The InterPsych Newsletter 2(5)



IPN 2(5) Section A: Special Section 1/2


                      *SPECIAL SECTION*
                   SECTION A: APA ELECTION (1/2)

                          * INDEX *

1. Introduction

As a service to the IPN readership, we have prepared
a special section on the American Psychological Association's
(APA) ongoing presidential election.

On 11 May 1995, the IPN invited both candidates and supporters
to send in their campaigning messages for a special section via
sscpnet. Previously, on 4 May, all coordinators of InterPsych's
forums had been informed of the procedure.

We did this initially in response to growing public concern
regarding electioneering on e-mail forums -- to provide space for
this very justified and important topic, but to leave discussion
on lists undisturbed and to preserve Internet bandwidth.

All candidates that we were able to reach had also been
invited to share their thoughts on electronic
communication and InterPsych. We imposed no restrictions on
format or content of contributions. All submissions below
are ordered alphabetically by the candidates' last name.
They have been left unaltered, except most basic editing
(removing mail headers, introductory sentences, changing
tabs to spaces, and occasional line wraps).


The ballots have already been mailed out -- this material
may be useful for those still undecided. Do not consider the
material outdated, if reference is made to "May" (which is
because the statements had been solicited in May), because the
deadline is still ahead.

If you would like to send in additional statements -- as a
supporter or observer, please send your comments to the IPN
Mailbox ( We are also appreciative of
comments regarding the use of the IPN for this purpose now and
similar purposes in the future. Depending on volume, we will
follow up in the upcoming IPN issue in a second APA Campaign
section or the letters section.       [SK]

2.   James Barron
     Letter of support from Dr. L. Lipsitt

     Because so many APA presidential candidates have had the
advantage of airing their voices on the networks, and in
consideration of the fact that candidate James W. Barron is not
yet on the nets, I would like to express my support of Jim for his
accomplishments as a psychologist and in his service to APA.
     My ballot arrived yesterday, with the candidates' statements
and the listing of their credentials.  If voters will read of Jim
Barron's views and hopes for APA and for Psychology in the Monitor
this month and in the ballot statements, I need not repeat his
merits.  After talking with him, and talking with many
psychologists who know him well and whose opinions I respect, I am
convinced Jim Barron is our best choice this year for the
presidency of APA.  I especially commend the volume, co-edited by
Jim and published by APA, on the interface between psychoanalysis
and psychology.
     Jim Barron comes to us with a productive history of
involvement in APA division activities, lots of committee work,
exceptional service on behalf of the Massachusetts Psychological
Association, and a spirit of independence from the old-boys
network.  He is an organizational consultant as well as a highly
qualified clinical psychologist; his skills will be directed
toward improving the administration of APA and bringing academic
and practitioner psychology into better focus with one another.
     Jim Barron is, by his writings and teaching, a
"connectionist" between the practice and science wings of APA.  He
is an intelligent, literate person with solid respect for the
entire spectrum of worthy psychological pursuits.  While well
identified with clinical psychology, especially through his
Presidency of the Division on Psychoanalysis, he is far from naive
about the concerns of scientists in APA today.  He will be a
genuine advocate for both science and practice, which he believes
must become symbiotic in APA once again.
     Jim Barron knows all about the contentious situation between
some current leaders of APA and myself (which, by the way,
promises to be settled this week).  As a principled man he is
willing to have me speak on his behalf.  (I would not do so
otherwise.)  In last year's election, won by Dorothy Cantor,
Psy.D., Jim ran third, after me.  He is a strong candidate; you
will not be throwing away your vote.
     While Jim and I vary in some of our positions, more in
intensity and nuance than direction, I admire his integrity, his
ability to articulate his position on matters of substance, and
his willingness to confront the critical issues that APA faces
today.  Jim has a remarkable ability to talk knowingly to
legislators about important matters facing psychologists, and to
address the diverse ways in which all of Psychology can contribute
its knowledge and skills to help understand and address social
     Jim is not part of the central office of APA, he is not on
the Board of Directors, and he is a person free to act on
integrity and substance as president of APA.
     James W. Barron's credentials are readily available to you in
the Monitor this month and in the documents accompanying the
ballot.  Please look at his history and his opinions, then vote
and, as I will, put Jim Barron in the #1 slot.
                       Yours for an ever-improving APA, and a safe
                        haven for all psychologists of quality,
                                              Lew Lipsitt


As some of you know, I am another person aspiring to be president
of APA.  Some of you are sick of presidential "infomercials", but
others of you may want to know the positions and concerns of
potential candidates before nominating and voting for them.  My
statement follows, addressing my conception of the role of the APA
president, a current version of my priorities for APA and a
listing of my qualifications.  

ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT OF APA.  Since APA is a large, complex 
organization with almost a $60,000,000 budget, a staff of almost 
400, a mosaic of governance boards and committees and dozens of 
ongoing programs, and since the term of president is only one 
year, it is clear that a president is probably more a steward of 
the association than a leader who stimulates radical change.  The 
stewardship and leadership roles demand different talents.  The 
stewardship role requires an in-depth understanding of the 
various parts of the association and how they fit together, and 
an appreciation of the monumental amount of work that staff and 
governance volunteers spend on association affairs.  It means 
helping individuals and groups develop their own ideas and fit 
them into ongoing operations, and making sure that we keep doing 
the business of organized psychology well.  It means working with 
the CEO to mediate between staff and governance, and different 
governance groups having overlapping interests, making sure that 
governance time is well spent and that staff are free of undue 
governance restraint to do their jobs.  As a leader, a president 
needs to have a broad range of knowledge of psychology, since 
he/she will serve as an APA spokesperson to the public and to 
professional/governmental groups.  Through the use of limited 
funds and the influence of the office, he/she can also initiate 
one or two projects and shape the course of others.
The voter's choice, as I see it, is to decide who they believe 
will best fill these roles.  I will provide information about my 
priorities and qualifications that may help you judge my 
appropriateness for the office.
GOALS AND PRIORITIES.  My overarching goals are to (1) keep APA 
as the single strongest voice for all psychologists and (2) to 
make sure that we as a profession are competitive in state and 
national health care reform at the regulatory and legislative
In order to accomplish the first, we have to not only assure 
practitioners that we are defending and promoting their right to 
practice within the scope of their competencies, but also to make 
sure that other APA constitutiencies see that they are getting 
the same degree of attention as the practitioners.  We need to do 
a better job at showing basic/bench scientists that we are 
spending their funds wisely, e.g. promoting the image of 
scientific psychology, advocating for research and education 
funding, providing fora for meaningful intellectual exchange, 
etc.  For example, on a conference call last night I talked with
Jeff McFarland, head of the Public Policy Office at APA, stressing
the importance of full APA involvement in the current crisis in
NSF funding for social and behavioral research. We need to enhance
the image of scientist- practitioners within the association,
making sure that they have a "home" and a voice that is not lost
between basic science and practice.  The capability to deliver
services based on empirical studies is unique to us as
practitioners, and we cannot lose that empirical base or the
researchers who provide it.  

As an example of this, as a member of the APA Board of Directors,
I put together a meeting last fall, generously hosted by Marty
Seligman, including Marty, Marv Zuckerman, Sue Mineka, Bob
Resnick, Don Bersoff, Ray Fowler, Ellen Garrison and me to deal
specifically with the issue of the disaffection of
scientist-practitioners.  As I have said before,
scientist-practitioners sit at APA's ideological center; they are
in a number ways the glue that holds us together.  

The APA Board discussed the recommendations of that group in some
detail at its retreat meeting in March; I will be following up on
that discussion in the next several months.  One of the concrete
suggestions to come out of that meeting was a proposal to have in
the APA central office an Office of Scientific Review, aimed at
producing white papers, publicizing empirically validated
treatments, etc.  We discovered that the Board of Professional
Affairs had developed a similar proposal a few years ago, but
abandoned it due to the expense and the political delicateness of
having an office that would seem to issue pronouncements on
appropriate assessment and treatment.  Of course, this issue is
now being addressed on a number of fronts.  I am still dedicated
to increasing the role of scientist- practitioners in APA
governance and central office; I will continue to work on that
this summer and fall and, if I am elected, for the next several
With respect to the second goal, there are myriad issues relevant 
to practice.  One is that we must keep our advocacy efforts on 
the hill and in the states strong, so that we remain vital 
players in health care delivery.  With the recent budget
initiatives in Congress, especially proposed cuts in Medicare and
Medicaid, attention is once more focused on funding for services
at the national level.  We also need to advocate for  adequate
controls over managed care entities to make sure that empirical
research and human concerns, and not only economic considerations,
drive health care decisions.  At the same time, we need to
continue to develop strategies to work within and to improve the
current system. We need to enhance our relationship with state
psychological associations and to aid them in gaining strength and
influence, since many decisions about mental health issues will be
made in state legislatures.  Ironically, the focus on aiding state
associations, sometimes a source of conflict because of the
states' concentration on practice issues, may turn out to be a
boon to academics and scientists.  If the current mood of Congress
leads to "delegating" education, research and social program
funding to the states, the current state advocacy networks will be
critical in maintaining funding for a wide variety of programs. 
Finally, we need to continue our efforts to help psychologists in
the private and public sectors to diversify their practices so as
not to depend solely on funding for only mental health programs.

It is clear that in spite of the visibility of health care reform,
educational reform is sweeping the country and that,
unfortunately, we have only recently begun to get involved.  I
have put together a special package for Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, under the editorship of Ronda Tally and Ric
Short, on the role of psychological science and practice in
education reform. I hope it will be helpful in alerting the
professional community about the urgency of our involvement in
this effort. 

At the same time we are dealing with these survival issues, there 
are other concerns that we need to integrate into our efforts.

