The Truth about the Kansas behavioral sciences regulatory board

The purpose of this blog is to get the truth out there, the truth about the Kansas behavioral sciences regulatory board (bsrb). Reality and truth are anathema to the board. The board denied me eligibility for licensure as a psychologist despite the fact that I met all the criteria. The board twisted the criteria with bizarre interpretations or just simply lied to avoid having to admit that I met criteria. I appealed the board's decision through the court as specified by the board's regulations. The board ended up lying to the court in such a way as to prevent me from being able to present the facts. I ended up winning on 3 of 5 points in the Court of Appeals but I had to win all 5. The ones I lost were the ones with the biggest lies of the board, which the court bought. I gathered up all the new information and applied again. The following is the presentation I made to the board knowing that they would still deny me, but I wanted to get the truth to the court. The Court of Appeals denied me on a technicality that was not even accurate so denied itself the opportunity to see the truth and see how the board lied. I can't stand lies so I putting the truth out there. If anyone else has had problems with the board, let me know. Maybe we can compare notes and figure out how to hold the board accountable for its inappropriate actions. The following is all backed by solid evidence and logic. I refer to exhibits that show the proof. However, I am new to blogging and have to figure out how to get the exhibits on here. You can email me if you want them, or just check back here periodically as I will get them here as soon as I can. Be prepared to be disturbed. You will see the origin of my new truism: "Facts are irrelevant when you have power."


INTRO
My name is John Caporale. I graduated with my master’s degree in clinical psychology from Emporia State University in 1991. I went to work at Family Consultation Service in Wichita in 1991 as a Registered Master’s Level Psychologist (RMLP). I became a Licensed Master’s Level Psychologist (LMLP) when registration changed to licensure in 1997. I became a Licensed Clinical Psychotherapist (LCP) in 2000 when that level of licensure, which is the independent practice level for master’s level psychologists, was created by the legislature. I have practiced psychology continuously since 1991. I obtained my Ph.D. from Walden University in 2002. Walden, as you know, is a distance learning institution in which much of the coursework is conducted online.

My intent is in no way to show disrespect to the board, and I affirm the board’s role in protecting the public. However, I am going to be very direct and specific about disagreements. The purpose of this court reporter is to provide a verbatim record of the facts and exhibits presented as to the evidence that I do in fact meet the criteria set forth by the state legislature to be licensed at the doctoral level. The last time I applied to the board in 2003 factually incorrect information was entered into the record and was a key factor in the Appeals Court ruling against me on two of the five points of denial.

I would like to draw your attention to exhibit 1, which is the general principles of the psychologists’ ethics code. I am sure it is similar to the ethics codes of the other disciplines represented here. These general principles apply to any professional behavior of psychologists, even in the context of a regulatory board. Last time I was here, these codes were not adhered to. This is an opportunity for the board to right a previous wrong.

Reversing one’s previous decision can be difficult. I find most people reluctant to change their minds once they have committed to a position and also resistant to acknowledging error. When this is in public, the person not acknowledging error comes across poorly; the affect is greatly magnified for persons in authority. For example, when President Clinton swore he had no sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, or when President Bush has refused to admit errors in Iraq. They look foolish and lose credibility. I think this board has enough self-respect to not let this happen to it. I am going to present compelling evidence that is contrary to the board’s previous decision about my application, and I hope that the individual members here are able to consider it with an open mind. The board, like any group of human beings, is not infallible. Please consider the evidence presented.

Direct from the board’s website (www.ksbsrb.org) is its Mission Statement: “The mission of the BSRB, in accordance with the intent of the Kansas Legislature, is to protect and serve the consumers of services offered by BSRB licensee, through the issuance of licenses, resolution of complaints and the creation of appropriate regulations, accomplished through efficiency, fairness and respect to all those involved.” (emphasis added). The board claims it is protecting the public by denying me eligibility for licensure.

