February 2016 APA Council of Representatives Report

“Our lives began to end the day we became silent about the things that matter.”
Martin Luther King Jr.

Probably one of the single most significant and poignant experiences that happened to me in the past six years as a Council representative occurred on the last day of the February Council meetings. It was Sunday morning and our invited anthropologist, Malachi O’Connor, PhD, was to begin his presentation about Council of Representatives (COR) functioning and how it can be improved. O’Connor focuses on organizations’ cultures and how they need to change. He was to help COR understand APA’s culture as he observed it and the roadblocks to making the changes that APA must address to regain its footing. From working with the Executive Management Group (EMG), Board of Directors (BOD), Council Leadership Team (CLT) and COR, O’Connor was to inform APA about the pressure points that block our change. His presentation was to be titled, “APA Council as a Policy-Making Body: Implementing the Vision.” Before he began speaking from the dais, a large gathering composed primarily of women of color all stood together by one microphone on the floor and one woman began to speak to O’Connor. The gist of what she said was that she was offended by some content concerning Native Americans in O’Connor’s report outlining his observations of the August 2015 Council meetings. She questioned his competency to observe, report and help COR when he was not sufficiently aware of his cultural bias and macroaggressions. When he apologized and admitted that he didn’t know that what he wrote was offensive, she retorted that “not knowing” is insufficient. She later made a point of stating that it is not OK to ask her or others to be educators. Rather, if one wants to understand and learn about prejudice, bias and discrimination, one should take a Diversity 101 course. She believed that O’Connor should not proceed with his presentation until these issues were addressed with COR. To his credit, O’Connor listened intently, maintained his professionalism and seemed to try his best to understand.

What followed then was that many women of color (and a few men of color) went to the microphone and each began to share their individual feelings of discrimination, invisibility, frustration and disrespect from their COR experiences. Their feelings were palpable and their obvious longstanding pain was profound. We broke for lunch and in the afternoon attempted to discuss our feelings of what happened in the morning and what changes COR may need to make.

It’s hard to know what prompted this outpouring of hurt and anger and, most likely, lifelong struggles played a large part. But some incidents that occurred at COR prior to Sunday morning come to mind:

• There was a great deal of discussion for Action Item #11: Inclusion of Ethics, Human Rights and Social Justice in Revision of Strategic Plan. COR was asked to approve the main motion that requested the BOD and COR consider ethics, human rights and social justice as central foci of the next strategic plan. It was felt by many that this will assist in setting the organization’s ethical compass and asserting our commitment to avoidance of harm (e.g., UN definitions of what constitutes torture and other human rights violations) as a core value. 

The discussion centered on the use of the word “central foci.” Some thought it should be a factor but not “central.” Many felt that some did not appreciate or value the significance of ethics, human rights and social justice in all that APA does and were quite upset that some wanted to “water down” the language.

• COR went into executive session several times during the meetings. At these times the Ethnic Minority Psychological Association (EMPA) delegates were asked to leave the room. They later reported that not being allowed to stay in executive session made them feel like they were not true COR participants.  Not being full COR members with voting rights also makes them feel like they are not really accepted.

Interestingly, according to parliamentary procedure, the president can give permission to non-voting members to stay in the room during executive sessions at his/her discretion.

• During 2015 there were discussions on the COR listserv about whether COR should use its time having diversity training at all during COR meetings, whether diversity training should be an online activity or leave it as is. Many were very upset that diversity training was not seen as valued, if not essential, to the functioning of COR.

Upon Reflection

I can’t even begin to understand the depth of pain these women of color have experienced within and outside APA, but I do admire their courage to voice their pain, anger and upset. Hopefully their courage will be the catalyst for greater awareness, sensitivity and much needed change. One courageous woman of color stated on the COR listserv a few days after the COR meetings:

“The current and past EMPA delegates who attended COR this weekend arrived already concerned about the lack of clear goals vision to address long standing issues related to diversity, cultural responsiveness and social justice on COR and within APA and psychology more generally.

