posted 07-24-2008 09:15 AM            

Our own Ray Nelson, APA legal counsel Gordon Vaughan and Dr. Frank Horvath (and perhaps some others) will provide responses. It would be nice to have a list of questions and issues for them in advance so they can better prepare.

posted 07-24-2008 10:09 AM            

I see him as a person of questionable ethics based on the evidence used in disbarment proceedings in Florida, which were upheld by the courts resulting in his disbarment for a minimum of five years. Even though the five years has passed, he still hasn’t been re-admitted.

As of this morning GM has posted the APA’s association with Mr. Bailey on his web site and fully intends to hammer APA’s ethics based on association and the status given someone chosen to speak at such an important conference.

Do you see any problems for the organization based on their choice of speakers?

Should proposed speakers be “vetted” by the ethics committee to avoid the appearance of impropriety?

I can't help but be concerned that if other lawyers don't want to associate with him, maybe we shouldn't either.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 07-24-2008 12:13 PM            

His legal problems with the federal government stemmed from his attempt to keep money that he was due for his services and which the government sought. We've all been there! His client had agreed to relinquish 6 million dollas worth of stock he held and while the arguments and deals went back and forth, It into almost 20 million. His agreement with his client was that he could keep the excess as his fee for representation.

"In 1994, while the O.J. Simpson case was being tried, Bailey and Robert Shapiro represented Claude DuBoc, an accused marijuana dealer. In a plea bargain agreement with the U.S. Attorney, DuBoc agreed to turn over his assets to the U.S. Government. His assets included a large block of stock in BioChem, worth approximately $6 million at the time of the plea deal. When the government sought to collect the stock, it had increased in value to $20 million. Bailey claimed he was entitled to the appreciation in payment of his legal fees and refused to turn over the stock to the government. In 2000, he was sent to prison for contempt. After forty-four days at the Federal Prison in Tallahassee, Bailey agreed to relinquish his claim to the stock and he was freed."

Anyone who has ever dealt with the government in any capacity might appreciate his attempt.

He is now 75 years old and certainly doesn't need to practice law any longer. We let some very "suspect" people speak at APA seminars every year whose actual credentials and bonifides would not amount to a pimple on Lee's ass and in some cases should warrant an ethics complaint of their own.

Lee has done as much to legitimize abnd highlight polygraph as anyone in history, including Reid, Keeler or Father Summers. He is not being asked to provide legal advise or counsel to the members, he's speaking to them.

posted 07-24-2008 01:33 PM            

The finding were also sustained by Mass. in another proceeding.

Skip I have a great deal of respect for you and I certainly acknowledge your right to disagree with me regarding whether or not a disbarred attorney should be invited to speak at a seminar, but your challenge intimates that I might have something in my past that bars me from questioning Mr. Bailey's Ethics. I am offended.

posted 07-24-2008 05:18 PM            

Thank you for the cites regarding Mr. Bailey's disbarrment.

With phoney PhD's and a disbarred attorney, Barry needs topics for an ethics discussion?

posted 07-24-2008 06:19 PM            

unless there was some huge conspiracy by the government and all referree's and judge's involved...sounds to me like Bailey screwed up and appears to be fairly unrepentant about that. I think that's a very good reason to question his being a speaker.

Of course, I'm not an APA member and probably won't be because my experience has been that the actions that have come out of APA...ie covering for or downplaying or outright doing nothing about ortiz, gelb, etc. the APA hasn't shown me they would recognize ethics if it bit them in the ass.

My opinion is that the APA's first priority is always covering that same part of the anatomy rather than dealing with things.

If we don't quit pussy-footing around and really deal with our issues, people like maschke and grogan will eventually bury this profession.

wow, I didn't realize how strongly I felt about that. Please forgive me if I personally offended anyone

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 07-24-2008 06:57 PM            

I don't think what you said should offend anyone. All you did was identify the big gorilla in the room. An evil animal many are willing to ignore. But! If he touches my banana bunch, he should do so with great care!

posted 07-24-2008 10:26 PM         

Now, for another view:

After obtaining a confession, how many of us have continued to talk with the suspect just to see what else was in his or her head. I for one have talked to suspects that I found disgusting (long after the confession) just to see what else I could learn from them. I think this has made me a better investigator. And yes, I have learned a lot from these disgusting people.