The board’s mission to protect and serve the public is NOT at issue with me because:
A. I’m already licensed to practice independently so the public isn’t “protected” by not licensing me at the doctoral level. See exhibit 2 and exhibit 3. Exhibit 2 is the BSRB issued card showing my current licensure as an LCP. Exhibit 3 is an email from Leslie Allen, which clearly shows from the BSRB itself that LCP’s have independent practice rights. In terms of practice, the only significant difference between LCP’s and Licensed Psychologists (doctoral level) is that the LCP’s are not reimbursable by many third party payers so are less “hireable” than Licensed Psychologists. This is not an issue of quality of service but of insurance company policy. But these same insurance companies pay for master’s level social workers so the issue is not strictly one of graduate degree.
B. Moreover, the board denying me licensure at the doctoral level actually harms the public. For example, I saw a woman off and on for several years. She then got on Medicare, which reimburses LSCSWs (master’s level social workers) and Licensed Psychologists, but not LCPs. Therefore, I could no longer see her. She refused to be transferred to another therapist at my agency so instead chose to receive no services. But believe me, she needed services (although not emergency). She wouldn’t see someone else even when I highly encouraged her to do so. Certainly she is responsible for her choices, but it is a situation that could easily have been avoided by the board finding me eligible for licensure, since I do in fact meet all the criteria. Another example of harm to the public, in the form of minimizing access to services, is the need from MR/DD for psychological evaluations. LCPs are qualified, educationally and legislatively, to provide psychological evaluations but MR/DD will only accept them from Licensed Psychologists. I have to turn people away when they need this type of evaluation and there are a limited number of providers available. This is another disservice to the people of Sedgwick County created by the board refusing to acknowledge that I meet all criteria to be licensed at the doctoral level.
C. Finally, interestingly enough, the issue of protecting and serving the public is not an issue for distance education institutions either. The board has belied its own position in that it has licensed Dawna Marie Covington-Kent at the master’s level. See exhibit 4. Ms. Covington-Kent earned her Ph.D. from Capella University, another online/distance learning institution. In terms of protecting and serving the public, it is irrelevant whether a person is practicing psychology at the master’s level or the doctoral level. All this proves that licensing someone from a distance learning program is NOT an issue of protecting the public but perhaps a political issue for the Ph.D.’s on the board.

FACTUALLY INCORRECT INFORMATION PRESENTED AS FACT
The board succeeded in court last time because of misdirection, twists of facts and outright presentation of incorrect information. I will not let that happen again. A well known political pundit (I won’t identify who so as not to engender bias from political affiliation) said: “When you have to mislead to make your argument, it’s because you know you don’t have a case.” This is exactly what the board did two years ago. And this is why I re-applied for licensure: to present the factual information and have my application fairly evaluated.

I don’t know who among you is individually responsible, probably one or two, maybe three, but unfortunately it reflects on the board as a whole. But now that person or those persons, as well as the board as a whole, has the opportunity to redeem themselves. I will speak of “the board” even knowing that most of you here are not individually culpable. It is very disturbing that an agency such as the board, whose job it is to protect against such things, would present inaccurate information to justify its erroneous actions and to defend its position, however weak that position is. The fact that the board through its lawyer presented factually incorrect information as if it were fact to make its case shows its position to be without merit. And I am not talking about simply a different interpretation of facts as I shall demonstrate shortly. To justify its actions, the board submitted to the courts information as factual when in fact this board knew or should have known by reasons of its position or competent investigation that its claims were not truthful or factual. Either way, the board did not give my application a fair review. The court briefs labeled exhibit 5 and exhibit 6 contain the inaccurate information. I will briefly state this factually incorrect information and present the evidence showing it to be false throughout this presentation at the relevant points.
A. Walden is not an accredited university.
B. Walden has not had any graduates licensed in other states.
C. I did not complete a one year residency equivalence.
D. I did not complete at least two academic years at Walden.
E. Walden does not include objective standardized achievement tests and measurements as an admission requirement, nor advertise such admission criteria.
F. Walden does not include a comprehensive examination or the equivalent. (The court of appeals found in my favor on this one and since the board did not bring it up this time, I will not elaborate on this item later.)
G. Online educational institutions accept all applicants who are able to pay the admissions fee, and other baseless assumptions.
H. Walden did not require a master’s degree for admission.
I. No one from a distance learning program, including the Fielding Institute, is licensed in the state of KS. (Despite the board’s statements to the contrary, it has licensed at least one person from Fielding. That person is Margaret Wielert. Look it up.)

You will see that it is clear that the board created reasons to support its denial of my application even when those reasons had nothing to do with the points of denial.


LEGITIMATE SCHOOL
The last time I went through this process, the board spent an inordinate amount of effort to persuade the court that Walden is not a legitimate university by repeatedly calling it a correspondence school. Unfortunately, repetition does not change reality. Please refer to exhibit 7 on how Walden differs from a correspondence school. You will note that Walden differs from correspondence schools in exactly the same way as traditional, campus-based universities do. The board then made many baseless assumptions about Walden by making these assumptions about correspondence schools. Since it is beyond question that Walden is not a correspondence school, I will not waste time on disputing these. I think the board’s fear is that licensure could be opened up to correspondence schools and diploma mills. Licensing me won’t open this up because the fact is Walden is NOT a correspondence school.