We were concerned before this meeting started and had already expressed some of our thoughts before coming into council, e.g. perspectives that diversity training thus far provide often has actually been harmful, or not well grounded in clear goals to promote cultural responsiveness, as well as suggestions for change. At various caucus meetings, invited others to join us for an ad hoc working group to make recommendations to the CLT and Council about next steps to address these issues, to continue the process that was started in Sunday….”

And in response to the concerns expressed, one Council member posted the following on the COR listserv. I am copying it in its entirety because of the truth and value of these thoughts that speak for many of us COR representatives:

“I came away from this past weekend’s COR meeting convinced that the single most important moment was on Sunday morning when a critical mass of women and ethnic minority attendees stepped up to the mic to give voice to their intense anger, sadness and frustration over not being heard, and instead being actively silenced, marginalized and invalidated. I strongly believe that it is imperative that as a group we recognize that moment as a potentially pivotal one for APA. I assume it was a long time coming. If we dedicate ourselves to keeping the conversation going with the objective of moving toward substantive action, we can create a much greater sense of unity for everyone on Council and promote a level of productivity that can radiate out to our membership and decisively invigorate APA. Failure to heed, fully comprehend, remember and commit to responsiveness to Sunday morning’s message on the other hand, could seriously damage APA. This is a matter that is relevant to all of us and all of our membership. I request the leadership and membership of COR provide assurances that there is a commitment to follow through and be responsive to the voices at the mic on Sunday morning.”

What became abundantly clear to me was that this incident was more valuable than any “intellectual” presentation on diversity could ever be and that experiential dialogue, however difficult, is a change that COR must seriously consider for the future. For further information, Leilani Crane, PsyD, posted links to two articles on the COR listserv: The first article was sent to the Div. 39 listserv from a white male on white fragility; the second is a simpler piece on white privilege. Her hope was that at least some reps would read them.

Council kicked off with Susan H. McDaniel, PhD, giving us her presidential update where she described her recent international trips to Egypt to attend the World Mental Health Congress and to India to attend the National Academy of Psychology. She discussed the issues of cross-culturalism and cultural bias.

McDaniel then reported actions being taken as a result of the Hoffman report including:

• The Board of Directors is working on self-evaluation.
• The Executive Management Group is doing self-evaluation.
• Council Leadership Team set out time to reflect on our rules.
• All boards/committees are encouraged to discuss the Independent Report and its effect on them and policies.
• We need to pull together and create a model to respond to ethical situations.
• We need to do more work virtually so everyone is well-informed between meetings and communicate about policies.

Cynthia Belar, PhD, ABPP, interim CEO, then gave a CEO update. Her substantive and thoughtful report was riveting as well as outstanding and well-deserving of the standing ovation she received. Her report is worthy of reading in its entirety. Her obvious understanding of the problems and issues facing APA as well as her willingness to share her visionary thoughts about our future make me wish she would morph her interim CEO position into one that was permanent.

Speaking of the permanent CEO, COR was also informed that the BOD developed a matrix for the CEO search and was pleased to announce that they have finalized 14 members for the CEO Search Committee, which is made up of a diverse group. The BOD is currently interviewing professional search firms to help with the CEO hiring process and there are currently three firms that have applied. The methodology, as well as the composition of the CEO Search Committee will be forthcoming from the BOD. As a reminder, COR delegated the financial approval of our new CEO to the BOD as part of the Good Governance Project (GGP) motions COR approved.

APA Treasurer Bonnie Markham, PhD, PsyD, and CFO/COO Archie Turner gave COR APA’s financial report. While COR has delegated financial responsibilities to the BOD for a three-year trial period, COR still maintains financial oversight until the issue is brought to the membership next year for a bylaws change. Thus, COR receives financial reports at each COR meeting.

COR was informed that APA has now adopted an integrated budgeting system. This new system will allow all finances to be brought into a single stream. Current challenges to APA finances include:

• Cost of the Independent Report.
• Cost of designated spending.
• Softening of the database and publishing revenue.
• Cost of the APA Practice Organization (APAPO) class action suit.
• Softening of the stock market.