Whether you think Bailey is a piece of crap or a legal genius, it may serve us well to hear what he has to say. Given the fact that he has been publicly “beat to death”, I am surprised that he is still willing to make public appearances. I guess everyone has to put food on the table.

I don’t think anyone on this site “likes” George Maschke or thinks he is a good person. I also know that we ALL can’t wait to see what he is posting next on his site. Information and knowledge is power-regardless of the source. You may not like the messenger but you may learn something from listening to the message.

I too,hope that I have not offended anyone. But please know that if by chance I did, I don't care.

My soap box 2 cent. (Yes, I left off the “s” because I am a rapper!)

Ted

posted 07-25-2008 09:47 AM            

The most colorful analogy lies within the universal practice of nose picking. Skip (metaphorically) sees it as a way of life---so common that the act is normal, albeit controversial. Ebvan sees it as being disgusting and below dignity--whether common or not. Those are moral judgements, not necessarily ethical judgements. Ethically, nose picking leads to the spread of staphaccocus infections due to the nose being the natural home of aggressive little bacteria and various viruses that lead to colds and infections. Nose picking spreads colds and sinus infections, period. Spreading colds is unethical. So, nose picking is unethical. The Yanamamo tribes in South America find nose picking to be morally (culturally) justifiable behavior as they freely do so even while eating during social functions.
Despite what the righteous types state, "morals" are not universal. Ethics are universal. So, it is always helpful to keep debates on ethics---on ethics, not morals.
Regarding F.L. Baily, it might be more productive to debate the harm (spreading of virus' or bacterias)it would be to have a lawyer who could argue the color of s____ give a presentation at APA. I have no opinion on the precise matter as Baily isn't an actual examiner.
In an extreme argument point, I think it would be helpful and even fascinating if APA could get a hold of actual psychopathic criminals to speak and describe their cognitive evolution and thier deviant processes---if it were strikingly candid. In doing so, I doubt anyone could justifiably cry foul at having a deviant bastard speak at the conferance if it were in the name of criminal justice/ criminology. I dunno.

posted 07-25-2008 11:15 AM            

I have every right to complain from outside the injustices I see inside. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't run for office and join politics to protest the injustices. Can you imagine him trying to be elected to the senate first before he spoke out about injustices. He would never be elected or it would take so long, the critical moment would have been missed.

There is a parallel in the APA and that is there are too many of the same folks who have been in charge (i didn't say in office, I said 'in charge') for way way way way way too long. And most who try to penetrate that barrier are spit up and chewed out. I personally believe that is why Don Krapohl ran for President was the hope of at least getting the entire membership to give their opinion on who they want in office. But Don has the reputation and respect to have pulled that off. Not many could have done so.

I actually have a much better chance of making change from outside than inside. I truly believe that. If I am inside, I will be censored.

And there are several good reasons I have for not joining APA of which the one I mentioned above is only one.

First of all, based on past behavior, I don't believe the decision makers in the APA would not hold my membership over my head if I voiced something in opposition to them. In the past, without being a member, I have all but been demanded to change some things about my website to be 'in compliance' with the APA. How arrogant.

The final reason is personal, but if anyone really wants to know, I'd be happy to tell them offline.

My point is that I'm not the type of person who just complains but does nothing about it. Take Grogan for instance. Everybody complains about him but only a small percentage have acted in support to do something about it. Where is the APA in that fight that affects the ENTIRE profession? Covering their ass and remaining quiet, letting people like myself and Trimarco take all the heat and deal with lawsuits, etc. It's a freaking travesty in my opinion.

nuff said, I'll get off my soap box. My apologies Barry for continuing to sideline the original topic.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 07-25-2008 11:34 AM            

"Should proposed speakers be “vetted” by the ethics committee to avoid the appearance of impropriety?"

I think that is a worthy topic for discussion in the context of Barry's original post.

F. Lee Bailey was just the example.

STAT your nose picking analogy misses the mark, or nostril, as it were. In the example I provided, I made no moral judgement. The Florida Supreme Court found Mr. Bailey guilty of several ethics violations. I really don't see how agreement or disagreement with their findings constitutes moral a judgement on my part.

I would also like to suggest (with no seriousness whatsoever) that the next time you research Rhinotillexomania you should probably trim your fingernails to avoid brain injury.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 07-25-2008 04:00 PM            

Does your accountant also engage in surreptitious mucophagy ala Spaulding Smails?

