|
Author
|
Topic: What's the Matter with California?
|
stat
Member
|
posted 02-25-2008 08:53 PM
  
So let me get this straight. California is home to some of the country's best and brightest and most notable polygraph examiners in the world------and yet there is no scant form of license law? How is this possible? Why is this possible?
Pardon my naivette.
And please refrain from remarking of the "left coast"----as Sacremento and the thousands of very conservative communities in the golden state are pretty tired of being called such. Lest we forget that Dick Nixon was from California----but I digress.Some of my favorite examiners are out in California, and I would very much like a bone-dry explanation as to why the capital of all things entertainment and promoted has no sense of security apparatus from polygraph examiners who never attended any sort of actual school. Where is the self-determination? And bare in mind that I am not even concerned with "non-APA" schools here. What's the matter with California?
Ted?
Lou?
Tom?
Jack?
Cleve?
Anyone know? [This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-25-2008).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 02-25-2008 10:48 PM
stat,California had polygraph licensing at one time. It probably sun-setted after 1988, when the volume of examiners and polygraph work was reduced and not worth the administrative expense. Any new polygraph licensing efforts will probably be met with intensive scrutiny from anti-poly folks. It might be wiser to regulate ourselves for the time being. There is some experience, in drug and alcohol counseling, in which a profession that gains credibility by effective self-regulation and credentialing does eventually become recognized as consistent with the mission and objectives of existing state regulatory boards. This is one of those situations where we might just have to lead by example. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 02-26-2008 12:28 AM
Stat,We have tried for years to get a licensing requirement. The problem is, the state wants US to pay for the polygraph board and all of the costs associated with it. This does not include investigative staff to look into complaints. The cost would be several hundred thousand dollars per year divided by about 100 examiners. See the picture? Ted IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 02-26-2008 08:15 AM
Has anyone tried to meet with Ahnold? Having met with my own Lt Governer as a result of 5 or 6 phone calls----namely in the name of sex offender testing, a great political subject---I have found that getting access isn't hard if it smells of possible political capital.IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 02-26-2008 09:17 AM
Incidentally, Indiana's modest licensing requirements are administered by the Indina State Police/Indiana State Government----which requires graduation from an APA school, a criminal background check, and submission of fingerprints.No Grogonites here, and no $100,000 board costs----or whatever. Alternatively, I have little love for the Illinois licensing requirements as last I knew it contained a long and arduous antiqueted written test, and a nebulous and oft accused nepotistic voting board----which is rumored to be a throwback to the "Reid Mafia" of Chicago of the old "ya gotta know someone" variety. Is this true? Is it true that even if an examiner with impeccable pedegree and experience must be "voted into membership" in the style of a country club----even if all tests are passed and technical and ethical requirements are met? [This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-29-2008).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 02-26-2008 09:21 AM
NUKED;Poorly worded association of Kentucky's licensure laws with neighboring Tennessee's laws---regarding alleged medical history requirements. More research required. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-29-2008).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 02-28-2008 11:40 PM
So I just received an email from a Kentucky Examiner who corrected me in my above statement and that Kentucky DOES NOT require a medical history disclosure in order to get a polygraph and/or investigater's license. I sent him/her an email in return apologizing for any mistake----and I asked the examiner (anonymous as they gave no permission for me to identify them) if it is still the case that a Tennessee license is a "paired license" for Kentucky----in that if one holds a Tennessee license, than one can readily and without challenge in any normal situation recieve a Kentucky license. Haven't heard back yet---it was only moments ago.
Such is common among neighboring states with other things such as "gun concealment permits" and such.
My above post rather unfairly associates Kentucky with Tennessee in that to my knowledge Tennessee is the state that requires a medical history for Private Examiner licensure--for private investigaters and allegedly, polygraph examiners. Having a close associate be forced to undergo such a requirment in recent years, I was amazed at such. I will contact that friend of mine to confirm his story again----as perhaps it only is a requirement asked of out of state examiners.
I added gas onto the fire of my criticism by accusing such practice as unconstitutional----and perhaps rightfully so----one can find (shephardize) many employment laws regarding medical history and how it MUST be directly relevant to the position or duty for which the license is being sold. An example is that one must be able to see to get a driver's license. But one need not submit to an FAA style physical exam for a mere driver's priveledge.