With respect to the 2016 budget, the Finance Committee, BOD and EMG are currently addressing how to manage the potential budget deficit, but it is certain that staff cuts are off the table for 2016. However, some vacant positions will not be filled, others will have a delay and others will, if critical, be filled more quickly. There is also a move toward more virtual meetings, which may affect a variety of future meetings within the association. More information will be forthcoming when COR receives the budget summary report in late March, prior to the BOD vote on the final 2016 budget in early April.

Turner discussed the key indicators about APA’s financial health, including various goals:

• Goal #1: Four months expenses which would equal $36 million.
  • APA’s net assets as of 12/31/15 were $39 million, several million over the goal.
• Goal #2: Acknowledging a conservative estimate of the fair market value of equity in our buildings.
• Goal #3: APA rating reaffirmed in August 2015 as BBB+ with a stable outlook.
• Goal #4: Debt Covenants (2015 estimate).
  • Consolidated liquid assets required = $25 million.
  • Consolidated liquid assets actual = $103 million.
  • Liquid assets to fund debt require d= 1:1.
  • Liquid assets to fund actual = 1.38:1.

As indicated, APA is adequately meeting all four goals for APA’s financial health.

10G Street Building

2015 assessed value: $117.6 million

• Less debt outstanding: $32.3 million.
• Current estimated equity: $85.3 million.
• Average interest rate: 4.60 percent.

750 First Street Building

2015 assessed value: $165.7 million

• Less Debt outstanding: $58.2 million.
• Current estimated equity: $107.5 million.
• Average interest rate: 5.27 percent.

APA buildings have contributed $60 million to the APA since 2003. In 2015, APA buildings have provided $4.6 million in cash flow to support the APA operating budget.

Turner then informed COR that APA spent $4.99 million in aggregate in expenses for the Independent Review engagement. This included $4.13 million to Sidley and Austen (Hoffman’s law firm), $660,000 to APA’s outside counsel and $175,000 to the crisis management team that APA hired in the aftermath of the Hoffman report.

With respect to severance costs as a result of the Hoffman report, the aggregate total amounted to $2.6 million of contractual obligations and waiver of claims. Specifically:
Honaker: $558,000
Farberman: $701,000
Anderson: $1,375,000

During the financial discussions, there was a motion from the floor to rescind the financial delegation given to the BOD by COR for a three-year trial period one year earlier than when COR is supposed to vote for the permanent delegation of financial responsibilities. There was discussion whether a new business item could be added to the agenda without the requisite two-week notice. The chair denied the motion and the mover appealed. The appeal was denied by 75.4 percent of the voters. The mover then moved to add the item to the agenda, which would require two-thirds vote of COR.

Motion denied: The vote was denied by 74.8 percent.

COR receives annual diversity training and this year the topic was “Religious Tolerance and Discrimination with an Emphasis on Islamophobia.” James W. Jones, PhD, PsyD, ThD, and Ingrid Mattson, PhD, were the invited presenters.

Jones’ presentation was titled, “Sanctified Violence.” He first posed three questions:

• Q: Are there violent and non-violent religions?
  A: No. All religions have violence in their history.
  
  
• Q: Is religious terrorism religious?
  A: Yes. Violence and terror is done in the service of sacred values and ultimate commitments.
  
  
• Q: Does that matter?
  A: Yes. Research on the psychology of sacred values finds that:
  • Sacred values and goals evoke more commitment.
  • Sacred values and goals take precedence.
  • Desecration of sacred values and goals evokes greater rage.

Jones addressed the globalization of sacred violence, including:

• The decline of the nation state. 
• Finding identity in a globalized world.
  
• The rise of the internet and social media. '
• Leaderless resistance: The internet has enabled violent movements to morph from more centralized, top-down paramilitary organizations to self-organizing and self-directed cells. 
• Possible cooperation among violent groups.

