posted 02-12-2009 10:09 PM            

For those of you who are members of APA, it is our organization and our responsibility to make sure APA is best serving the polygraph community. For those of you who are not members, I am always curious to know, why not?

My background is in law enforcement. It was in our culture that we could not express a complaint without offering a solution or being willing to help fix the problem. PolygraphPlace forums seem to be a great place to fix problems and come up with solutions. Because I do not expect APA to have all the answers, and since APA is really a sum of its members, I ask that if a problem is presented that a possible solution also be offered.

I pose some questions I have heard:
Are all members equally valued? Do we hold them equally accountable?
Are we taking full advantage of the most current technology and resources?
Are we a principled based organization or do we allow other factors to determine our direction?
Is APA meeting the needs of the entire membership or only a select few?
What do members expect of APA?

One concern many heard regarding APA is how many members felt excluded or ignored. Don Krapohl, and all, heard these complaints and pushed for Universal voting. Universal voting gave every member the opportunity to vote for new board members. Since then, the number of voting members has never been higher. Unfortunately, Universal voting solved only half of the problem of inclusion in our electoral process. I am working on a proposed by-law change that would allow members equal opportunity to be a candidate for an APA board position. Currently, we have a Fair Election Committee (FEC) that decides the future of APA. We have two ways a candidate can get their name on the ballot. A candidate can acquire 25 signatures from APA members (not electronic or faxed) and have their name placed on the ballot. For those examiners who live in isolated areas, this would cost money through postage or travel. And if you are serving in Iraq, good luck getting those signatures. I do not believe an examiner should have to pay out of pocket expenses to be a candidate for APA. The second way to get your name on the ballot is to ‘throw your name in the ring’ and hope the FEC picks you. There are no public guidelines for how the FEC ranks or chooses the top two candidates. And their deliberations are secret. We gave the FEC the authority to prescreen for our members and choose two candidates out of all those who threw their name in the ring.

At the encouragement of several board members, I put my name in the ring for a board position along with one other candidate. I was notified by the FEC that my name would not appear on the ballot. Because the decisions and deliberations of the FEC are confidential, I do not know the true reason why the FEC excluded me from the ballot. My platform was one of new ideas, new leadership and total inclusion. I protested the FEC’s decision since it violated APA by-laws and FEC’s operating procedures. After two weeks, I was notified that I won my protest. The attorney along with the Board decided that my name along with the other candidates would be placed on the ballot. I tell you this because I do not want any other member to go through what I had to go through. Our Constitution allows any member in good standing to hold a board position. I believe that should also allow for any member in good standing to be a candidate. Let the members decide who they want. As I stated earlier, I am working on proposed new language for our by-laws so our process includes any member in good standing without entailing a cost to be a candidate. Total inclusion! I will be posting proposed new language to get help and feedback. I know there are other ways we can make everyone feel included in the organization.

I believe APA is capable of being a better organization for the polygraph community. Who is willing to evaluate and make it better?

posted 02-13-2009 09:09 AM            

It's important to state the facts here as this is a big issue. The FEC didn't - that's DID NOT - violate the bylaws when they opted not to put your name on the ballot for president elect. They picked two as they were charged to do. (There is a discrepancy in the SOPs and the bylaws, but the bylaws prevail.) (Yes, the FEC's discussions are secret, but we know its charge: select the most qualified.)

Because there is arguably some ambiguity in the language, the BOD decided to put your name on the ballot so that the membership as a whole could make a decision. Now, if you were to win, the second place candidate could make the same argument you did (arguing the FEC didn't violate the bylaws so you're name shouldn't have appeared...), which could be problematic.

The BOD, in the interest of fairness and after being told that adding your name also would not be a violation of the bylaws, made the change. In other words, fairness took precedent over the BOD's fiduciary duty (as without a majority of the votes, this could get expensive for the APA). Because the FEC didn't violate the bylaws, and because the BOD had already discussed this at the January meeting, I voted against the change.

posted 02-14-2009 12:44 AM            

quote:

---

I pose some questions I have heard:

---

Not sure if these are rhetorical questions, or if you actually want a dialog.

quote:

---

Are all members equally valued?

---

Probably, but not always.

For example: not all of the people who volunteered to serve on the PCSOT committee had the opportunity to do so – despite their invaluable cross-training in psychology, psychometric testing/psychodiagnostic, polygraph, PCSOT, sex offender treatment, victim treatment, research and policy development experience.

OK. There is always room for growth.

quote:

---

Do we hold them equally accountable?

---

Probably. There is an obvious attempt at fairness in your case.

There is, of course, always room for growth.

quote:

---

Are we taking full advantage of the most current technology and resources?

---

Probably not.

We are probably also not taking full advantages of all of the advances in technology available to field examiners.

There is always room for growth here too.

quote:

---

Are we a principled based organization or do we allow other factors to determine our direction?

---

By other factors, do you mean egos, personalities, turf-contests, marketing, and other forms competitiveness that serve the needs of individuals and not the organization?

Do we endorse the pet ideas of individuals as if they are science? Or do we stick to the science even if it is uncomfortable?

Do we find an impulse to make decisions about scientific things based only the strength of a person's charisma?

Do we pretend to know more than we actually know?

Do we restrict the opportunity for involvement from persons who speak and think independently, or disagree with the momentum of unproven and unstudied ideas masquerading as scientific fact.

Clearly, there is room for growth here.

quote:

---

Is APA meeting the needs of the entire membership or only a select few?

---

Mostly. Yet there is room for...

wait for it...

. . .

growth.

quote:

---

What do members expect of APA?

---

I expect an organization that is more interest in science that gratifying the whims of a few individuals.

I expect an organization that fosters a spirit of inquisitiveness and competitiveness that will lead to growth and innovation, and doesn't lock itself into arcane ideas and silly .