I doubt any future examiners of such a system care to reveal to their state board their last hemorrhoid surgery or whether they are taking prozac.If I am wrong about the medical requirement---I will photoshop my face onto a horses arse, and email it to every member of the Tennessee board of examiners. Regarding Kentucky---one of the most beautiful states in the country, I apologize if I was not clear enough in my post. Although this is a private forum, for examiners only, it is public in that our small community needs to read truth. I will address my rather harsh comments on the prickly Illinois licensure requirements-----known to be the toughest in the country-----for better or worse----on another post. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-29-2008).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 02-29-2008 08:43 AM
Gee, I find myself hoping you are wrong for the sheer entertainment value.a smiley av for you
 You'll have to read Kurt Vonnegut's BOC (or at least look at the pictures) to appreciate the smiley. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 02-29-2008).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 02-29-2008 09:25 AM
Kurt is from Indiana ya know----he is required reading. Stay tuned----a little more research. One more phone call.
IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 02-29-2008 09:57 AM
Stat, the apology was great...it’s not necessary for further photo-shop or berating; however your face on the 2 legged horse would be entertaining...lol. (BTW, this weekend I am getting out my old ‘photo-slam’ disc and may have a bit of fun if it works with my VISTA computer – hell, nothing else works with VISTA so I may be out of luck.)I hope if I offend someone or provide inaccurate info on this board they will contact me on the issue as well. That is why we have 'nuke' capability. This board is for us to talk to different examiners/states, learn ways of operation, learn OOS statistics (well some of us have a hard time understanding Ray’s posts!), learn about motorcycles and guns and be a bouncing board for ideas, comments, frustrations etc. Everyone who posts (or lurks) on this board needs to lighten up a bit and jump in on the conversations. Comments and corrections won’t hurt my feelings (well maybe…ha – but I will get over it). Hopefully, the KY examiner is okay with the correction (and your heartfelt apology). BTW, I had no idea Tennessee requires a medical history to become an examiner. I must admit, I would rather have a state with licensing laws that required a doctor’s statement saying someone was okay to conduct polygraphs than a state with NO licensing laws!
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 02-29-2008 12:56 PM
ok----DID SOME RESEARCH.
Tenn. DOES NOT require a medical history---BUT---the application for polygraph license in Kentucky has a Medical Release section on it. This is in fact a request to give the license authority the right to view private medical records. Now whether Kentucky actually uses this is a matter of details.
As I understand it, if one holds a Tenn. license for 2 years, than there is a reciprocity process that---although not a guarantee, can grandfather a waiver for Kentucky licensure.My point was to compare the costs and or macro-structure of licensing bodies in differing states. I still hold that provided the Kentucky medical release section of the application is still in effect, that such a requirement is seemingly intrusive.
I had a great conversation with the President of the Kentucky Poly Association, Rick Kurtz. He was very kind and helpful, although he did categorically deny any such medical history requirement---at least in the 7 yrs or so he has been involved. A close associate of mine has the Kentucky application and the subsequent medical history release form, and is attempting to send me the document. I certainly did not want to make such a fuss over the issue, nor am I interested in making changes or drawing actionable attention to the matter. As a former human resources professional with emphasis on employment law, I just found the medical release to be a bit overreaching. My opinion only. My sincere apologies to the extraodinary examiners in both states, as my comments were not meant to disparage those fine folks. I did not mean likewise any insults to any single examiners per se----including the wild west state of California. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-29-2008).] IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 02-29-2008 04:42 PM
The Army CID has some requirements that you may not be aware of for polygraph examiner certification.First, you must be an alcoholic or at least a practicing drunk. Second, you must have been married at least twice and one of those marriages must have been to someone from a foreign country. Third, you must have been passed over for pormotion or about to be passed over upon entering the polygraph field. Finally, you must be uncouth, wear your army low quarter black shoes with a Wal Mart suit and wear your hair just a bit too long. Oh one more... a pot belly automatically gives you an edge in the application process. IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 02-29-2008 07:15 PM
Skip,does this mean you guys need me back...? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Jim [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 02-29-2008).] IP: Logged |
rcgilford
Member
|
posted 02-29-2008 08:40 PM
Geez Jim, I think you could be in the running for Chief of the Polygraph Division at CRC. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone more qualified. Sorry Skip, you may know polygraph, but you have to admit that Jim is light years ahead of us based on those requirements. [This message has been edited by rcgilford (edited 02-29-2008).] [This message has been edited by rcgilford (edited 02-29-2008).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 02-29-2008 08:58 PM
You guys kill me! lolI have a picture of Jim in my mind now---it's probably wrong.