Jones stated that once a case gets sanctified it is transformed. It is not just politics cloaked in religious dress. It has entered the realm of ultimate concerns. The research on the psychology of spiritual strivings underscores some of the crucial ways that contemporary religious terrorism differs from previous ethno-nationalistic and politically revolutionary terrorists. It is not simply the same old terrorism with different motivations or rhetoric. Research suggests that sacred motivations make a big difference.

Jones addressed several implications including:

Implication 1

These actions are not motivated by utilitarian or pragmatic calculations. It is a mistake to seek to understand religiously motivated terrorists using the game theoretic.

Implication 2

Sacred terror is non-negotiable terror. Counterterrorism interventions that threaten or seek to bargain with religiously motivated terrorists only evoke greater scorn and rage. Asking someone to trade their scared valued for financial gain or greater political power is universally understood as the voice of the devil.

Implication 3

If we do not understand the spirituality that drives religiously motivated terrorists and the power of religious conversion to reorient and give meaning to life, we will never counter them effectively. Part of the attraction of violent religion is personal transformation and spiritual renewal, so a crucial part of our response must be the articulations of an equally powerful alternative religious and moral vision.

Mattson’s presentation was titled, “Framing Muslim: Islamophobia and the Revival of Historical Stereotypes.” She addressed the issue of Islamophobia through pictures and photographs.

Katherine Nordal, PhD, and CAPP Chair Kate Brown, PhD, gave the APAPO annual report to COR. Please see the attached document for their complete report. Of special note, Nordal and Brown reported that there has been a precipitous decline in renewal of APAPO membership resulting in significant dues decline. This decline of 30-35 percent is more than the 20 percent projected, which severely impacts APAPO’s 2016 budget. Unlike APA, the APAPO is highly dependent on membership dues. Thus, the APAPO has been disproportionately impacted in a negative financial way and is in danger of having to cut mission-driven services.

As a result of the findings in the Hoffman report last year, COR and the BOD developed action items to address the issues and concerns Hoffman’s report specified, including:

Ethics Commission

An Ethics Commission is being developed to evaluate and recommend changes to APAs ethics processes as part of its adoption last August of a policy prohibiting psychologists from participating in national security investigations. According to President McDaniel, the commission will review APA’s educative and adjudicative functions related to ethics; potential conflicts in human rights considerations; and, current policies, practices and procedures of the Ethics Office. The members of the commission are:

Paul Wolpe, PhD, co-chair Melba Vasquez, PhD, co-chair Anita Allen, PhD, JD Armand Cerbone, PhD, ABPP Joel Dvoskin, PhD, ABPP Rebecca Gordon, PhD Paula Hagenaars Suzanne Holland, PhD Heather Hunter, PhD Scott Kim, MD, PhD Michelle Meyer, JD, PhD Vivian Wang, PhD Steven Reisner, PhD Leonard Rubenstein, JD Erica Wise, PhD Linda Woolf, PhD Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH Jennifer Kelly, PhD, BOD liaison Richard McGraw, PhD, BOD liaison

Conflict of Interest Work Group Update

Because the Hoffman report alleged a variety of conflicts of interest (COI) issues within APA, COR approved a work group last year to develop a new and updated COI policy for APA as a whole. This item was listed as an information item rather than an action item and thus may not have been read by all COR members given the breadth of materials before us that require action. Given my interest in the area, I did read these materials and was quite concerned when I came to the case examples illustrating possible/potential COI within APA. To my great surprise and dismay, several of the examples were painfully obvious about whom they referred and not disguised in the least. I immediately knew that these APA members and staff were targeted directly from the Hoffman report. I wrote to the COR listserv of my serious misgivings and stated:

“I find this not only mean spirited but perhaps even libelous in that no official body has adjudicated these specific people nor determined that the Hoffman allegations amount to COI using appropriate due process necessary to make these kinds of determinations. As far as COR is concerned, I have to wonder if choosing these specific examples rise to a COI in and of itself, given the composition of the work group. Nor do I recall that the mission of the COI policy work group was to be directly based on the Hoffman Report. Rather, the reason for the COI policy initially arose because COR was confused about the process on COR floor about who needed to be recused and what recusal meant when discussing the Hoffman Report issues. From there it was realized that COI in general needed to be clarified. The work group, as I understood it, was not developed to indict any particular APA member or staff.”

