posted 06-11-2006 09:35 PM            

I just want to take a minute and talk about the 'good old boys'. I have been an examiner since 2001 so everyone else here will have more history on the APA. For the past two years, I have served on the APA awards committee. We ask for award nominations and receive very few. I then hear during the awards that APA is just rewarding the 'good old boys'. Well, if someone doesn't step up and submit nominations, we award the top contender and there may be only one person nominated for a particular award and it may be 'a good old boy' (or girl - now you don't want me to get on the soap box on that one).

I don't want to step on anyone's toes or start an argument (although it has been a while since we had a real good disucssion here)- but if you don't want the good ole boys running APA, you need to get people to run for an office. If I remember, last year, TV didn't have anyone to run against. I am not saying anything against T.V. because he is also a great guy. I just don't care for hearing about the 'good old boys' if they are the only people willing to run the organization.

I am happy to hear about Don and as stated before I would vote for him. Funny thing is since joining APA - I would have thought Don was a 'good old boy'.

posted 06-12-2006 07:36 AM            

(I know you're not picking on T.V. Everybody likes him. How couldn't you?)

posted 06-13-2006 06:51 PM            

I guess I am a miss with your logic. If it takes one more than a year to adequately serve as president, why is it that the term of president calls for one year and not more?

I do agree that experience, knowledge, and skills are important. However, these are not specifically attained through the APA.

This reminds me of a great leader whom had attained the bulk of his leadership experience through his state legislature service and as lawyer. In fact, his only experience in federal politics was that of a failed attempt for election to Senatorial office just two years prior to his nomination and election to Presidency.

Yet despite his lack of experience at that level, he helped build and strengthen the Republican Party, issued the Emancipation Proclamation, united a divided nation, and is still one of the most quoted presidents today.

posted 06-14-2006 11:44 AM            

As a member of the BOD for the past several years I have worked to implement changes to make a difference in our profession. Please don't think I am making a campaign speech here but I started a number of projects that I have been totally committed to for some time. I really think I deserve an oportunity to see them through before I step down.

Some of the things the APA is working on includes a re-write of our standards of practice "requiring Continuing Education for all members". This is a standard that has been too long in coming but is necessary if we are to be respected in the legal community. In the past there has been resistance from the members to enforcing this standard.

We are finishing up a new set of standards for Law enforcement screening that will assist our Law Enforcement examiners with guidance in pre-employment testing.

Through our newly implemented Public Relations firm, we are working to promote the benefits of professional polygraph as it differs from other detection of deception methods.

We are working to refine the APA accredited school curriculum which I wrote for more contemporary training.

We are expanding and increasing our Continued Education training into other countries such as Mexico, Canada, South America, and South Africa. We have held CE seminars in every corner of the US to include places that could never have been able to provide their own without APA assets and support.

I am proud of these projects but they have taken time.

posted 06-14-2006 01:46 PM            

To clarify Skip Webb's statistics a bit, nearly half of the presidents who have served since 1987 (5 of the 11) served one term. If the board wants to change the term of office to two years, let them get on with it.

I repeat my former observation -- this is an election we're talking about. Usually that means more than one candidate. The most we can hope for as members is that the election be conducted in good spirits and be based upon the merits of the candidates, not upon procedural assumptions that are not widely held.

posted 06-15-2006 04:56 PM            

Don't feel bad about making a campaign speech here. I invite you to. What you have to say is important to the polygraph profession. There are about 200 examiners who are registered here, many of whom read but don't post. Some will probably be voting in August. I can't imagine anyone being offended by being well informed.

Don is registered here. Perhaps you two could start a new thread, make a few statements and field a few questions?

Skip,

This isn't a major point, but I'm a little confused. I guess I don't know what a "good ole boy" is after all. Here in New England - and I know we can be a little behind - a "good ole boy" can still have wet ink on his application. It has nothing to do with time in the field. When we refer to good old boys, we mean those established cliques that limit their "membership" to a few hand-picked people, and the group makes decisions that serve themselves regardless of what makes sense, usually appealing to tradition and how they've "always done it that way and ain't changin now." Both Don and TV (and they're not alone, I know) are willing to weigh the evidence and change their minds if they are persuaded that is the right thing to do, and I wouldn't consider either a good ole boy.

posted 06-16-2006 10:12 PM            

Distracted by work for only a short time, and I miss all this great stuff.

I really like TV and his approach to things.

Mr. Webb's arguments are very pursuasive.

