The Council of Representatives (COR) met Feb. 15-17, 2019 at the Capital Hilton in Washington, D.C.
The agenda book is available on APA’s websitelogin required.
Council of Representatives report
Oppenheimer, P. M. (2019, May 1). Council of Representatives report. Focus on 31. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-31/publications/newsletters/focus/2019/05/council-representatives-report
Council Session
Stephanie Fryberg, PhD, (Div. 8) gave two presentations to the Council about the “Interpretive Power” of Council reflecting how different people and cultures interpret their circumstances. Her theme was referenced throughout the meeting.
President Rosie Phillips Davis spoke of her interest in addressing the opioid crisis and in making short videos about APA and psychology for public consumption. APA presented on National Poverty Day at the National Press Club on March 1.
Strategic Plan (Item 6):
Arthur Evans, PhD, CEO, and others presented the new strategic plan. It was approved by Council. Later in the meeting, Council had a table discussion about how to implement the strategic plan. Much of the discussion focused on how to raise psychology’s profile and influence.
Report of the Board of Educational Affairs Task Force to Develop a Blueprint for APA Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Health Service Psychology (Item 13):
The motion was to accept the report of this task force. In my review of the report I identified four recommendations in the “Additional Recommendations” section that pertained to regulation not accreditation. Those recommendations were out of the scope of the task force’s charge. The recommendations were given without justification of why they should be included in the report and without reference to support the assertions. I consulted with the parliamentarian to determine the appropriate course of action to address the matter. He advised me to make a motion to refer the report back to the task force for revision. I discussed my concerns and plan in the joint CSTPR/APP Board phone call prior to the Council meeting.
Shortly after I arrived at the caucus chairs meeting (the first event on the Council calendar), I was confronted by a member of the Board of Directors who indicated that we need to talk about my concerns. At the end of the caucus chairs meeting I met with the Board member and a staff member, and we negotiated a compromise to move the additional recommendations to an appendix. They indicated they needed to consult with the chair of the task force to confirm the agreement. Council was provided a revised version of the report late that evening. On Friday, the revised report was presented and approved after a short discussion about the merits of the topic.
Resolutionon Physical Discipline of Children by Parents (Item 17)
The discussion focused on how to consider cultural norms. The item passed.
Amendment to Association Rule 100-1.4: Division Position and Policy Statements (Item 2):
The proponents of this item said this motion clarifies what is expected of divisions when issuing statements of policy. Divisions are required to submit statements for review to the Office of General Council. Divisions may be required to add a disclaimer reflecting how the statement is aligned or not with APA policies to prevent confusion in the public realm. Most of the debate focused on an alternative motion that was eventually voted down. Immediately after that vote the motion to closed debate was made by a member and that passed. The motion passed. So this item was passed without any substantive debate of the main motion.
Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression Across Three Age Cohorts (Item 15):
Rosie Phillips Davis introduced the item with a comment about how the Institute of Medicine guidelines reflect the “best practice and accepted norms.” She continued that APA is now recognized as a “dissemination and implementation partner.”
Bethany Teachman, PhD, and John McQuaid, PhD, (neither Council members) then presented on the development of the guideline (11’00” and 5’35” respectively). At first Council members from the audience were allowed to comment without time limit. Davis imposed a two-minute limit during the course of the comments. June Feder, PhD, was in line to present her concerns about how the policy for guideline development had been modified without Council’s approval, and Fred Wertz, PhD, was prepared to make a substitute motion. Both were summarily cut off at two minutes.
The guidelines passed.
Staff and the Advisory Steering Committee (ASC) say Council was informed of the policy to use the IOM criteria in 2015. A group researching the history of the guidelines finds that there was a reference to considering criteria including the IOM in August 2015, but it is not clear that the ASC clearly advised COR of their intent or asked for an opinion from COR.
Operation Procedures for the Needs Assessment, Slating and Campaigns Committee (Item 7):
Passed.
Update on the American Psychological Association Services, Inc.
The survey of members’ advocacy concerns ended in early March. The results have not been disseminated.
Amendments to Association Rule 60-1.2: Council Leadership Team (Item 5):
Past Council Leadership Team (CLT) Chair Joe Coyne proposed an amendment to association rules to allow a CLT member whose term on Council has expired (and is not ineligible) to run for CLT chair (or visa versa). The item was NOT APPROVED.
Resolution on Child and Adolescent Mental and Behavioral Health (Item 18):
Passed.
Revisions to the APA Model Curriculum in Psychopharmacology for Prescriptive Authority and Related APA Policies (Item 14):
The motion would allow people to begin to take classes needed for RxP education as graduate students rather than having to wait till they are licensed. This is viewed as reducing the burden on people who want this training. The counter argument is that one of the ways that some jurisdictions have obtained support or reduced opposition from other professions and government officials to enabling RxP legislation has been by stressing that training and practice would only occur post licensure. The motion passed.
Amendments to Association Rule 90-4: Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (item 11):
Passed.
Amendments to APA Policies on Respecialization Training (Item 12):
Passed.
Additional Meetings
Caucuses:
The CSTPR and the combined caucus meetings on Thursday night were very well attended and the discussion was vibrant. The APP meeting on Saturday night was not. APP discussed the role of the caucus in the transformed APA. APP is suggesting that in the future their meeting be held in conjunction with the CSTPR in perhaps a combined c(3) and c(6) meeting. With the demise of Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP), perhaps the APP will assume the time of the combined caucus. The involved caucus chairs will discuss this prior to the August meeting.
APA Transformation:
Jared Skillings, PhD, (chief of practice) and Lindsey Buckman, PhD, (CAPP chair) with input from Bob Franks, PhD, (BPA chair) held a meeting on the APA transformation. A revised copy of the crosswalk of c(6) activities was shared with Council members and then collected at the end of the session, so I am unable to share the details of the current content of the plan. Three current or former CAPP members (including myself) addressed concerns about how the bulk of CAPP’s responsibilities were being delegated to BPA with the remainder to other boards and committees. Our comments expressed continuing concern about the ability of these groups to contend with their new portfolios and the lack of governance oversight by a group that would be aware of the realm of c(6) issues and be able to coordinate APA’s efforts to address them; and be able to facilitate communications between the rank and file membership, and APA governance and staff.
Council Debate Procedure:
I have discussed with the president, the parliamentarian and the chair of the Council leadership team how the discussion procedure as implemented in Item 15 favored the protagonists of the item over members who had issues or opposed the item. During my time on Council, I have observed multiple instances where protagonists of an item have been allowed unlimited time to present prepared remarks from the podium (sometimes complete with PowerPoint presentations) while everyone else maybe gets a few minutes from the floor if debate is not prematurely halted. The current system is not ensuring that there is a real debate with consideration to divergent views.
Last year there was a special presentation at Council by Council members regarding the role of psychologists at military sites. In that debate two members representing each side of the debate were allowed equal time to present their concerns. This allowed for each side to present their concerns in a thoughtful manner, and then the discussion that followed was thoughtful and productive.
I have suggested an alternative procedure along the lines of the special presentation last year that would ensure that protagonists and those members who oppose or question an item get equal time to present their positions. The procedure would ensure the Council hears both sides prior to a motion to end debate and a vote.