Walden is in fact an accredited university. The US Dept. of Education established five regional accrediting agencies. Walden University is accredited by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. See exhibits 8 – 10 for documentation of this fact. Exhibit 8 is one of the first pages of the Walden 1997-98 catalog that the board had in reviewing my 2003 application. It explicitly states Walden’s accreditation and is the only information on the page. Exhibit 9 is from the US Dept of Education website. Exhibit 10 is four pages from Higher Learning Commission’s website.

Two years ago, the board claimed that Walden’s program did not match up to Kansas standards in subject matter and extent of training. The board had absolutely no foundation upon which to make this statement, and evidence to the contrary. First, Walden is accredited by the exact same body that accredits every major university in Kansas. Refer to exhibit 11, which is three pages from the Higher Learning Commission’s website, for documentation of this fact. Second, the board found only one course to be insufficient (and mistakenly so). And finally, the program is APA equivalent. It was designed to be. And the American Psychological Association (APA) accepts it as a legitimate program as evidenced by the fact that the APA accepts me, as a graduate of the program, to be a legitimate psychologist. Exhibit 12 is my current membership card showing me to be a full member of APA.

Some additional information regarding substantially equivalent in both subject matter and training: The statutory provision of 74-5310 (3) says that the applicants for Licensed Psychologist who have degrees from universities other than Kansas’ that that university requires the program of studies in content to be primarily psychological from an educational institution having a graduate program with standards consistent with those of state universities of Kansas or substantially equivalent to such program in both subject matter and extent of training. It is interesting to note that the legislature did not define what is meant by substantially equivalent. Moreover, a search of the legislative history or minutes was not helpful as the state legislative librarian could not locate any. Also a search of case law of Kansas failed to show that the Kansas supreme court has ever defined the meaning of those words. However, other jurisdictions in cases that are analogous to this one do define those words. See exhibit 13.

It is worth noting as well that the APA has accredited the clinical psychology program at the Fielding Institute, which is virtually identical to Walden’s program. This shows validation of this type of learning by the APA. The KS board has also validated this type of learning through online CEUs and the Task Force’s recognition.

Yes, the Task Force set up by this board to research distance learning. (Interestingly enough, no Kansas distance learning students were interviewed in this process.) The Task Force’s recommendation, as I am sure you are aware, was that no more than 50% of a person’s coursework could be online. I refer you to exhibit 14, Gary Price’s letter to me concerning this matter. First, the letter validates online learning by finding it acceptable for up to 50% of a person’s coursework. That would not be possible if it was not a valid method of learning. (And it is absurd to say the other 50% is not valid.) Second, this proves that distance learners do in fact meet current regulations otherwise this recommended change would be unnecessary.

Now, despite the board’s statements to the contrary, Walden graduates are in fact licensed in a multitude of other states. These include but are not limited to Arizona, Kentucky, New York, Virginia and Alaska (AZ is one state the board specifically cited in its court brief as absolutely not licensing distance learners, see exhibit 5.) I refer you to exhibit 15, which is three affidavits confirming the fact that Walden graduates are licensed at the doctoral level as psychologists in many other states.

And since the board previously really focused on discrediting online education, exhibits 16 – 20 are more documentation of the legitimacy of distance learning. Exhibit 16 is a newspaper article showing a class of pharmacists graduating from the online program at Creighton University in Omaha, NE. Exhibit 17 is a copy of a US News and World Report chart of prestigious online graduate programs including through universities such as Columbia, Southern Cal, Virginia Tech, SUNY-Stony Brook, and Walden. Exhibit 18 is documentation of Kansas State’s distance learning programs, including a master’s in industrial/organizational psychology. Exhibit 19 is a letter from Walden’s then-president discussing Walden’s collaboration with the US Dept of Education. Finally, exhibit 20 is a letter and vita from Anne Pratt, Ph.D., a nationally known psychologist who is now a Walden faculty member. The letter documents her experience with the quality of Walden University.

And in closing on this section, I just want to point out that Psy.D. programs were seen in this same negative light when they first began. Boards eventually recognized their legitimacy and they are now fully licensable across the nation.


INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES CLASS
Individual Differences Course:
You have in exhibit 21 copies of the course learning agreement (i.e., syllabus) and the abstract for my paper for my class in individual differences called Psychology of Learning.
You have already the letter dated 9-1-05 denying my eligibility for licensure. I want to address the claims the board made in this letter.
“Psychology of Learning” in the course catalog is in general terms because each professor, just like in traditional programs, tailors the course as he/she sees fit. This one tailored it to individual differences. Don’t get caught up in irrelevancies. The relevant information is that from the actual course. Moreover, the syllabus does not have to say “individual differences in behavior.” The class is what is being assessed here, not the syllabus. If you actually read the syllabus, it describes individual differences being taught in the class. It doesn’t have to use the term because that is not the issue.
Your letter says this course doesn’t meet the requirement “because the content of the course is not relevant to ‘individual differences in behavior.’” The letter goes on to say the class would fulfill regulation KAR 102-1-12(a)(12)(A)(ii) “cognitive and affective aspects of behavior…” One major school of thought in psychology today (cognitive behaviorism) considers cognition, including learning, to be a behavior, because it is something that people do.
But back to the real point: KAR 102-1-12(a)(12)(B)(1) actually reads: “Each student shall have completed in one semester a three credit-hour semester course, or the equivalent quarter or trimester credit hours, in each of the following four areas: (i) Individual differences in behavior, including the basis and nature of individuality, intelligence and cognition, and cross-cultural counseling” [this is just the first area, I left out the other three as they are not germane to this issue]. See exhibit 22. The course materials in exhibit 21 clearly show my class addressing all of these. Furthermore, the LP application (see exhibit 23) states: “Individual differences in behavior (e.g., nature of individuality, diversity issues in psychology, intelligence and cognition, cross cultural counseling)”. The implication here is that any one of these categories is sufficient to fulfill the individual differences class.

Exhibit 24 is a letter from John Randolph, Ph.D., a psychologist and former member of this board. He reviewed my course materials and concluded that the course did in fact satisfy the criteria for individual differences.

Finally, the Kansas Court of Appeals has already determined in Caporale v. BSRB that this board was in error in concluding that my class Psychology of Learning did not meet criteria for individual differences. Exhibit 25 is that decision.


RESIDENCY
On our last go-around, the court did not have all the information about my residency and not all the information it had was factual. The court believed that the residency equivalency was based on 21 to 29 days vs. one year (365 days). “Days” as the unit of measurement for comparison purposes is deceptive and inappropriate. We will see why shortly. If we have to go to court again, the court will have all the relevant information.

The board claims that I did not complete at least two academic years at the institution. My transcripts show that I had three academic years, not including the dissertation. You simply do not have transcripts showing two plus years of coursework if you were not “at” the university. Exhibit 26 is my Walden transcript.

The board thinks that “at the institution” means “physically at.” People are “at” websites all the time. I was “at” the BSRB website several times last week. Back in the 1980’s the KU school of social work had students from Wichita take KU classes with KU instructors in classrooms on the Wichita State campus. This was a convenience for Wichita students. So were these students “at” KU or WSU? The answer is obviously KU. The common and usual usage of the word “at” in this regulation obviously means enrolled/matriculated at the university, that a person is/was a student at the university. This is self-evident in the fact that if the intention was “physically at” then there would be no point in saying in the next sentence that “at least one year shall be in full-time residence, or the equivalent.” (See exhibit 22.) The board’s interpretation of “at” is a stretch that clearly shows bias and desperation. Such an interpretation betrays the common usage of the word. This level of interpretation is akin to saying “born again” from the Bible means to physically climb up into the womb and be delivered for a second time. This absurd interpretation of “at” is nothing more than semantic gerrymandering to obscure the lack of merit in the board’s position, especially given that its next argument against my residency equivalency is baseless as well.