On another note, Michigan license guidelines are very strict, in that if memory serves, you must administer 200 field exams under the DIRECT supervision of a senior examiner. This is a really tough thing for a private examiner and a family man examiner (or woman) in that;
A. it's tough to find such a willing examiner to "raise up" competition and..
B. Most examiners charge money to the student---often times as much as an exam itself, so the cost and time is often years and thousands of dollars, and much travel. Michigan is a tough customer in the license department---as well as Illinois. 
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-29-2008).] IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 02-29-2008 09:13 PM
Bob,your memory is getting a little rusty. Though, I can't say it's all that inaccurate... LOL Jim IP: Logged |
rcgilford
Member
|
posted 03-01-2008 09:05 AM
It makes it difficult for examiners when each state has a different set of rules, and some states have no licensing at all. North Carolina (NC) has a strange set of rules and I was wondering how many other states have the same situation. In NC, private examiners are required to be licensed by what is known as the Private Protection Services Board (PPSB). Police and law enforcement examiners are not required to have any license to run tests. All they have to do is go to school (and legally, they don¡¦t even have to do that, but I¡¦m confident that they do) and come back and start running tests. A number of years ago I spent two years working with the DoJ in an attempt to get at least some kind of certification to ensure law enforcement examiners received required continuing education and document at the state level their competency. But, after two years of work and moving in the right direction, the entire plan got backdoored by none other than a law enforcement examiner, and the whole process was scrapped! So, we¡¦re back where we¡¦ve always been. (When you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got) ƒ¼
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 03-01-2008 10:36 AM
Great point RC.Regarding your efforts at the DOJ----at least you tried! I have had a fleeting curiosity whether law enforcemnt are required to have state licenses--you know, the card/certificate. I think maybe they don't, just like they do not need a carry permit to carry a gun---it's just not necessary I s'pose. I am aware that most state associations (non governement groups) like for example the Indiana Polygraph Association which has many fine lawman as members, has our own set of continuing ed requirements. I think it's common that state associations cover the whole CEU matter--rather than state licensure bodies-------and of course the other regional and national associations have additional and sometimes redundant CEU requirements. Federal examiners are whole 'nother critter though. 
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-01-2008).] IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 03-01-2008 12:01 PM
Bob, stat, et al,when I was in Missouri, there were NO rules or licensing requirements. Polygraph examiners simply needed the ability to convince those they supported that they were qualified polygraph examiners. It showed in some cases, too. This is not to say there are not good, qualified examiners there in the mid-west, there are. But as a private examiner, I didn't need anything but a business license; and probably could have gotten away with operating without even that. Kansas, to my understanding had licensing when I first got there, but did away with it due to a lack of interested people engaging in supporting it. My experience was simple. To engage in licensing requires qualified personnel to control and manage the program. Whose qualified? Further, the effort requires time and money and political interest and connections. Most (my experience) examiners are not willing to volunteer that which is necessary to maintain a proper licensing program, unless of course, it's already been established. Jim [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 03-01-2008).] IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 03-01-2008 07:02 PM
In Utah ALL (LE & Private) Polygraph Examiners have to be licensed. However, CVSA examiners don't! That is one of our upcoming projects. I would like to get rid of CVSA but have to approach it right. If I ask for licensing of CVSA it validates them. Right now we are looking into how to best approach this whole CVSA issue in Utah.IP: Logged |
Dan S
Member
|
posted 03-02-2008 03:42 AM
Stat:As a former graduate and staff member of that so called "Reid Mafia", I wanted to inform you that the Illinois law was changed some time ago. In fact anyone can pull up the licensing info and there is even a study guide and recommendations for reading material. There is very little about Reid on the examination. I recently had to give a deposition in a civil case that involved an examiner from Illinios and had to access the website to learn what are the current requirements for the state. Examiners form other states that are licensed by examination and meet the Illinois licensing requirements can request waiver for the examination. In order to be licensed in Illinois, no one had to be approved by a secret committe, hand shakes or anything or that nature. The only thing they had to do was submit to the written examination and oral board, pass the exam and receive their license. A lot of folks didn't like the Illinois licensing requirements becuase of the minimum standards they had in place. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 03-02-2008 11:21 AM
Great news Dan. I am aware of a long drawn out problem regarding when then Dr. Sam Braddock was attempting to get a license in Illinois, he apparently had to go to extreme measures as the local examiners seemed to be against him from the start----why specifically I don't know. But when a former NSA examiner with a long record of expertise, multiple state memberships, and the want for opening up a school becomes baracaded from a simple state license----well, something seems wrong. I am told a few examiners had to lobby long and hard to get him admitted.