The recruitment and retention of minority students, the granting 
of full access to psychological services and to 
educational/vocational opportunities to the public and 
psychologists with disabilities (e.g., meeting the legal and 
moral imperatives of the ADA), prevention and remediation of 
educational problems, the design of prevention programs and the 
like are crosscutting concerns that need attention if we are to 
serve our increasingly diverse clientele.
Most of these goals and subgoals are already being addressed by 
one or more governance and staff groups within APA, some more 
effectively than others.  So the statements above do not reflect 
new initiatives but a promise to support and expand, where 
financially possible, existing efforts. 
I am not yet sure what my initiatives would be; they would have 
to fit into ongoing APA concerns and be specific enough to be 
accomplished in a short period of time.  I would like to center a 
substantial amount of time at the APA convention on 
understanding, preventing and resolving conflict at different 
levels (e.g., intrapsychic, interpersonal, inter- and intra-  
group), devoting time to research and interventions within each 
level and to discussions about how the levels can inform one 
another. I would like to sponsor a series of Task Forces dealing
with the role of APA in enhancing psychological science and
practice, focusing in turn on different association
constitutiences (e.g., education, science, scientific-practice,
practice, public interest) and setting priorities to aid them in
reaching their goals while being fair to all constitutiences.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT.  I am a clinical psychologist who
has been fully involved in psychological science, education and
practice for 32 years.  I was on the full-time faculty for 10
years at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at
Dallas and have been in the Department of Psychology at the
University of Maryland, College Park since 1972.  The Maryland
clinical/community program consists of about one third minority
students, and our orientation is toward training students to work
with diverse populations using a variety of levels of intervention
(individual, community, etc). My clinical and scholarly interests
center on interpersonal relationships, most specifically on
prevention and remediation of distress in couples.  My treatment
model is a communication/problem solving approach that has strong
empirical support.
I have also maintained an independent practice over these years, 
am a Diplomate in Clinical (ABPP), am licensed and listed in the 
National Register.  In combination with teaching an ethics and 
professional issues course, my practice and many of the 
activities described below have kept me informed and immersed in 
issues vital to practice (e.g., managed care, health care reform, 
continuing education). 
I have been highly involved in organized psychology at the local, 
state and national levels.  I have been President of the Maryland 
Psychological Association at the state level, and at APA have 
been a two-time representative to APA Council from Maryland, Co- 
chair of the Finance Committee, Chair of the Policy and Planning 
Board, and President of Division 31.  I am currently on the APA 
Board of Directors, where I serve or have served as liaison to 
the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public 
Interest and its various committees (committees on women, 
disability, minorities, children/youth/family, AIDs, and 
gay/lesbian issues), the Ethics Committee, the Board of 
Educational Affairs and, currently, CAPP.  I currently chair the
Public Policy Advisory Committee and continue to be involved in
long- range planning for the association.  The short form of this
is that I know my way around APA and the states, understand the
process of  doing APA business, have extensive experience with all
major  sectors of psychology, have devoted much of my professional 
career to dealing with conflict resolution, and have a balanced 
perspective that I think can serve the association well.
I would very much appreciate your listing me as your first choice 
on the presidential ballot, if you are committed to someone else,
to rank me as highly as you can. 

Thank you.
Bob Brown


Advances in electronic communications can truly revolutionize the
process of information exchange in our field.  

One example relates to the political process in APA.  The Council
of Representatives often takes stands on social issues, using
their best guess of the soundness of data supporting the position
and the wishes of the psychologists they represent.  For a number
of years, we have wondered whether it would be possible to have a
"rapid response system" so that APA could quickly sample the
wishes and expertise of the association members - we are getting
close to having that capability.  We should, within the next few
years, be able to send a position statement to 4-5,000
psychologists representative of the diversity of the association
and get their votes (nobody can read 5,000 opinions) on the issue. 
That does not mean that APA would always have to follow the vote,
but we certainly would need an explanation if it did not!

Another example involves state level issues.  While those of us in
the academy have ready (and free) access to fora using the
internet, professional psychologists are just beginning to come
on-line in numbers.  It should be possible, in the next few years,
to hook up people in the states who are working on particular
issues (e.g., prescription privileges, levels of licensure, small
market health care reform, etc) directly with folks in other
states.  All this now tends to be funneled through APA; they do a
heroic job, but it cannot substitute for groups of people talking
directly to each other about common problems.

There are also many issues that are being raised by the use of the
internet for information exchange.  One immediate example is the
APA presidential campaign.  For example, does mass electronic
mailing violate the current election guidelines?  My reading of
the guidelines says that it probably does, others obviously feel
differently.  It is simply not clear at this point, and it needs
to be clarified before the election next year.

Another example is the issue of discussion of clinical cases -
what can be discussed? How much detail can be given?  Is this the
same as professional consultation?  What is the responsibility
(and liability) of a person who gives advice to another
professional on how to deal with a particular issue?  What
assurances of confidentiality are needed, if any in fact are
possible?  Clearly, a professional's rapid access to expert
opinion on a particular case, with minimal cost, is something that
can only benefit the public if we do no harm in the process. 

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.