At the same time I have always really appreciated Mr. Krapohl's very level-headed empirical concerns, and his ability to articulate the issues clearly.

This makes me think we are in pretty good shape as a professional association, to have such great difficult choices to make.

On the scale of problems, this is definately a high-quality dilemma.

enjoy.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 06-23-2006 10:05 AM            

Before making some general remarks about my position, I think we can all agree that TV O’Malley has worked very hard for the Association. Out of my respect and our long friendship, he was the very first person I called to tell of my decision to run, and to offer my hand of friendship regardless of how the votes came out. That offer still stands.

Now, the next section is a little long, so I’ll ask the indulgence of the readers for a moment as I address those items that have been suggested as reasons I would not be a good candidate for the Presidency. The pluses will be taken up in a later posting.

Item 1: I am not currently on the Board.

Response: True. I was an ex officio member from 1997 to 2001, and participated in all aspects except the vote. However, using Board membership as a criterion to run for this office strikes me as pretty restrictive. In effect, it says that out of the nearly 3000 members of the APA, only 6 members are qualified to run. This “member of the club” restriction is common practice among trade unions, but it is all but unknown among professional organizations, and I was surprised to read it. In my humble view, if this is truly the sentiment of Board members, it points to the urgency of new leadership with a better understanding of what professional organizations do.

Item 2: The Presidency has heavy time demands, perhaps more than I appreciate.

Response: Untrue. I recognize and accept the level off commitment. I would not have decided to run otherwise. Perhaps my burden would be even greater, as I do not intend to appoint an Executive Officer to whom I could give assignments.

Item 3: Sitting APA Presidents have always been afforded a second term without challenge.

Response: Irrelevant. I do not accept that any elected office is an entitlement, and would suggest that the majority of APA members would share my view. Such a presumption of privilege runs contrary to the democratic process. APA offices should be earned by the support of the members for the agenda of the candidate. Let the membership decide.

Final comments

My posting went longer than I expected, but there is much to say about this race, and I will have more to add later. The core values that I want to convey to the APA membership regarding my candidacy are these: vision, commitment, and accountability. Now, more than ever, we need the vision to more clearly see where we should be going, the commitment to move it in that direction, and accountability to the membership for Board decisions. Without embracing these values, we will never achieve real progress.

Don

posted 06-27-2006 04:24 AM            

Briefed Senate and Congressional staffers on polygraph and voice stress issues.

Hosted informational visits by the media and by foreign governments.

Was an invited speaker on the polygraph to the National Science Foundation.

Crafted numerous responses to congressional and media inquiries.

Have published over 50 research, instructional and general interest articles and book chapters on the polygraph and other technologies in several publications, including Polygraph.

Has presented countless times on polygraph issues to APA and international audiences.

Helped craft the charge given to the National Research Council for its review of polygraph screening accuracy in 2002.

Developed and validated the Objective Scoring System, later made into algorithms on most computer polygraphs. Also developed and validated the Evidentiary Decision Rules for use in courtroom and paired-testing applications.

Spearheaded an effort to develop a body of best practices for the profession, the first such effort in our history.

Introduced the technology that is now used in most countermeasure cushions.

Managed the day-to-day operations of the world’s best and largest polygraph education and research organization.

I would contrast these achievements with those of my worthy opponent. In a series of postings to follow I will lay out my strategy to improve the outlook for the profession, and how I will avoid the missteps of the past.

posted 06-28-2006 09:58 AM            

I’m going to take a moment to comment on an issue that I have heard from many members during the campaign: the pubic relations effort being funded by the APA. To bring everyone to a common understanding, the APA Board approved the expenditure of up to $100,000 to a public relations firm, providing that it was supported by a vote of the membership. The measure was approved at the APA general members meeting last year, and the firm started to work some months later.

The apparent goal of the project is to improve the public image of the profession. While no one can question the intent, there are some pretty obvious reasons why this project should not have been undertaken. Let’s consider the long range implications of the project, and then evaluate whether it made sense from a strategic perspective.

There are three possible outcomes from the PR project: success, failure, or no way to tell. Taking the optimistic view first, suppose that the PR campaign does help the APA to carry its message better, and has a measurable effect on pubic perception of the profession (this is not my view). Of course, we would all celebrate such an outcome. However, in order to maintain this success it would be necessary to continue to write the checks to the PR firm. A one-year PR effort is hardly worth the effort. An investment of $100,000 per year cannot be supported with our treasury, since it constitutes more than 10% of our longterm holdings. You don’t need a calculator to see that there is a natural end to the money stream. The longterm implications of the decision were either not considered, were ignored, or at least not communicated to the membership, and for everyone except those about to retire, this should grab your attention.

