Thanks for stopping by
our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register
link
posted 04-26-2008 10:34 PM
Of course we've discussed the issue of Joe Mc Carthy's suit in Texas and our issue in Wisconsin, regarding monopoly Polygraph Entrepreneurship's invading and excluding other polygraph examiners. Especially in the field of PCSOT contractor examinations.
I thought about this today and wondered first, could it be a fair analogy of the issue and secondly what responses there would be that weren't brought out during the Mc Carthy topic.
Let just say that The Polygraph Place (Ralph I know that this would never happen but my story is only a story) Lets just say that The Polygraph Place received from an examiner (APA Accredited School Graduate, Member of the APA, PCSOT Graduate) a request to be listed on the site (The Polygraph Place), in his home state (Hung out his shingle) lets say the State of Grogan.
Ralph knows an established examiner in the State of Grogan and in fact this examiner pays top dollar to have the "Big Marquee" at the Polygraph Place Site and has done so for quite some time. This does not sit well with that established examiner in the State of Grogan.
The Polygraph Place site owner decides its not in his best interest to lose his best customer and tells the new guy that he can't run his business on the site with a listing in the State of Grogan.
Fair Analogy?
Fair Play?
What would you do?
[This message has been edited by Toneill (edited 04-26-2008).]
posted 04-28-2008 09:15 AM
Why the analogy? Just say what you want to say. Works for me.
Fair Play eh?
No such thing.
We shouldn't expect polygraph business to be any different than the business world as a whole. The fact is, strong arm business tactics are legal, common, and here to stay. Your idealistic commentary on commerce and free market is far off the mark. Nothing is "fair" about small business vs. big business, period. No compete contracts, buyer bullyism, seller bullyism, negative whisper campaigns, court tethers, standards authorship, backrooming, nepotism, out and out fascism, "contractor borgism" (my term), political favors, ----just to name a few. In business, the players laugh at the books like "how to succeed in business" as being the same "pop business" as psycologists balk at "pop psychology."
In the real business world, if you're not growing, you're dying. If you aren't throwing boulders, you're pushing daisies. If you aren't grooming the next deal or destroying your competition bit by bit, you are asleep. Bitching is nothing but cheynne stokes (last gasps.)
What do all of those platitudes have to do with running polygraph tests for a government agency outsourcer? Everything.
What is the main challenge with fighting so tenaciously against competition and other elements? The problem is that you're fighting for chumpy money---5 and maybe barely 6 figure revenue. In business, 6 figures is the new 5 figures. You can't run a business for long on even 80k as a sole proprieter. Your health insurance will shave that figure plenty----along with conferences, equipment, automobile and office costs.
The best an examiner can do is join with another one or two examiners, form a corporation, get a lawyer---get a contract, groom a protege' or two---put them to work the field, pay them 60% of the work, run tests yourself also---and you might just make 150K-200k a year if you can stay out of court enough, and not have your protege's run away for a pie in the sky shot at sole proprietership.
ps Remember; governments are well aware that sole proprieter-contracters are an open-heart surgery or a broken hip away from a political/administrative/legal crisis.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-28-2008).]
posted 04-30-2008 07:47 AM
It appears that some members have a clear idea on working on the business end of Mc Carthy's posts. I agree! Having said that I also take note that not many (Only one member) takes issue with the APA PCSOT committee position held by BM president Eric Holden. I'm going to cut and paste with this message part of the State of Wisconsin RFB and ask that you decide if it was "Fair Play" and keep in mind that the same practices may be coming to your state as well. With interest you should look specifically at 4.2.2
As I said I'm all for "Fair Play" and recognize Stat's opinion on business is business. But we all should recognize that not one nor several members of an organization as big and proud as the APA and TAPE should ignore these business practices when they deal with State Government Contracts.
Tony
4.2 Bidders Qualifications and Experience
4.2.1 Mandatory Requirement: Bidders shall demonstrate that each examiner and examination procedure adheres to the established ethics, standards, and practices of the American Polygraph Association (APA) and that each examiner meets the standards set forth in section 4.4 of this RFB.