Most doctors say that it is safe but it'snot

sorry couldn't resist

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 07-25-2008 06:13 PM         

Simple nose picking is rhinotillexis. Extreme or chronic nose picking (resulting in damage to the nose) is known as rhinotillexomania.

Thank You

Ted

posted 07-25-2008 11:41 PM            

I am all for any Caddyshack referances---almost as much as any Star Wars refs.

Ted, I can't remember my password for my own photobucket picture page. Like an unclaimed inheretance, I guess it will lie around in cyberspace unclaimed until some distant great grandchild of mine will be awarded 3 megabytes of goofy illustrations. Maybe the Bush administration could help me with a warrantless search. teeheee---sorry conservative friends, ya know I love ya.

posted 07-26-2008 08:11 PM            

Skip that was for you!

Just so happens, Ernie Medina sells insurance here where I live, F. Lee Bailey is somewhat of a folk hero here as he has roots in our area as well, with our local Enstrom Helicopter Company. Not bad for a small town! We also lay claim to crazy Eugene Hausenfuss who parachuted out of an Air America CIA plane shot down in South America back in the 80’s and as you all know from previous posts we have the geriatric year old female (Hottie!) sex offender registered here too.

To my point, or rant if you prefer, I am a member (Not full, nor a Phd) of the APA and have been since 2000 at the urging of the director of the polygraph school that I attended. I’ve attended APA seminars as well as others related to and not to polygraph. Even though up until now, I probably would have been one of the first in line to have F. Lee Bailey sign my APA Newsletter at the seminar, now I have to say, No Way!

Not just because of F. Lee Bailey, but because of what I’ve read, learned and experienced in totality of those eight years with the APA, WPA as well as networking on this site and with other polygraph professionals, having seen “Ethics” continuously re-defined by the APA, dependent of course at the time on how the glove should fit and who is going to wear it. Today was the first time I actually read the Gelb issue on the Antipolygraph site, the APA response and lack of substantial sanctions if stated correctly on the site, is deplorable and considering everything else the APA is suppose to stand for, hypocritical at least.

For I am with others in their thoughts on the same issues, if it wasn’t for how the APA Sanctified persons like Gelb, Grogan, Holden, Ortiz, or lack of concern for issues of fairness with PCSOT, Standards etc I and probably others would be talking a different story.

The idea of those with opinions of the APA that are not members should join and cast their vote for change, come on! Why would you even want to join! The APA should have members like Ralph and others give them a rational professional and consistent ethical reason to be part of it.

When a few are standing on a hill of garbage, in a dump waving to the other guys, beckoning “hey come on over it’s a great place to be, it doesn’t smell bad once your in it” it isn’t the ideal proposition of reasoning for belonging to the group. Me, I’ve been in the garbage at the dump so long that the smell doesn’t bother me as much anymore.

So in the infinite wisdom of what theme and who should we “try to get” for the seminar this year, the APA sure gave our detractors some ammo. I’m hopeful that this isn’t catchy and that Orenthal James Simpson doesn’t show up at our annual Pop Werner Football banquet talking about ethics.

Seriously though, from the posts that I read and the intelligence that is presented by the forum members, I am humbled.

Ralph Thanks for the venue that you provide us. I understand that you ride the fine line between entrepreneur and facilitator and what sometimes makes good sense, sometimes makes bad business. Your posts are very much so greatly passionate and I for one wait in anticipation of them, as well as Skip’s posts too, of course.

Tony

Oh..yea..Occasional Nose Picker in hiding too.

[This message has been edited by Toneill (edited 07-26-2008).]

posted 07-27-2008 11:40 AM            

"With the advent of the APA's new web forums, is it ethical to hijack a thread?"

Is that it?

I did get some scenarios and questions from some, but I suspect there are more out there, so if you got some, speak up.

posted 07-27-2008 03:54 PM            

I'm a bit leery of the latter question because of the push by ASTM to declare PCSOT testing by law enforcement officers a "Conflict of Interest". IMHO this form of supposed ethical regulation smacks of restraint of trade and provides an earning advantage to private sector examiners.It also pre-supposes wrongdoing by rather large category of examiner.

My point of view now is that I am a Private Sector Examiner, but in "Shall Report" states
the percieved conflict is absolved by prevailing laws. Also IMHO any restrictions on what a "Police Examiner" does in his off duty job should be addressed by he agency that employs him or her because they would be the target of any political fallout from a "Conflict of Interest" as well as the authority to address violations of Police Ethics in a much more meaningful way that APA has shown a willingness to do.