Let’s take the pessimistic side now, that the money had no effect (this is also not my view). That would make the present endeavor a very costly failed experiment. Indeed, the PR campaign is the single largest APA expense in a generation. One would have to go back to the 1980s to find its equal. For point of illustration, the cost would be equivalent to taking the dues for all of the APA members who voted at the last seminar for the next two years and sending the money directly to the PR firm. And that would only cover this year. A very expensive experiment.

Now let’s consider that which is my view, that we will never know whether the PR campaign did anything positive. There is nothing in the APA Magazine that tells what success is defined as, let alone how success would be measured. Indeed, there is precious little detail about the execution of this plan at all. At such a high cost, the membership should expect more accountability for the project.

Regardless of the intent of the PR program, the case for continuing it has not been made as of yet. As APA President I would revisit the decision to go with a PR firm, and lacking the kinds of justifications stated earlier, I would redirect the APA’s monies to something more sustainable and more measurable. I would ask the hard questions how this PR firm was selected, and who set the fee structure. And most importantly, I would make the entire Board decision process transparent, so that there can be no lingering questions from the membership about the wisdom of the decision.

This is the message coming from the membership, and I get it.

To the many of you who have sent personal e-mails of support, I can’t thank you enough, and I hope you will carry the message of this campaign to others. For those who might want to drop a note to comment, criticize, or suggest, my e-mail address is: dkrapohl@aol.com. All are welcome.

posted 06-29-2006 02:00 PM            

I'm confused. Generally speaking, why should a current president be entitled to a second term (out of what you seem to say is only fair) so that he can finish what he started, but then argue here that the president is only one vote, seemingly implying that a president has little power to accomplish his will? Yes, he is one vote, but if he runs on a promise to address certain issues and is later elected, the rest of the BOD might want to wake up and ask if they have a new mandate from the membership.

I'm also confused about the need for one to get his or her feet wet by being a member of the BOD before being president that way he or she will know "what's going on." Do I pay dues to a secret society? How much do we in the general membership not know? What kind of secrets do you keep? I thought the magazine was supposed to keep all of us up to speed on what's going on in the organization.

(Regardless of who wins this or any future elections, your comments scared me a little.)

Now I know there will be some things that require leaders of any organization to keep quite about for a short time, but how much could there be? Wouldn't anybody brief the new president on what he or she needed to know? Every four or eight years in this country we have a president who is briefed on much more than what the APA is talking about. I have a feeling Don - or anybody else who wants to throw his name in - wouldn't have much trouble getting caught up on whatever issues are pending.

posted 06-29-2006 04:48 PM            

As for the PR campaign, let's not mince words. If only 200 members voted for it, consider that the other 2500 members were either not consulted or voted against it. A second plank in my campaign (the full portion to be released early next week) is to open voting to all members in good standing, whether or not they can attend any given seminar. It's well past time that issues and Board members can be be decided with the consent of less than 10% of the membership. The PR campaign is a sterling example of how ill-conceived ideas can become ill-conceived programs. The current system is undemocratic, skewed to favor incumbency and their agendas, and should be changed regardless of who wins the election.

More revelations to come. Stay tuned.

posted 06-30-2006 08:06 AM            

I wasn't aware this was the case, and like Don, I trust all of our leadership, so I don't want to in any way imply any wrong doing by anybody. But, all boards have a fiduciary responsibility to their members, and they should strive to avoid any appearance of impropriety. This process just strikes me as very odd.

For the record, I don't want to know every detail of everything the BOD discusses. They need to have some privacy to comfortably accomplish what we have elected them to do. We've elected them because we trust and respect their judgment, and they should feel free to speak to one another freely and honestly, without fear of being challenged at every point. Again, BUT we should be able to know generally what they are doing when then meet, e.g., "Discussed status of committee X...." Right now, it appears we can't know anything, and that is disturbing.

This is why having two people run is good for the organization. It brings out things that in the end will better the organization - if for no other reason, by educating us.

TV,

posted 06-30-2006 08:09 AM            

For Don to insinuate a lack of accountability by the board or a desire on the part of the baord to hide something or arbitrarily refuse him the minutes is just plain mean spirited and wrong when he was provided the reason behind that refusal and given the cites from both our constitution and Robert's Rules. That decision was reviewed by our general counsel and checked against the laws of the Distrist of Columbia where the APA is incorporated.