4.2.2 Program Specification: Preferred bidders will have a minimum of 15 years of experience in providing polygraph examination services. Each examiner performing services for the bidder under this RFB will have conducted at least eight thousand (8000) criminal specific-issue examinations. A minimum of four thousand (4000) of the required examinations shall have been conducted with suspect or convicted sex offenders, and a minimum of five hundred (500) examinations shall have been conducted on civilly committed sex offenders.
4.2.3 Mandatory Requirement: The bidder shall provide documentation demonstrating that the agency and staff, including examiners, meet qualifications, training, and experience requirements. The bidder shall provide for each examiner providing services under this RFB a resume describing education and post academic training, including dates of attendance, sponsor, and names of presenters. In addition, the resume of each of the examiners assigned to service this contract shall include the types and number of examinations conducted, including the number of clinical polygraph examinations conducted. The bidder will provide documentation or verification to SRSTC. This documentation will be used to verify that minimum requirements are being met.
4.2.4 Mandatory Requirement: The successful bidder shall provide documentation for each new staff member hired during the contract period that the new staff meets the qualifications, training, and experience requirements at least 14 calendar days prior to the staff member providing services to SRSTC under the contract.
If you are interested in a copy of the complete RFB just let me know and I will email you a copy.
You can see that with the examiner requirements, it excluded every one from the State of Wisconsin certified in PCSOT and based on the numbers I'm sure not many nationwide would meet them as well.
quote: 4.2.2 Program Specification: Preferred bidders will have a minimum of 15 years of experience in providing polygraph examination services. Each examiner performing services for the bidder under this RFB will have conducted at least eight thousand (8000) criminal specific-issue examinations. A minimum of four thousand (4000) of the required examinations shall have been conducted with suspect or convicted sex offenders, and a minimum of five hundred (500) examinations shall have been conducted on civilly committed sex offenders.
What if they were all lousy tests? The number of tests conducted tells us little, if anything, about the examiner's ability to properly conduct a test. I'd rather have a green new examiner than a 30-year chart roller any day, and this seems to give the latter a better shot.
That requirement sounds very self-serving. How many clients must the therapists have treated before being allowed to treat these same folks? How about the probation officers? Were they new to the SO field, or have they all had thousands of clients too? Eventually, this policy will make finding a qualified examiner impossible as you can't get experience if you don't have it (according to this), and those with the experience have to retire at some point.
posted 04-30-2008 08:12 AM
That (4.2.2) are exactly the "Standards Authorship Rights" I wrote about earlier. It stops just short of mandating the pant size and hospital of birth of any program contracter. This is not greed, ego, or any of the other holier than thou labels----it's savvy business. Do you think Walmart plays any nicer? The absolute irony, is that the people who shout "unamerican" and "anti-free trade" are the ones who are anti-capitalistic in that they seek a system of shared wealth. You can't have it both ways, but it doesn't hurt to reveal the system's weaknesses as it sits----and I think you are on point perfectly for doing so. In business ethics---a sometimes oxymoron----we learn the fine lines of take no prisoners but with a smile and a salute. The largest no no in business is REVENGE. It is known to be a wasteful venture, toppling many businesses who take the eye off of the work to glare so menacingly at the competitor.
Joe's business calculations are cute. He has the business sense of an 8th grade Junior League widget seller. I'm the most amused by his assertion that he can stay booked with 3 tests per day, yet have no waiting period. Being booked and available at the same time----now that is realistic strategic planning and needs analysis!
posted 04-30-2008 08:28 AM
I have decided to not address Joe-----I haven't the time nor really the desire to rebute 4000 word distortions. He could have learned a lot from this group regarding business, but he missed that boat and did so unapologetically---which shows a level of arrested development that requires the type of dilegent teaching that I'd rather reserve for long-winded lectures to my kids on how you can't "damage clouds" with model rockets.
posted 04-30-2008 08:32 AM
I agree its savvy business; however, even in business one must ask if he's getting a good deal. This doesn't do anything for the consumer of polygraph - and they are paying the bills. It would be wiser business - on the other side of the deal - to write in something meaningful regarding the ability of the examiners they use. Would I expect the examiners to try to narrow the playing field? Of course, that's business. Is the motivation then what's best for all? That's a different question.