As a result of this post, many COR members actually read the case examples and all that contacted me, along with many BOD and CLT members, agreed that the case examples were highly inappropriate. Our update report, given by the work group’s chair, informed us that the policy statement will now go to boards, committees and legal counsel to review and edit before coming back to COR. When specifically asked about the case examples, COR was told that these examples will not be attached to the materials going for review. It is my sincere hope that these inappropriate case examples are never seen again by APA and find their home in the vast wasteland of the trash can.

Resolution in Favor of Providing Support and Assistance to Military and National Security Psychologists Striving to Abide by the APA Ethics Code an APA Policy

This resolution was written as a direct result of COR’s August action in approving NBI 23A which basically forbids psychologists to participate in national security settings where detainees are exposed to torture. This resolution further forbids psychologists from treating detainees in national security settings.

After hearing concerns expressed by some COR members, the mover decided it would be best to withdraw this item from the February agenda in order to give boards and committees an opportunity to review the item at consolidated meetings before it moves forward to COR for action.

Establishment of a Work Group to Review Organizational Policies and Procedures

COR was asked to approve the establishment of a work group to review best practices in order to develop APA organizational policies and procedures that address, but not be limited to:

• Organizational checks and balances.
• Fiduciary duties of governance members.
• Appropriate oversight of governance members in the execution of their roles and responsibilities to ensure adherence to the highest standards of professional behavior.
• Application of established policies and procedures.
• Transparency of decision-making.
• Sensitivity to and willingness to address differences arising from power differentials.
• Consideration of effective governance and staff relationships. The work group will report back to COR with recommended action steps.

Motion approved: 95.71 percent

Establishment of a Work Group to Develop Civility Principles and Procedures

COR was asked to approve the establishment of a work group to develop aspirational civility principles and procedures for all forms of in-person and online messages and postings within and on behalf of APA. The group will report back to COR with a preliminary proposal for action steps and training by the February 2017 meeting.

Motion approved: 90.85 percent

Amendment to Council Guidelines for Resolutions

COR was asked to approved amending the Guidelines for Council Resolutions to address the extent to which the resolution is consistent with APA’s core values and the extent to which the resolution addresses human rights, health and welfare and ethics (to be added).

Motion approved: 91.88 percent

Establishment of a Work Group to Develop Guidelines Regarding Task Force Selection

COR was asked to approve the establishment of a work group of members of COR, BOD and boards/committees to develop guidelines that will reduce bias, increase transparency and promote diversity in the selection of individuals serving on APA task forces. This system for task force selection should emphasize self-nominations by and consultations with relevant stakeholders (e.g., divisions, SPTAs and other affiliated groups). The work group will report back to COR at its August 2016 meeting. The GGP matrix will be considered in the group’s work product.

Motion approved: 92.3 percent

Proposed Language to Revise Standard 3.04 of the Ethics Code

COR had asked the Ethics Committee to consider pursuing an appropriate course of action in as expeditious manner as possible to incorporate into the Ethics Code the prohibitions surrounding psychologist participation in national security interrogations, as set forth in the NBI 23B resolution adopted in August 2015.

In the Ethics Code, 3.04 Avoiding Harm reads:
(a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

One option that the Ethics Committee is proposing is to add:
(b) Psychologists do not participate in, facilitate, assist or otherwise engage in torture.

An alternate option suggested is to add:

Psychologists do not participate, assist or otherwise engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

(c) Psychologists do not conduct, supervise, or otherwise assist or be present at any national security interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf. They do not advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation. Psychologists may consult on policy and training pertaining to information-gathering methods that are humane and not related to any specific national interrogation or detention conditions.

The Ethics Committee is currently seeking public comment on both options which will further shape this proposed revision to the Ethics Code.