There is little ambiguity in that statement. The release of the minutes requires a vote of the Board of Directors. The next meeting of the board is Friday 14 July in Vegas. Don knows this as he was told the reason but failed to indicate that knowledge in his post.

As for the people who voted to engage a PR firm, that was a vote of the members present. Our APA constitution again calls for members in attendance for votes of the membership, not members in good standing.

The APA can change the constitution or by-laws to say anything they wish within reason and law, but I don't think it should be insinuated that these decisions are decisions of the board or they are made for some nefarious reason. The people who serve on the board do so on their own time and don't get paid for their efforts. They are volunteers doing what they think is best for the organization. To indicate that there is some hidden agenda in play or some sinister motive at work is simply unfair to the people who do their best for the APA and work hard at it.

posted 06-30-2006 09:00 AM            

APA Constitution simply states Roberts Rules of Order as amended. There is no language indicating that the most recent version of the book should be used.
Since the most recent newly revised 10th edition was not published until 5 years after the APA constitution was adopted, then it could be reasonably argued that any older version of Roberts Rules preceding the adoption of the constitution is a superceding document. At least until the Board of Directors places a constitutional amendment before the membership specifying that the most recent version is the governing document.

All that aside, the purpose of Robert's Rules is to ensure the civil conduct of societal meetings by establishing procedures towards that end.

posted 06-30-2006 10:08 AM            

I don't think Don has insinuated anything as you state. He simply said the status quo is wrong, and now that others realize what the status quo is, I think most all will agree with him - regardless of whether one is voting for him or TV. I interpreted his comments to mean he has ideas of issues that need a change. He said he learned something in this process and he passed that info on. The "why" doesn't really matter. The fact that this issue exists at all is troubling. Hiding behind "that's the way it is" or "I've got you on a technicality" is not a solution to what many - I suspect - will agree is a problem.

I realize things were this way for a while, and I haven't seen any fingers pointed at you or anybody else. You seem to be taking this as a personal attack. It isn't, but you're starting to point fingers, and that's not going accomplish anything positive. I don't know of anybody here who doesn't like and respect you. That doesn't mean there aren't any, but I haven't heard it.

posted 06-30-2006 10:18 AM            

The board does have an obligation to follow the constitution and by-laws, the District of Columbia Corporation rules and by extension when things are not clearly delineated, Robert's Rules prevail.

The board has no desire, nor is it attemtping to prevent anyone from seeing the minutes and there is certainly nothing in the minutes that need protecting from view. We do have an obligation to follow proper procedure in the release of them. If Maschke asked for them? Should we release them for him to publish on the anti site without even a board vote on it? I know...your repsonse might be "well he's not a member.". Without a board vote and without reliance on Robert's Rules how would we make that distinction and deny him the minutes?

posted 06-30-2006 10:57 AM            

I think the solution to this one is to allow the BOD to vote to release the minutes to a member as necessary. These days, votes can often be done (it varies by state) via phone or email. Only having two options per year is a problem. In other words, we now know the rules need to be changed.

Your fears are real and well based. I'm probably more of a cynic than you. I believe the anti-site has an examiner feeding them info, which is why I said earlier I don't want to know every little detail, and I don't think others need to either - I trust you guys to take care of what you are supposed to be doing. I just want to know what, in general, the leadership is doing for me.

posted 06-30-2006 12:27 PM            

If I desired, I could obtain an uncopyrighted version of Roberts Rules of Order, amend it as I saw fit and publish it as "Robert's Rules of Order as Amended" sell it for two bucks and argue that it was the version APA should be using because of the wording of the APA constitution.

This is why the publishers of of the edition you are quoting recommend specific language for the adoption of their version which avoids the need to have to amend a constitution or by-laws every time a new version is published. It should be addressed to protect the APA constitution from attack by someone with a real axe to grind. I have none.

The REAL issue, as I see it is this.
I think it is unfortunate that the current perception exists in some minds that the board of directors is using Robert's Rules of Order to deny informational minutes from board meetings to a candidate for the office of president.

It gives the appearance of a worst case scenario, probably unjustified, that the board is closing ranks to block a specific legitimate candidacy. In the best light it looks like a policy designed to deny or delay information to the membership who support the organization with the contents of their wallets.

