand by it's studies?  Dan, why does it seem you are not standing by the study you were involved with?