posted 04-30-2008 08:43 AM
Another distortion Barry. Who ever stated that a business is in it for "the betterment of all?" Do you think McDonalds gives a hoot about the healthfulness of thier food? Does Walmart care for the American worker? The Standards Authorship is a mini version of having a former oil executive author standards for the environmental protection agency and the energy policy of a supposedly "betterment for all" interested, impartial governmental body. We really need to stop discussing business with such childlike wonderment.
posted 04-30-2008 08:47 AM
No, I understand it. You missed my point. "Business" in general is out for what's best for each party. PCSOT has as its goal what's in the best interest of society and the individual being treated. I'm asking if "business" and the stated goals are at odds with each other.
posted 04-30-2008 08:59 AM
I see your point now. What you must remember is that when the "conservative revolution" began---that is, the attempt to shrink government and outsource municipal projects through privatization, THAT is precisely when social services and many other vital services became a business. Business is self serving, regardless of the PR campaigns that attempt to paint a "we give a shit" spin to the ultimate goal of destroying competition and getting all the booty for your team. I can already hear a collective groan from conservatives on this board, but it is true. Thoughtful people will consider these gray areas regarding government outsourcing, and also appreciate why so many social services people are such bleeding hearts. They see first hand how business currupts the "good of all" in the name of cheaper work and no health benefits and/or employment costs.
ps Don't think for a second that there haven't been proposals by companies like Blackwater and Dynocorp to privatize civilian law enforcement. If actualized, a first glance neato idea would eventually become a cheap labor, apathetic enterprise. I believe that a conservative can still be a red blooded conservative while still knowing that privatization of many (not all)services is a stupid, corporate-lead disaster.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-30-2008).]
posted 04-30-2008 09:44 AM
I like your remark about the consumer. It is as you suggested a seperate subject---so let's look at consumerism in it's most simplistic terms.
For thirty years, frozen pizza sucks. It in no way or shape tastes as good, has the quality of meats or cheese as the restaurant variety. Consumers bought it anyway. Did those frozen pizza vendors care that their product was yummy? No. They cared that they sold the product. If the product sucked yet was still being sold, they cared not. Only in recent years has frozen pizza became edible. There is little science in good food----it's either tastey or it is barely sustainance. Polygraph is no different. Sex Offenders equals units. Examiners equal vendors. In the day to day business world---sure--there is quality and mindfulness---but to government administrators, they don't care how good the product tastes as long as it is pipen hot, and the picture on the box shows something palpable.
It's ice cream season so I bought a new ice cream scooper from Walmart last week which cost me $2.99. It broke yesterday, having probably been designed by an idiot and tested on soft rice pudding at the Chinese design lab. Walmart is full of this kind of junk and we all know that. Consumers--- myself included----are as eager to BELIEVE we can get a quality product for cheap as we are to believe that George Maschke was arrested last March 31st. Polygraph consumers are no less witted.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-30-2008).]
posted 04-30-2008 10:50 AM
Ok..you guys are way outside my understanding, your realm of forte' (Business). Thats my fault of course and a positive attribute to you. I guess I can say ok..I understand the business end of it "basically anything goes".
What about our polygraph community as a whole? The idea of APA PCSOT program and its responsibilities as a nationally recognized polygraph community.
If there is any responsibility, Whereas an association such as the APA develops and or contributes to National Standards and Ethics related to PCSOT, don't they have an obligation to their membership and or PCSOT school graduates to hold out any examiner that has met those standards and ethics as acceptable in conducting PCSOT?
Don't they also have an obligation to the polygraph community as a whole, to state, when found, that standards and ethics or examiner requirements, go well beyond what most PCSOT experienced APA or graduates of APA accredited PCSOT examiners have as well?