This is a sincere effort to return your "hijacked" topic without any dents, a quarter tank of gas and only a few extra miles on the odometer.
ebv

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 07-27-2008 06:55 PM            

Professional roles/hats is always a great topic for such discussion.

In answer to the questionable ethics about hijacking a thread, and the APA's new forums.

I predict the interest and activity will be less at the APA forum. The APA has a different authoritative role (ethical hat), compared with this private forum. As humans, we'll experience the exposure differently. Here we're free to fool around with discussions about motorcycles, firearms, and boogers. At the APA forum that may feel a little more like it is inconsistent with expectations for professional decorum. Said differently, people are less likely to be willing to show their arse, because of the authoritative implications (real or not).

Here in Colorado, our SOMB maintains a listserve for professional discussion. It gets nearly zero interst and zero activity. The ATSA list, I understand, is busier. However, the nationwide ATSA membership is more diffuse, and less likely to feel immediate and local professional exposure. No-one wants to look vulnerable in their own neighborhood.

I believe it might be ethical to hijack a thread - temporarily. If it is hijack-able, then hijack away. Hijacking creates interest, even if only lurking interest. Such interest creates connections and connecetedness, on a more human level, and connectedness creates a healthier profession.

Ethics is a topic which often easily answered with the sound of crickets, or forceful opinions.

If the topic is important, it will find its way back on track.

There is probably no forum anywhere that has required less moderating than this one.

We've had a number of terrific learning discussions, on topics ranging from Maschke to evolution, and even matters of polygraph science. Even when we disagree, the spirit of respect and appreciation pervades, and we are all smarter and ethically enriched for the experience.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 07-27-2008 07:59 PM            

Please don't be offended. I meant nothing of the sort. I know nothing whatsoever about your past or your present for that matter. My point was a simple one. Mr. Bailey is not speaking on ethics. He is speaking on a topic that I feel is both interesting and important. That topic is polygraph admissibility in court. Disbarred or not, he is both qualified and an expert in that subject matter. His past dealings with the government notwithstanding, he is certainly interesting, qualified to speak on the topic for which he has been scheduled and a good speaker. My concern was over the Holier than thou comments and the fact that we have had fake PhDs and other “experts” speak for years at the seminars who make up stuff and give it their name or just pull stuff out of their ass and call it scripture from heaven.

Detector: You stated: “If I understand Skip's position, the APA should ignore the findings of his unethical behavior because he is super popular and everyone can go wow...FL bailey is coming to speak at APA. unless there was some huge conspiracy by the government and all referee’s and judge's involved...sounds to me like Bailey screwed up and appears to be fairly unrepentant about that. I think that's a very good reason to question his being a speaker.

To that I say “Why in the hell should he be repentant? He served his time, paid his fine took his disbarment and has moved on. That’s more than most do. People go to hear Bill Clinton speak all over the damn world. He screwed up. He didn’t repent. He was disbarred. Face facts, This isn’t a damn revival…it’s a seminar. I am really surprised that you can find fault with the ethical question of Mr. Bailey speaking at the seminar but you don’t have a problem with soaking feet to rid our bodies of “dangerous” toxins in the lobby at an APA seminar. If you don’t want to join APA, don’t. It will survive without your money or your input.

I defended Mr. Bailey as a friend of polygraph, a friend of mine and one who has, over the past 50 years or more, been a strong proponent of our profession and one who has furthered the public’s belief and support of what we do. Like it or not, Ed Gelb and Jack Trimarco have both done the same, whether you like it or not.

posted 07-27-2008 09:53 PM            

As I understand the terms and context, ETHICS refers to both a code of conduct and the ability to conform to an externally applied code of conduct while MORALS refers to ones ability to discern right from wrong, or good from bad, in a manner that conforms to society’s expectations. In order to apply morals, one must have VALUES or internal rules to govern whether or not a decision is MORAL. Ethical decisions are simply weighed against the aforementioned code of conduct, while moral decisions are seldom clear cut. It is perfectly possible for an ethical decision to be immoral and for a moral decision to be unethical. As a matter of fact it is entirely possible for a behavior to be both ethical and unethical depending upon which code of conduct is applied.

Conflict of Interest absent a clearly defined rule or regulation is little more that a subjective argument that according to my values and morality, I have determined that YOU cannot be impartial. Such an argument presumes wrongdoing where no proof exists.