I expect an organization that is interested in benefiting from the knowledge, skills and expertise of all of its membership – not just those who acquiesce or agree with one side or another

I expect an organization that is committed to science, and in improving its credibility with other sciences. This is sometimes as simple as learning, using, and recognizing accurate scientific vocabulary that pertains to polygraph testing – and, of course, not making up our own idiosyncratic polybabble when vocabulary and established constructs already exist.

I expect an organization that appreciates its own limitations, and doesn't give itself permission to pretend knowledge, certainty, or authority where it does not exist – because that will increase our vulnerability to informed critics. And our critics are sometimes not un-informed.

I expect an organization that is committed to advancing the state of it's science – the heart and soul of it all – even if that means outgrowing solutions and conceptual models that were satisfactory 10 or 15 years ago.

I expect an organization that can appreciate the value of dialog and discussion that sometimes includes disagreement – that doesn't attempt to brand disagreement as disloyalty like so many dysfunctional families would do.

I expect an organization that appreciates the dangers of dogma. There was a time, not so long ago, in which the experts were correct when they said “all swans are white” - when to suggest that some are not white would go against established ideas (guess what happened). These days we'd say “probably all swans are white” or “most swans are probably white.” Sure it drives the simple-minded and concrete thinkers batty – but its fun, and we all need cheap entertainment these days.

I expect an organization that asks for service from its membership, in the form of leadership and other work, that is devoid of marketing attempts that serve the business interests of those in leadership positions – an organization that appreciates the important differences between training and marketing.

I expect an organization that appreciates the long-term dangers of an over-centralized and entrenched power structure within its leadership – that an over-centralized authority in any professional domain serves only those few individuals and not the greater membership of the organization.

It's no secret by now that I have been unimpressed some of the work of the PCSOT committee. It is also no secret that I find some of the PCSOT committee's work and solutions to be valuable and on track. Is that inconsistent. No. I believe the PCSOT committee to have effected some good solutions to some problems, while endorsing unproven and unwise ideas in response to other concerns. It is inconsistent only to those who expect loyalty in the form of unquestioning obedience – who cannot tolerate differences and disagreement. It is consistent in that I state the facts as I see 'em and state my opinion without blowing smoke or sunshine about the matter.

Having felt, for the last year, something less than “total inclusion” in PCSOT discussions and the PCSOT committee, I will point out the some deficits in professional culture may exist at the micro (committee) level, in addition to possible problems at the macro (association) level.

“Total inclusion” is a most valuable principle, and it is sometimes tempting to talk about inclusion without actually doing it. “Total inclusion” sometimes includes the need to hear differing perspectives, differing experiences, differing opinions, and differing conclusions. The value of this is that is makes of better in the end. For example: in a non-inclusive process we might delude ourselves or mislead others my emphasizing the unanimity of consensus of those who were “included.” In a “total inclusion” process we might actually invite people with different ideas to attack our ideas a vigorously as they would be attacked by an intelligent and educated opponent. Science is sometimes brutal – it's not supposed to be about feelings, but the merits of the ideas. An idea that is not subject to critical review is probably not prepared to withstand criticism in real-life field settings.

I have always liked the notion of not expressing a complaint without also offering a solution – it kind of fits with the things I've been working on. In that spirit, I even responded to evbans' challenge, as you know, to provide and disseminate an independent example of a PCSOT Model Policy.

That alternate Model Policy can be viewed here.
http://www.pcsot.info/model_policy/PCSOT_MODEL_POLICY_alternate_1-11-09.html

r

posted 02-14-2009 09:13 AM            

I personally like, trust and respect the majority of our board and want to believe they as a whole worked ethically within the confines of their written limitations. I too am one who ascribes to the notion of don't "bitch and run". I have tried hard to offer positive alternatives when I disagree or find fault with something stated or written.

It seems our current APA BOD apparently took the higher road themselves and made a positive correction. While they do not need me to defend them, I felt personally compelled to do so. If our organization is to continue to gain the respect of other professionals in the related social science disciplines, we need to move forward in a manner that garners such a respect. Anyone present for Krapohl's election speeches would have seen this concept epitomized. He offered real suggestions, not vague innuendos. He never attacked his opponent personally but rather specifically pointed to his personal attributes that he felt made him a good choice. He never complained about the sitting BOD, he simply promised to work with them to provide the best service he could to the membership.

I personally thank our BOD for having the courage and wisdom to make the decisions they make. I encourage them to continue to do so, in spite of the potential to disappoint a few in number. I hope all who read this will thank each BOD member the next time they see them for having the guts to make difficult decisions.

posted 02-14-2009 01:27 PM            

My perspective is as a private examiner. I have been a member of APA for more than 25 years, and I can say without hesitation that the state of the APA today is the best it has been since I joined.

I cannot disagree that in the past much of what you say was true. I once wrote an APA president about universal voting and got a rude "love it or leave it" reply for my trouble. When I offered to serve on a committee, I never even received a reply.

posted 02-18-2009 08:10 AM            

Thanks for your kind words and input regarding your recent posts. As a board member for nearly 10 years I appreciate the support that you have shown. As you mentioned there are a lot of things that happen which doesn't make everyone happy but we try to conduct business in the best interest of the entire organization and not just a few.

WJ- I know how you feel about volunteering to serve on committees and not hearing back from anyone since I have also experienced that attitude years ago. I also agree with your statement that members will look back at Don K's tenure as the turning point for the APA from leaving the good ol boy network behind and truly try to make the APA a professional organization.

My goal will be to follow in Don K's footsteps and the path that he has laid out for Donnie Dutton and Mike Gougler. I hope that with individuals such as yourself and Mad Dog that we all as members will strive to make this a better profession for the folks to come.