I believe it is owed to every person that has successfully completed APA accredited PCSOT and especially to those (Polygraph Community as a whole) that follow the same standards and ethics every day in their business even if not PCSOT examiners.
posted 04-30-2008 11:59 AM
You say "they" as if somebody else has the responsibility. It is the relevant communities that decide what is ethical and unethical. If you think a standard is lacking, then suggest one and see if the majority of the community agrees with your suggestion.
posted 04-30-2008 12:10 PM
Ok..I re-read my post and followed my "They"..I guess I should be more specific regarding "They".
In explanation, I as well as many others in the polygraph community belong to either APA and or other polygraph associations. An association such as the APA which often sets the standards for the polygraph field. They (APA) often present model policies, training and standards criteria, ethics, research, etc...recognized by all. They in essence define polygraph for not only the polygraph examiners but for our customers if you will, as well.
So "They"
I don't want to get lost on this, so I've tried my best. Of course sometimes the problem rests between the chair and my keyboard
posted 04-30-2008 12:13 PM
Also, dare I say that there is a real world stark contrast between "Polygraph Ethical Practices" and "Polygraph Business?"
I suggested a trade union some years back---which had among other things, the intended effect of leveling the plying field smewhat insofar as standards authorship for services. Such a suggestion (unionizing) had a tremendously positive effect on other trades and contracts for municipal service vending. One big electrician cannot pass a state municipal mandate that in order to wire (electrically) a school, you must be 6ft tall and with a bald spot ('cause that's what the author looked like.)
I know it wouldn't fly, but sometimes we concoct ideas (see my countermeasure bonnet)to address a problem pseudo-constructively---if just to release pensiveness.
A professional organization or advocacy group such as the APA can no more tell examiners how to run their legal businesses as they could tell us what to charge per test.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-30-2008).]
posted 04-30-2008 01:00 PM
"Ethical Standards?" What does that mean? As examiners, ethical standards should mean that we run standardized and recognized testing formats and scoring methods----and that we don't behave like a lunatic in the testing room.
While Joe's suit has some merit, just try to tell professionals how they run contract business, and you will see some real restriction of free trade lawsuits.
The APA cannot and does not have the aptitude, expertise nor credibility to mandate what provisions go into municipal contracts.
Polyraph----one thing
Business-----a whole different rodeo
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-30-2008).]
posted 04-30-2008 01:24 PM
No one is saying they should mandate what goes into municipal contracts!
What is being said that if they (APA or any Association) take the high road in proclaiming what Polygraph Is or Isn't, to both the examiner and the public, then they should stand behind what they say! More importantly they should stand behind their membership.
Ethics not Business!
If I wanted business I would have joined Wal Mart
- Certified (Qualified) what ever, Polygraph Examiner.
-Certified (Qualified) what ever, PCSOT Polygraph Examiner.
posted 04-30-2008 03:17 PM
I'm lost here. Completely confused.
Toneil asked among other things, doesn't the APA via PCSOT have a responsibility to put forward [paraphrased] a stamp of approval to every certified (pcsot)examiner to insure recognition in every state, local and otherwise---to solidify the credentials of newer examiners? Well, the APA has no jurisdiction to do so----in that like the American Bar Association, one must still meet the individul State Bar requirements which can vary greatly from state to state.In the case of Wisconsin unfortunately, one must have several thousand tests in order to get indigent contracts and what not in order to delve into that mode of testing. The state accepted BM's authorship, and I assume due to First Right of Refusal---when the contract expires, BM will be negotiating the future contract before the competing examiners are even made aware that there was ever a closed door meeting.
What am I missing here? How does the APA's ethical standards have anything to do with "Fair Play?"---which is the title of the thread.
posted 04-30-2008 09:03 PM
I do understand business and polygraph. The original PCSOT training required you submit two audio/video examinations with all charts, questions and conclusions to be evaluated by one of twelve examiners to ensure quality examinations. This was quickly stopped by the powers that be and it was determined that APA could not mandate QC on examinations.
Do you think that this being re instituted might possibley weed out some "rotten egg's"? (Thats a question, not an accusation)
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 04-26-2008 10:34 PM
posted 04-28-2008 09:15 AM
posted 04-30-2008 07:47 AM
posted 04-30-2008 01:40 PM