Ethical problems arise when a code of conduct conflicts with some individual's values. Since everyone's values are influenced by unique life experiences and differ because of it; arguments regarding morals are rarely resolved with consensus.

In order to achieve agreement regarding professional conduct, we create professional codes and call them ethics.

In order for an activity to be judged unethical, I think that we need to establish which part of the code of conduct applies to the activity and then determine whether or not the activity violates the code. As far as APA is concerned the code of ethical conduct for a member appears in Division IV of the bylaws.

As an organization, if we cannot find part of Division IV code applies to a questioned activity then we can engage in a moral argument and decide if the code should be modified for the good of the profession or APA. We have to be wary, as an organization, that we do not brand someone or something as unethical unless we can point, with a reasonable degree of certainty, to a specific violation of our ethical code. In this context, I must admit that as I read the APA Code of Conduct, Mr. Bailey cannot and SHOULD NOT be branded as unethical by APA although it is not unreasonable to identify his behavior as unethical when weighed against the code of conduct he ascribed as a member of the Florida Bar. APA as a professional organization may label a particular activity as unethical for its members by placing it in Division IV, but they can’t really brand a non-members behavior as unethical because non members have not agreed to be bound by the code.

I agree with Barry that modifications to ethical codes should not be undertaken lightly. I further believe that changes should never appear to be made for the sole purpose of favoring the financial interest of one member of a profession over another.
Especially when one must base the change on a presumption of wrongdoing.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 07-28-2008 09:14 AM            

So, having thrown some rocks of my own here, I say that your analogy of this site's disgruntled posters being like a chihuaha nipping at a great dane---is well, sort of revealing of your distinct perspective. If the APA is a great dane, than I suspect that in reality, the posters here are more like arthritus---eating away at the arrogant joints of a giant, genetically flawed behemoth.

p.s. Despite my firey rhetoric, I love Skip's posts, and his wisdom is clear and his communication style is wonderful to these eyes. I disagree as often as I am disagreed with, yet I look forward to more from Skip. I mean no offense except to maybe offend longheld, tired notions.

posted 07-28-2008 12:10 PM            

Regarding your analogy, I don't think anyone would argue with you much, but I think that one of the reasons I love this site is it provides a forum for us Chihuahuas to bark a little. I would submit that the discussions are livelier here than most places including the floor at a polygraph seminar.

If you will allow me to super-size your analogy and change the Chihuahuas into wolves and the Great Dane into say a Bison the end result of all that nipping and barking just might mean bleached bones on the prairie. Hardly inconsequential. If Chihuahuas liked Great Dane meat for lunch Marmaduke should probably watch out.

Once again in a sincere attempt to return this thread...
For he purpose of this hypothetical, you may presume that the examiner is contracted for pre-employment exams by both agencies and that another examiner is not readily available.

Hypothetically, an examiner conducts a pre-employment examination on applicant X for Smallville P.D. Applicant X does not get the job. Less than a month later, the examiner is asked to conduct another pre-employment exam on applicant X for Hazard County S.O.

What are the moral and ethical issues of:

A. Whether or not the examiner should agree to conduct the second exam.

B. The examiner collecting a second fee, obtaining a waiver from the applicant and sending the Hazard Co, Sheriff a copy of his previous report without doing another exam.

C. The examiner conducting a second exam, but including pre or post test admissions from the earlier exam.

D. The examiner conducts a second exam and issues a report which does not include admissions made during the first exam which were not repeated during the second test but would obviously have a serious impact on Hazard Counties hiring decision.

E. Both exams cover the same relevant areas, but the exam has different results. Should the newer results and discrepancy be reported only to Hazard County and not Smallville P.D. or should both agencies be notified.

F. Do the Moral and Ethical arguments change ones conclusions in any scenario if the Examinee failed test 1 and made disqualifying admissions and passed test 2 without disqualifiers or if the examinee passed test 1 without disqualifiers and failed test 2 and made disqualifying admissions?

G. Do the arguments change if Smallville P.D. has not made their hiring decision as of the date of the second test.

NOTE: Please bolster any ethical positions with references to an existing code of conduct.