If indeed the license laws were changed, and I have every reason to believe Dan's reporting on this matter---then great. But let's not be coy, there is (or was) a very ensconced group of examiners in the Chicago area (not Chicago PD mind you) that have long been reputted as being very protective of turf.
I am in no way attempting to impune examiners like Roy Derby and others who are the "newer breed"---or veteran examiners like Steve Theodore' who have long and bravely remarked of the oddities associated with Illinois' history of licensure and examiner politics.
p.s. It's about time a Chi-towner came out for debate. You people are grossly under-represented on this forum. You must all be stuck in the miserable bottle-neck, cross town traffic (lol.)Dan is in the Ghan and he made it (or is it the sandbox)---I don't remember what aweful place you are serving the country---thanks for that!
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-02-2008).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 03-02-2008 06:49 PM
Rick Kurtz called me today to politely say that the Kentucky license application does in fact have at the end, a medical history release signature section. Rick said that the form is very old, probably predating HIPPA (1996) and that at no time (in many years anyway)has the Association actually used the powers of release regarding medical info---I suspected as much---as I doubt any doctor's office would comply anyway. Rick thanked me sincerely and kindly and in his typically "get it done" fashion said he would be overhauling the form immediately. In my post about medical history, some may have thought I was stating that Kentucky had applicants fill out an actual history, rather than the very subtle and ubiquitous "release" line, hidden among the more relevant stuff. It was a simple oversight, no harm.I think it goes to show that we can all polish up some things----for the good of the ship. Rick is doing some great things in Kentucky these days----and I hope to join that fine organization in the coming months. p.s. Rick is former CID---I wonder if he meets Skip's CID hiring criteria. On the phone, he doesn't sound like he has a big gut though(lol). 
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-02-2008).] IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 03-02-2008 10:36 PM
stat,unfortunately, or fortunately, Rick is one of the unique members of CID. He is normal... Jim
IP: Logged |
Richard W. Kurtz
Member
|
posted 03-04-2008 09:37 PM
Reference to Stats comments about the Kentucky Licensing law and requiring a medical review of records in order to become licensed. This document for release of records, arrest, school, etc. is on the form; however, we have never requested medical records of any applicant. We do a local name check and a national name check by collecting fingerprints. That has been the extent of the background check for Kentucky for a polygraph license. This medical form has been reviewed by our legal staff and is being changed as I write this. New applicants for a license in Kentucky will need to fill out a release of information, minus having to be concerned about a review of their medical records/history. Thanks Stat, this is something that has been overlooked for years and now it reads correctly for current times.------------------
IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 03-05-2008 12:43 AM
quote:
In my post about medical history, some may have thought I was stating that Kentucky had applicants fill out an actual history, rather than the very subtle and ubiquitous "release" line, hidden among the more relevant stuff. It was a simple oversight, no harm.
Hey, no so fast now. Anyone else catch the smooth talkin' equivocation here? I'm pretty sure this all means that stat was wrong, and that some form of auto-photoshopping is in order.... quote:
If I am wrong about the medical requirement---I will photoshop my face onto a horses arse, and email it to every member of the Tennessee board of examiners.
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 03-05-2008 10:35 AM
Bastards!OK, so Tenn. does not have a medical history release on their polygraph license application. It was Kentucky that had it---but is getting rid of it as we speak. Enjoy, you bunch of vengeful bastards! 
IP: Logged |
blalock
Member
|
posted 03-05-2008 10:49 AM
alright, i give up. which one is you?------------------
Ben blalockben@hotmail.com IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 03-05-2008 10:54 AM
I'm the one with the goatee.IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