My residency at Walden is the equivalent of one year full-time residence.
a. The statute reads “or the equivalent” (see exhibit 22). Again, the fact is that legislatures use this terminology because they intend to be inclusive, not exclusive. See again exhibit 13 and the court cases determining what equivalent is.
b. The last time in court the board claimed that my residency was not equivalent because it was not contiguous in time. This implies if it was, then the board would have accepted the equivalency. The fact is contiguity in time is NOT in the regulations (exhibit 22) and therefore is not a requirement. Traditional programs do not have their hours contiguous in time either. Courses meet 1-2 hours, 2 or 3 times a week. There are also courses that meet once a week for 3 hours. None of these are contiguous in time. At Nebraska, we had 3 week summer sessions where we met 3 hours a day, 5 days a week for 3 weeks. This was a 3 semester hour course and is more contiguous than the typical course schedule. There are several ways to schedule a 3 semester hour course, all differing in degree of contiguity.
c. Classes at Walden’s summer session and long weekends were actually less noncontiguous than traditional coursework.
d. The idea that courses need to be contiguous in time is absurd. It would be like saying that HI and Alaska aren’t really states because they are not in the “contiguous United States.”
e. Adding “contiguous” to the regulations when it is simply not there is a clear and obvious sign of bias.
f. Contiguity is not the issue. Clearly, it is the number of hours that are relevant, not how they’re spaced. Equivalency is in number of face-to-face hours; this is the only reasonable equivalence.
g. Fielding (the APA accredited distance learning program) requires 300 hours. See exhibit 27.
h. The board’s own regulations say that a semester hour is equal to 13 contact hours. See exhibit 28. When I pled my case to the board two years ago, I was told by Dr. McNish, I believe, that the board uses the KU definition of residency. The KU definition, which was very difficult to track down by the way, says a year’s residency is two full time semesters and that full time is a minimum of 6 graduate hours. See exhibit 29. This comes out to full time residency being satisfied at 156 hours of residency/contact time. Even if full time were 9 hours per semester that still comes out to 234 hours, and remember, this is by the board’s own regulations. I had 504 hours. See exhibit 30, which is a letter from the registrar at Walden documenting my 504 hours of residency.

ADMISSIONS TEST
The court did not have all the relevant information on the issue of admission criteria either. And again some significant information they did have was factually incorrect information presented by the board. Accurate information will be presented here so the court will have it if it comes to that.

KAR 102-1-12(a)(16) [see http://www.ksbsrb.org/regs/psychology/102-1-12.html] requires that “the program advertise in official documents, including course catalogues and announcements of program standards and descriptions, admission requirements that are in part or [italics added] in full based on objective standardized achievement tests and measures.” The board had copies from two years ago of official documents with admission criteria listed. I presume this information is still in my file. Either way, I have included it here as exhibit 31. This is a copy of the relevant page from the 1997-1998 catalog, which was the applicable one when I enrolled. Clearly, the program advertises the admission criteria in official documents. So I meet that part of the criterion.

The fact that master’s programs require the GRE (Graduate Record Exam) (or Miller’s Analogy Test) and that Walden required a master’s degree clearly fulfills the “in part” portion of the regulation.

Without doubt, the GRE is subsumed by the requirement for a master’s degree since master’s programs require it. The GRE is a standard admission criterion for master’s programs in clinical psychology. I refer you to exhibit 32, which is the admission criteria for the master’s program in clinical psychology at Emporia State, where I happened to get my master’s degree. Here is an analogy: The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) does not allow you to diagnose Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder in the same individual at the same time, explicitly because Conduct Disorder subsumes ODD. The requirement of a master’s degree subsumes the requirement of the GRE (or other standardized test and measurement of that type). To require a master’s degree and a GRE score is redundant. The purpose of the GRE is to predict graduate school success. It would be ludicrous to require an applicant to take it again, especially since succeeding at graduate school predicts graduate school success even better than the GRE. (So actually Walden has the higher standard.)

Moreover, a master’s degree is a test and measurement in and of itself. Not only that but a master’s degree is fairly standardized. The proof of this is twofold: one, regional accreditation of universities requires it and two, the BSRB accepts master’s degrees from other states when licensing master’s level psychologists. The board recognizes the standardization of master’s programs from accredited universities.

Again contrary to the board’s statements to the court two years ago, Walden did in fact require a master’s degree when I entered the university. I refer you again to exhibit 32, which clearly states the requirement of a master’s degree. Walden no longer requires a master’s degree because they have their own master’s program now. Like many traditional programs, students obtain a master’s degree on their way to the Ph.D. Last time I was here, I asked what would happen if Walden received APA accreditation. One member of the board said it wouldn’t change anything because the school is judged on the conditions at the time of the applicant attending. So that must apply here as well.

Exhibit 33 is the Fielding Institute’s admissions requirements. Recall that Fielding is APA accredited which means the field validates these criteria. Note that these criteria are essentially identical to Walden’s.