APA Apology to War-on-Terror Victims of Torture and Abuse

This resolution resolves that:

APA acknowledges institutional malfeasance in providing cover for psychologists’ potential involvement in U.S. government-sponsored torture and abuse of war-on-terror detainees.

APA BOD will send this apology to the president of the United States; the United States Congress; Director for Intelligence (J-2), Joint Staff, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the International Red Cross; the Islamic Society of North American; and the Middle East/North Africa Psychological Association (MENA).

This was a new business item that may be reviewed by boards/committees prior to returning to COR.

Just One More Thing

I have long been a strong advocate of transparency within APA and am dismayed when I find it lacking. Since the Hoffman report, transparency seems to be one of the issues at the forefront of APA functioning. While old habits are indeed hard to break, there was a quintessential example during COR that seemed to be illustrative of how much APA still has to learn.

At one point, President McDaniel informed COR of a particular decision that the BOD made. Much discussion ensued because many on COR disagreed with this decision and wanted more information than what was presented. The BOD clearly heard COR’s concerns and the next day President McDaniel presented far more information that was, indeed, helpful to COR’s understanding of the decision-making process. What struck me was that the information given to COR on the second day was what should have been initially presented to COR to adequately inform COR and be truly transparent. But it was only after COR verbally requested more information was it given rather than be routine disclosures. Hopefully APA leadership will become increasingly more comfortable, if not trusting, to disclose adequate information to COR so that they can be truly informed.

What I found equally interesting was that while COR voiced their disagreement with the BOD’s decision, I don’t think COR understands that since the issue had to do with APA operations, COR has no vote on this decision because it approved the GGP motion that gives the BOD final authority over issues pertaining to the policies and operations of APA while COR retains final authority over policies concerning the discipline of psychology.

Consent Items

Once again, many action items were approved by COR by consent, which means that COR did not discuss the merits of these items. Rather, there was unanimous approval at the beginning of the meeting. What I find so interesting is that years ago, any guidelines presented to COR for approval were vigorously debated, if not wordsmithed, ad nauseum, for fear of unduly restricting one’s practice and/or unnecessarily placing potential liabilities onto psychologists. Those days appear to be over and guidelines are now not infrequently placed on the consent agenda. The items approved on the consent agenda include:

Council Policy Manual Update and Five-Year Review

COR approved housekeeping changes to policies contained in the COR Policy Manual. These changes were identified by boards and committees during the 2013-14 five-year review of all APA approved policies other than guidelines and standards which are reviewed under a separate process.

In terms of revisions, housekeeping amendments are those that do not change the substance of the policy. They would include changes in terminology to more current usage and updating references to reflect more current research in the area.

Request to Extend Expiration Date of the National Standards for High School Psychology Curricula

COR approved to extend the expiration of the National Standards for High School Psychology Curricula to August 2021. The standards are currently set to expire in August 2018. This additional time period will allow for the incorporation of ideas that are the results of discussions to be held at the first APA Summit on High School Psychology Education, which will be held at Weber State University during summer 2017.

Div. 53 Journal Proposal: Evidence-Based Practice of Child and Adolescent Mental Health

COR approved the Div. 53 request for authorization to publish a divisional journal to be titled Evidence-Based Practice of Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

Revised Recognition of Organizations that Provide Certification in Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology: Policies and Procedures Manual

Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP) provides an application process for organizations that offer credentials in recognized specialties to be approved such that APA members could list those credentials in APA’s membership directory. Currently the ROPSCCPPPP policies and procedures manual provides two possible types of approval decisions (i.e., seven-year approval and three-year approval). Three-year approval is for applicants who do not meet all of the criteria and therefore not eligible for seven-year approval. The update would include removal of the three-year approval decision from the manual as CRSPPP felt that this recognition should only be granted to organizations that meet all of the criteria.

