posted 03-28-2008 10:11 AM            

Well, it appears the APA has resolved the issue, but the language is so cryptic, it’s hard to make sense of it. Now that the investigation is over, I’ll add some of my opinions that I held prior to it being resolved.

Donnie Dutton said the following in his “President’s Message”:

quote:

---

An anonymous complaint was recently made about an APA accredited school and whether it was in compliance with attendance requirements. As a result of that anonymous complaint the APA Educational and Accreditation Committee initiate an investigation. Following the investigation, the school immediately undertook voluntary corrective action. The APA has, since the initiation of the investigation in that matter determined that it will, in the future, require that before an investigation is undertaken on the basis of a complaint made against and accredited APA school, such complaint must be in writing and identifying the name of the complainant.

---

I like the last portion (no known complainant, no action).

However, we really don’t know what they found. Tom here has stated no wrongdoing on his part, and had an explanation for everything TV alleged (from what I could understand of his report, which didn’t come across as the writing of a neutral fact-finder from my reading of it).

Donnie says the school took immediate “voluntary corrective action,” which would seem to imply wrongdoing, but doesn’t necessarily.

So, let’s look at what Roy Ortiz said in his article:

quote:

---

Please note:
All complaints made against APA accredited polygraph school must be formally submitted in writing and signed. Recently an anonymous complaint was made against an APA accredited polygraph school. The complaint was thoroughly investigated and school procedures were changed to prevent future occurrences and eliminate the appearance of a deficiency.

---

Now that is somewhat different. “School procedures were changed to prevent future occurrences….” Future occurrences of what? We don’t know. However, the sentence doesn’t end there. It says the “…procedures were changed to… eliminate the appearance of a deficiency.”

It would appear that the Marston school did no wrong, but nonetheless went ahead and made immediate (voluntary) changes to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. If that’s the case, the end result should be just as loudly declared as the original allegation. There’s no question Tom Kelly - who posted here – went through hell with this, but now all we get is cryptic language as to its resolution. Meanwhile TV’s leaked report and the banter is up at the AP site for all to read for some time. Am I missing something, or might Tom be owed more than what I got from this?

I should mention one more thing. The “summary” of the APA BOD minutes states the following: (Remember, it’s just a summary.)

quote:

---

Approval of several recommendations following an investigation of an anonymous complaint against an accredited polygraph school. (Yea: Dutton, Gaines, Ortiz, Russell) (Nay: Weinstein) (Abstained: Gougler, Gordon, Shaw, Murphy-Carr)

The APA has resolved publishing a statement in the Magazine that before an investigation is undertaken on the basis of a complaint made against an accredited APA school, such complaint must be in writing and identifying the name of the complainant.

---

We don’t know what the “several recommendations” are, but we do know that there was a dispute. Four for them, one against, and the school directors / instructors sat it out. (That means the two-thirds majority that is apparently necessary wasn’t met. See the constitution’s definition of by-laws and then look at Article IX., but that’s a different issue.)

I know Tom said here that he had or was getting an attorney as he believed he had been mistreated and falsely accused (I think I have that correct), and this stinks of a legal deal in which both sides agree to say little to nothing and leave each other alone. In the meantime, GM can add another line to his next book stating how TV said 320 hours is insufficient and at least one school doesn’t’ even do that, when it appears, the BOD didn’t accept TV’s conclusions (as he clearly stated violations occurred) but rather spoke of an “appearance” of a deficiency.

Once again, I like the fact that we need real complainants so GM and his small clan can’t sidetrack us with nonsense, but I’m still uncomfortable with where we are with it.

Am I being too critical, or does this not set right with others (for legitimate – not emotional – reasons)?

posted 03-28-2008 12:19 PM            

The main point is that if there was no problem why was there "voluntary corrective action."

If someone falsely accuses me of something, I will stand my ground and not "voluntarily" do ####!

posted 03-31-2008 02:02 AM            

As Jim signed off good night, I am saying good morning to all. It's 9:40am here in Baghdad so I hope that you all enjoyed a good nights sleep.

Please keep in mind that if there is an active grievance filed against any APA member, Board members can not and should not be discussing the issues with anyone. Please do not contact any board members about an active investigation. Yes, the process is slow but for good reasons. The committee wants to obtain any and all information relevant to the issues. Many times it is difficult due to the time it takes people to respond to questions. Again, please keep in mind that unlike IAD investigations, we can not compell individuals to get us the information needed overnight.

As the problems grow with media testing, the issues have to be addressed as to how can the APA stop, curtail, discourage, etc these exams. I requested the information that Ray posted and there were some good ideas and suggestions. My plan is to take that information to the BOD for discussion and hopefully approval at the next full meeting in August.

As I pointed out tin the past, the media really doesn't care if the examiner is an APA member or not. They want the bang for the buck and entertainment. Perhaps the answer will come form the individuals who go on the show and find out information they don't want to hear or know about. The prime example would be the contestant who admitted on national TV that she has had affairs and wanted to be married to her ex-boyfriend. Who was in the audience? Her husband who happens to be a NYPD officer. Maybe, just maybe, if they get divorced could the polygraph examiner be held accountable? I don't know. The other question that could be explored is thru Complete Equity or any other insurance company who underwrites polygraph coverage. What type of risk and exposure are they going to be responsible for? Perhaps if the insurance carriers would have a clause about media testing being unacceptable then an APA member would have to really think about conducting exams without any type of a safety net. I realize that the contestants probably sign some type of a wavier but I'm quite sure that it would not cover spouses or other individuals who were exposed to embrassing information on national TV.

Just food for thought.

Take care everyone and hope to see some of you soon.

Got to go, we have some incoming mortars and rockets.

posted 03-31-2008 08:26 AM            

I wasn't suggesting the BOD be approached. I simply meant to ask Don W if the complaint was still pending or resolved. It appears it's still pending.

posted 04-02-2008 10:16 AM            

Suprise, suprise, suprise....

posted 04-02-2008 10:55 AM            

He's right you know. Trusting me with graphics is like trusting a sith with a light saber.

Immature? I think not.

Well, I have to get back to Youtube to watch a video of a guy belching the National Anthem.

posted 04-02-2008 11:45 AM            

From what I can tell, there might have been an appearance of a violation but after an investigation that appearance was corrected. The anonymous complaint issue was a bonus.

posted 04-02-2008 01:59 PM            

Was GM's verbage identical to the public newletter? I don't have it anymore.

posted 04-02-2008 07:23 PM            

Yes, George got that from the clip i put in the newsletter. there was nothing damaging or revealing there about marston itself. I'm pretty careful to keep details out of the teaser snippets, but I thought the 'bonus' that came from this case was a good one and would draw examiners into the forums to see the rest.

My newsletters are public for anyone to find on the internet, George doesn't need any special access, but I'm sure he is subscribed to receive it as well.

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

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

posted 04-02-2008 09:26 PM            

I am now fully informed. I must admit, most things of knowledge are in-fact on the internet, but I'm a little slow on the uptake.