The “ineligibility letter” I received from the board complains that Walden’s admission decisions are “based on a number of factors, including academic degrees and record and, when appropriate, relevant work experience.” The letter writer on behalf of the board called these “permissive and subjective admission requirements,” again clearly demonstrating a bias. One, because the regulation states that “in part” is sufficient, and two, no traditional, APA accredited program admits students based “in full” on GRE scores. They all look at the same factors as Walden. See exhibit 34, which is the KU clinical psychology doctoral program admission requirements. Please note that they are essentially the same as Walden’s save that KU requires the GRE and Walden required the master’s degree.

Here is the ploy perpetrated by the board two years ago to deflect the court from the evidence supporting my eligibility for licensure: The Board had the fact from my catalog that Walden required a master’s degree when I entered the program. It presented current information to the court that showed Walden does not require a master’s degree, knowing that the master’s does in fact subsume the standardized test and measurement requirement and is a test and measurement in and of itself.

I refer you now to exhibit 25, the Court of Appeals decision. It appears that the court would have found the master’s degree to fulfill this criterion but it bought the board’s ploy that a master’s degree was not required. This ploy had to be deliberate by the board as it had the information showing that a master’s degree was required and would have had to seek out the current information showing that one was not. This strongly implies that the board knew that a master’s degree is sufficient to fulfill this criterion. And keep in mind, the regulation states standardized tests and measurements. It did not name the GRE because the legislature recognized there are a number of valid methods of meeting this criterion.

CONCLUSION
POWER TO ACCOMMODATE
The board has the power and authority to make reasonable accommodations for different circumstances that were not specifically considered by those who wrote the regulations. The legislature intended for this when writing the regulations using terms such as “or the equivalent” and “substantially equivalent” and not stating specifics like what test has to be considered. Here is a sampling of examples from the past: 1) John Simmering scored below 70 on the EPPP but was licensed because the year he took the test, it was still graded on a curve based on that year’s test takers. His program also was not an APA accredited program at the time he graduated. See exhibit 35. The McLaughlin letter is somewhat of a rant and clearly misguided but documents the board’s reasonable accommodations from the past; 2) Brian Stone did not have post doctoral supervision – his after Ph.D. employment was just called post doc supervision after the fact to allow him eligibility for licensure – and this post Ph.D. employment was not even clinical; 3) there are several licensed psychologists with Ph.D.’s in school psychology and no clinical internship or post doc; and 4) Deac Dorr was not required to take the EPPP; instead the NY state test was accepted as close enough. These are all fair and reasonable accommodations. My situation simply calls for a reasonable interpretation as opposed to an overly narrow interpretation. For example, if the GRE was the only test intended, the regulation would have said the GRE.

The board has licensed a Fielding Institute graduate. The precedent is already set that distance learners are licensable in Kansas.

I’d like to remind the board that it has licensed Dawna Marie Covington-Kent at a master’s level of licensure. See exhibit 4, which is an email from the BSRB’s Leslie Allen confirming that Dr. Covington-Kent is licensed. Moreover, two years ago when I presented to the board, one member suggested licensing me at the master’s level, evidently not realizing that I had been licensed at the master’s level for several years. Again, this proves that protection of the public is NOT the real issue here.

The state legislature provided a two pronged process for becoming a licensed psychologist. First, one must earn a doctoral degree in psychology, and second, one must pass the national exam, the EPPP. I clearly meet all the educational criteria. If the board has any doubts despite all the evidence, it can still find me eligible to take the test and let the test fulfill its function: to assess the knowledge and skills necessary to practice psychology, weeding out those who fail. I understand the test is quite difficult. If I pass, the board grants me licensure; if I don’t, it doesn’t.

Each member of the board here has an equally weighted vote, regardless of if it is a psychologist voting on a psychologist applicant or a professional counselor, social worker or marriage and family therapist voting on a psychologist applicant. Each member’s opinion is equal.

I have thrown out a great deal of information today and realize the board may need to digest some of this before voting on me. That’s fine. As the evidence shows, the board two years ago did not act professionally or ethically, let alone accurately, in evaluating my application for Licensed Psychologist. But I believe most, if not all, of you are ethical and professional people. This is your chance to show that and correct the errors that were made two years ago. Because I expect that many people here today are not happy about what I have said, for differing reasons I’m sure, and the aforementioned collegial loyalties, I request that the vote on me be conducted anonymously.

Thank you for your time. I am open to any questions. If you have questions at some later time, I can be reached at jpcap13@aol.com

“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.”
-- Aldous Huxley