Don't misunderstand, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO INSINUATE THAT THE RESPECTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS OF APA ARE DOING ANYTHING WRONG IN THEIR MEETINGS, but this shroud of secrecy fosters an appearance of impropriety. This appearance of impropriety needs to be rectified. You outlined the procedures you went through before denying the information request.

I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't have required less effort to poll the board and grant permission to inspect the minutes. RONR does not appear to require a formal meeting, motion, or vote unless the membership is forcing the board to release the minutes.

posted 06-30-2006 04:02 PM            

When people run for any office, they point out the short comings and what needs to be changed. This needs to be.

Don't take offense. It's clear this will be addressed soon. At this point, who can ask for more?

posted 07-01-2006 06:46 AM            

This portion of the rules should be changed at the next meeting. The portion of "to board members only unless the board grants permission to a member" can be revised and give all members access, restricting non members under the provision you are citing. This would stop non members from getting access I would think and give the general membership access fully.

posted 07-01-2006 08:37 AM            

If the above linked is the applicable statutory content, the only applicable article I found regarding this issue is the eighth, which in plain English states that the incorporators must, "State the provisions for regulation of the internal affairs of the corporation. (If there are no provisions, so state)."

It in other words unambiguously states tell us what rules you are going to follow inside the corporation and if you do not have any just say so and that’s fine too.

From my reading of the aforementioned dialogue provided by Skip and in reading the APA constitution, Roberts Rules of Order was prescribed by the incorporators as the default “regulation of the internal affairs”, when no other means were present (e.g constitution or bylaws). This is standard at the onset of an organization, before the organization founds its constitution and bylaws.

The APA constitution provides the following closely related language in Article VIII (F); “Policies and Procedures established by the Board of Directors in administrating the Association shall be documented as historical record by the Secretary and retained at the National Office.” This does not submit to minutes though.

However, the APA bylaws do provide a solution for the release and in fact prescribe:

7.3 The Secretary shall:

7.3.1 In conjunction with the National Office Manager, serving as appointed Assistant Secretary, be responsible for recording and retaining the official minutes, resolutions, and proceedings of the Association derived from business meetings of the general membership, the Board of Directors, or other meetings as may be required for the effective and orderly transaction of the Association's business.

7.3.2 Distribute official notices, correspondence and other materials and record policy and procedures established during Board of Directors Meetings.

This, in my humble opinion, negates the need for the RRoO so stated. For The proceedings regarding this are already prescribed in the bylaws.

posted 07-01-2006 12:48 PM            

I have been following the postings by all with considerable interest.

Please remember, our detractors and the true enemies of polygraph coninue to attack us daily. Without due regard for what we say an do, we in the profession give them all the ammunition they need.

The APA president and members of the APA BOD are completely accountable to our membership. To be the president does not authorize me to act without regard for the rules set forth in our APA Constitution I took an oath to uphold. I am not given any special authority to indiscriminatly ignore procedure because a case can be made to consider extinuating circumstances. I don't share the philosophy that rules are made to be broken.

Based on higly reliable information revealed to me, prior to this request, no member had ever requested BOD minutes, therevfore, it would have been difficult if not impossible to have predicted that this issue was ever going to be a problem. Certainly there was no reason to believe that the integrity of the BOD or any members of the BOD would be called into quesiton over "motives" for following our adopted administrative standards of conduct.

I will assure you that it is a safe bet, especially in Las Vegas, that no matter who is elected, one of the first items of new business will be to resolve this issue and put it to the membership for consideration.

Consider this analogy. When our forfathers drafted the Constitution of the United States, do you think they anticipated that in the year 2006, the American public would be considering the need for an ammendment to protect our flag from being burned. Flag burning was not a problem then, It wasn't an issue that needed to be addressed. Prior to this date, the release of BOD minutes have never been an issue we needed further direction on.

Understand, that every request by Mr. Kraphol has been/will be handled by someone other than myself. I will recuse myself from all matters involving him prior to the president's election.

Mr. Kraphol must admit that our General Counsel, ex-officio, non-voting, member of the Board, (and for the record apersonal friend to Mr. Kraphol), is a fair person and knowledgeable in the proper and responsible conduct of APA BOD affairs. Our General Counsel, our Washington incorporation attorney, and apparently, to my understanding, Robert's Rules (abbridged) have been the authorities by which the decisions regarding his requests have rested.

Those of you who are active APA members and are interested in the welfare of our profession and the association already know me and what I stand for.

I hope to see you in Las Vegas. I remain committed to promoting professional polygraph standards and training for all examiners, Law Enforcement, Government, and private examiners alike.