I freely and wholeheartedly acknowledge that it is much easier to write the questions than it will be to resolve the answers.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

[This message has been edited by ebvan (edited 07-28-2008).]

posted 07-28-2008 12:58 PM            

I also am not defending the APA as I am only a member like many of you. When confronted with the problem of questionable post graduate degrees, the APA board made the decision that we did not have the resources to investigate everyone’s educational legitimacy. We did have the right to refuse to use the title if it was found to be suspect, in any APA directory, or publication. We made the decision to enforce what we had authority and the ability to enforce. I still think that was the right decision on the part of the Board of Directors at the time as it is today. We decided that our by-laws provide that:

9.1.1.1 The Ethics and Grievance Committee receives and expeditiously, fairly, and impartially investigates all allegations of misconduct against members of the Association.

4.11.1.1 A member who administers or attempts to administer any polygraph examination in violation of the Code of Ethics or the Standards of Practice may be subject to investigation, censure, suspension or expulsion from the Association, as provided by Article IV of the APA Constitution.

posted 07-28-2008 01:41 PM            

If it took a hen and a half a day and a half, sitting on an egg and a half, to hatch out a chick and a half, how long would it take a rooster sitting on a doorknob to hatch out a hardware store?

[Let me know if you give up]

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 07-28-2008 03:02 PM            

1st Case:
You've just run a criminal specific polygraph with 4 relevant questions (CTF-4 in government language). Your scores after 3 charts are +4 +5 +6 -1. (no opinion as you don't have +3 or greater in all spots) If you run a 4th chart, he can't pass because the most he could get in that last spot is a +3 (3 position scoring), giving him an overall score of +2. He could however fail if he gets a -2 in that last spot. Do you run the 4th chart and let him fail if he will or stay no opinion or do you run a second series, giving him a totally new chance at passing the test?
Prosecution has agreeed with the defense that if he pases, he walks on the charge.

This scenario came up a few days ago while I was monitoring an intern examiner and he asked me what to do. I told him to run another series.

What's the ethical thing to do in this scenario?

2d Case:
You're a private examiner who does pre-employment testing for a number of small police departments in the area. You test an applicant at one department who fails the test on the issue of drugs but makes no admissions and then 6 months later you are asked by another department to test the same applicant. Do you -

A. Tell them about his last test?
B. Run him again?
C. Tell them to get someone else to run him as you have a conflict (not disclosed)?

3rd Scenario:

You're a police examiner who does private tests on the side. You run an examinee on an issue of marital infidelity under an attorney client work product divorce case. He fails and admits to multiple incidents of adultry.

6 months later you are asked by the PD to run an applicant. It's your adulterer.

Do you:

A. Tell the Chief about the prior test and the result?
B. Run him anyway.
C. Recuse yourself due to a conflict (no info provided?)

4th Scenario:

You are a police examiner doing private test on the side. you test an examinee on the private side on an EPPA issue in another jurisdiction involving the theft of a large sum of money from an employer. He denies the specific theft but in the course of the pre-test, while discussing comparison questions, admits to a prior theft of funds from the employer which had been previously thought to be a break-in and worked by the local police. Do you:

A. Tell the employer about the previous theft?
B. Tell the local police about the previous theft?
C. Keep it to yourself as it was disclosed as part of the comparison question material?

posted 07-28-2008 03:16 PM            

Ebvan,

posted 07-28-2008 03:46 PM            

I see the second scenario as a moral question for the same reasons as scenario #1. I would advise that if no confirmation regarding drugs exists then another exam should be conducted. The examiner's concience would govern whether or not he felt he could conduct a fair second exam or request another examiner.

3rd scenario falls under: APA 4.9 Release of Nonrelevant Information
4.9.1 A member shall not disclose to any person any irrelevant personal information gained during the course of a polygraph examination which has no connection to the relevant issue, and which may embarrass or tend to embarrass the examinee, except where such disclosure is required by law.
If the information is not relevant to the pre-employment process then the examiner should not disclose and run the new test. If it is relevant the examiner's concience would govern whether or not he felt he could conduct a fair second exam or request another examiner.
One deciding factor would be whether or not the question of adultery is routinely used as a relevant issue on that agencies pre-employment exams.

Scenario #4 is governed by EPPA section 9 Paragraph B.

The correct answer is D. None of the above because any disclosure would violate Federal Law.

Just one man's opinion

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 07-28-2008 03:49 PM            

"Give UP?"
"Yeah I give up"

"So did the rooster RDRRR"

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 08-19-2008 10:39 PM            

Most of the conference session was a very interesting discussion about more practical matters.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)