Revised Criteria for the Recognition of Organizations That Provide Certifications in Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology

CRSPPP agreed to develop technical assistance material for Criterion 2 of the Criteria for the Recognition of Organizations that Provide Certification in Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology. Other changes included clarifying verbiage regarding “making reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities” related to demonstration of competence in recognized specialties and proficiencies; and, including reference to the notion that validity of the instruments must meet the appropriate standards from the 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.

Request to Extend Recognition of Assessment and Treatment of Serious Mental Illness as a Proficiency in Professional Psychology

COR approved a one-time, one-year extension of the recognition of the Assessment and Treatment of Serious Mental Illness as a proficiency in professional psychology to August 2017.

Resolution on Opposing HIV Criminalization

The ad hoc Committee on Psychology and AIDS believes that the proposed resolution will encourage both governmental and non-governmental agencies and stakeholders to promote public policies that oppose HIV criminalization, and provide support for research to better understand the impact of HIV criminalization on risk behavior and transmission. It will encourage psychology as a discipline to advocate for the repeal of these laws, particularly for those psychologists who practice in states with these criminalization laws.

Resolution on Data About Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity

The purpose of the resolution is to put APA on record as recommending the gathering of data about sexual orientation and gender identity in population-based surveys. It is the view of the Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity that it is important for the APA to have a formal position on the topic and to continue to address the need for questions related to sexual orientation and gender identity particularly in population surveys.

Amendments to the Association Rules: Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest

COR was asked to approve amending the Association Rules to make the criteria for membership on the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest included in the Association Rules consistent with the criteria included in the APA Bylaws.

Action Items

List of Agenda Items Assigned to the Board of Director

The substitute motion recommends that COR approve a procedural change in the assignment of items to the BOD and reads: “COR members will be sent a list of items along with brief summaries directed by the Agenda Planning Group (APG) to the COR at the same time are sent to the BOD. BOD members will be sent a list of items along with brief summaries of all items directed by the APG to COR at the same time the items are sent to COR.”

Motion approved: 96.1 percent

Amendments to Bylaw and Association Rule Amendments Approved by COR at its February 2015 Meeting

COR was asked to approve amendments to the Bylaws and Association Rules changes it approved at its February 2015 meeting. At that time, COR voted to establish a workgroup appointed by the president and CLT chair to address issues of accuracy and consistency in the language of the Bylaws and Rule changes concerning the composition of COR, BOD and Officers.

This action item is part of the GGP group of motions that has created a great deal of controversy amongst some groups. While I felt this item was not ready to be sent to membership for vote due to several perceived inconsistencies, it was nevertheless approved by the majority of COR. COR also approved sending a pro/con statement to the membership along with the ballot.

MOTION APPROVED: 75.7 percent for bylaws changes; 87.6 percent for Association Rules changes.
MOTION APPROVED: Pro/Con Statement sent with ballot, 61.7 percent

Amendments to Association Rules-CLT and Needs Assessment, Slating and Campaign Committee

COR was asked to approve changes to the Association Rules as provided in the main motion related to the CLT and the NASCC.

This action item is also part of the GGP motions. Unlike the motion above, this one was postponed until August in order to review/edit the language.

Motion approved to postpone: 89.3 percent

Withdrawn Items

Psychologists in Integrated Primary Care and Specialty Health Settings

It was decided that this item should go to Consolidated Meetings for review.

Resolution on the Free and Responsible Practice of Science, Freedom of Movement of Scientists and APA International Engagement

This item was sent back to the authors for minor changes to improve clarity.

Guidelines for Psychologists Regarding the Assessment of Trauma for Adults

This item was postponed until the August meeting.

Removal of the Barriers to Admission to Doctoral Programs in Psychology Created by the Use of the Graduate Record Examination Scores

This item was postponed and presumably with return in August.

It’s Not Over Until

Clearly, COR has a great deal of work to do on many fronts: righting the moral compass the right way; ethics reformation; moving toward substantive change with respect to diversity; refining the conflict of interest policies; instituting appropriate transparency rules; understanding and clearly implementing appropriate delegation of responsibilities between COR and BOD to just to name a few. It’s time we roll up our sleeves.