Obviously you are aware of the frustration and incredulity members are feeling about the sudden onslaught of emails from yourself and other APS representatives urging us to vote yes. Can I remind you that a voting system by definition entitles one to vote no? In my opinion you should be specifically addressing concerns raised by members (such at RAPS) and if you are so sure they are wrong outline in detail how this is the case. To date nothing the APS has said has provided a solid argument against them. The only reasonable option for members who don’t feel concerns have been sufficiently debated (let alone addressed) is to vote no and stick to the status quo.
I’ve experienced the messages coming from the APS as more like propaganda than a balanced explanation of the issues ( this includes the recent video of the Chair of the Governance Review Committee which focused on the process of developing the changes rather than specifics). I have already emailed the GGPPVIC about my concerns and while I received a response it did nothing to reassure me.
My email to them noted that the overwhelming concern (as you are all well aware) among non-clinical psychologists is the increasing dominance of the Clinical College – stimulated by the two tier Medicare system and the increasing public perception (including medical practitioners) that clinical psychologists are somehow more competent, and superior to other psychologists.
I was personally told by a clinical psychologist (back in around 2010) that “life will not get any easier for generalist psychologists” – why would she say that? I was also advised, by a potential supervisor while investigating endorsement from the Educational and Developmental College, that it would be a waste of my time and money as that endorsement would provide no professional or financial benefit. So the message is it is Clinical or don’t bother (I should note frustration that many current “clinicals” do not have a clinical masters and obtained endorsement via an alternative route which I understand is no longer available).
That aside, in relation the vote, I really need answers to the following questions:
- What is the rationale for the “Clinical College” being the only “College” guaranteed a “General Director” position? Why are all the other colleges lumped together? If this is a numbers issue please provide the percentage of members in each college and generalists etc to support the argument.
“(ii) The General Directors elected under clause 75(a)(i) must be elected as follows:
(A) One (1) General Director to be elected by the Elected Members who are recorded as members of the College of Clinical Psychologists in the Register of Members; and
(B) One (1) General Director to be elected by the Elected Members who are recorded as members of any College or Colleges, but excluding Elected Members who are recorded only as a member of the College of Clinical Psychologists.”
- Won’t this – “(C) Where Elected Members are recorded as members of the College of Clinical Psychologists in addition to one or more other Colleges, those Elected Members are entitled to vote for a General Director under both clause 75(a)(ii)(A) and 75(a)(ii)(B)” – also advantage Clinical Psychs as many have dual College endorsements? How many exactly have dual endorsements? What is the percentage?
- (d) Early Career Director – where will they come from and what percentage are in this cohort? Given the two-tier Medicare system means most grads are favouring clinical masters courses won’t this also favour Clinicals? How will you get around this?
- Why is the President on the “Nominations Committee” if this is supposedly independent?
- I note the President will also Chair the so called “Council” reason given to “consolidate the link between the Council and the Board”. This appears to give the President too much power – why is this necessary when the “Council” is for member input?
In the absence of comprehensive answers to the questions above I can’t see how anyone could feel they were sufficiently well informed to vote for the changes.