Early Election is looking pretty fishy

We have had a closer look at the call for nominations and its now looking pretty fishy. There is no AGM date; there is no mention of the RAPS spill; and they are calling for another clinical psych to be nominated.

As we anticipated in our post yesterday – and thanks to a clever RAPS supporter – the early election now appears to be nothing more than an attempt to stack the board with more clinical psychologists.

We had it wrong when we said the nomination for a College position was for a ‘non-clinical’. In fact the nomination was for another Clinical General Director.

RAPS can see no justification for this as there are already two clinical general directors remaining for the next term – Aaron Frost and Deborah Wilmoth – and the new Constitution clearly states that only one General director should be from the Clinical College. Why would we elect a third one?

The board needs to explain to members what is actually going on!


19 thoughts on “Early Election is looking pretty fishy

  1. Can’t speak to all of the points (not sure about the spill etc) but I have had a quick skim through the APS Constitution that was voted upon and from my read it doesn’t appear that the process itself is actually a prolem at all. It’s available to all members online (copied and pasted) –
    54. A general meeting must be called by not less than twenty-one (21) days’ notice in writing.

    and (copied and pasted) under ELECTIONS – Call for nominations –

    Not less than ninety (90) days before the date upon which it is proposed to hold an annual general meeting a notice must be sent to all Honorary Fellows, Fellows and Members of the Society indicating:

    in relevant years; that a President-Elect is to be elected; or
    that a General Director from the Early Career Members is to be elected;

    So from this we can assume that the AGM is approximately 90 days away and they are just following the rules of the constitution and calling for nominations while the exact date does not need to be announced for another couple of months.

    The fact that they have called for these specific nominations is clearly outlined within a table in the transitional arrangements in clause 107 of the same document. This year sees a DGPP member, a Clin college member and an early career-researcher elected then next year sees President, clin, general and academic elected and then this brings it to the numbers that were voted on. The APS doesn’t need to justify this at all as it is written clearly within the constitution!

    Am I misunderstanding all of this or has someone posted this complaint without actually reading the constitution? As a generalist myself I’m more than keen to see change in terms of medicare rebates but incorrect statements like these do not help the case.

    Perhaps the people writing the blog posts on this page should start putting their names to them. If you are calling for more transparency and accountability from the APS it’s hard to do that without modelling this yourselves.

    1. Not quite true, Concerned -the specific nominations is NOT clearly outlined within a table in the transitional arrangements in clause 107 of the same document.
      There is not mention of a clinical College member being specified for the College position!!!

      1. Why is this post still being moderated after 7 hours and many more posts published? It is not offensive in any way and simply states fact.

    2. Hi ‘Curious’, you wrote: “Perhaps the people writing the blog posts on this page should start putting their names to them. If you are calling for more transparency and accountability from the APS it’s hard to do that without modelling this yourselves.”
      Are you for real ‘Curious’. I don’t think you are who you are making out to be. Why don’t you get transparent and state your name if that is what you want others to do.
      Also, it would be reasonable to expect a date of the election to be set when nominations are called for. What happened in the past? What is the outside window for calling an election and setting the date, after calling for nominations? Infinity? within a certain time I am sure. Thanks for doing the tough research ‘Curious’ but why the harshness towards your comrades?… if that is that is who you truly are as you say you are? Why don’t yo do something constructive for the campaign and demonstrate you are in fact the Ally that you pretend to be? And what is your ame? Or are you just Trolling?

      1. Hi Gregory. That’s an understandable comment that again could have been said a little less viciously 🙁 My reason for anonymity is that if you google some of the names of commenters on here unfortunately this blog comes up within the first page. If you read through my posts I conduct myself by sharing polite information and opinions but I can’t control how people (such as yourself) respond to me. Given that common factors research tells us that expectation is a large predictor of outcome for our clients I like to have some control over what my clients find in relation to my professional name on the internet.

        Face to face I would happily stand by any and all comments that I have made here and if I had put my hand up to run a campaign against the APS then I would certainly consider it necessary to publish my full name.

        1. Hi Curious. Without Malice. Sorry you chose to name, strongly expressed views as being expressed ‘viciously’. Frankly I find that comment offensive. I value being direct and to the point. If some-one write’s that he or she expects others to use their real names don’t you think it is a bit hypocritical and vexatious that he or she not use his or her real name transparently.
          I am Tough not Vicious.
          I wish you well.
          May you be happy, may you be well, may your life be free from suffering.
          Why don’t you come out of the closet and expose your true self honestly and openly.

    3. Hi Curious,

      I had a read of the constitution and looked at the table you mentioned detailed in Clause 107. It states this year a Director should be appointed from the Division of Colleges, excluding the Clinical College – so maybe whoever wrote up the call for nominations in the APS made an error either in description or they got the schedule confused?

      1. Hi Tia. I think that this table is unnecessarily confusing and can be read either way but my understanding is that it is the ones that say ‘elected’ next to them that are due to be elected at the 2017 / 2018 AGMs. This might explain the different interpretations here.

        Might be a good idea for RAPS to get this cleared up directly from the APS?

        1. Hi Curious,
          Can you ask the APS to clear that up please. Do you really think the APS are friendly and helpful towards RAPS representatives?
          What do you think RAPS is? It is a collection of individuals, like you. Why don’t you contribute something constructive. Go ahead, make my day.

          1. Oh my gosh so unnecessarily attacking as always Gregory. I did get clarification, I posted the facts here and then it was disagreed with. Rather than be attacking myself and tell people that they were wrong I took the more conciliatory path of expressing that it is indeed confusing so as not to make RAPS or other commenters appear silly. Besides, it is unnecessary as RAPS have already cleared it up and made a post stating that it is indeed a Clinical College member up for election (as can be found in the table I mentioned within the new constitution).

          2. I mean no disrespect Greg, but there’s really no need to address Curious like that!

            Unlike some other commentators who are clearly trolls intent on undermining this initiative and portraying its supporters as unprofessional and bitter alarmists, I personally haven’t seen any such behaviour from Curious at all. If anything, I have had the impression that they have been trying to play devil’s advocate to try to moderate the debate when it has shot off into unhelpful directions. And based on the more recent post about the call for nominations, it looks like Curious’ original interpretation of the table in the constitution was partially correct, after all.

            If RAPS has any hope of changing things, we need as many allies as possible, and this can only be achieved by inviting respectful discussion, rather than alienating our colleagues who show respect in their interactions. If we are to be taken seriously, we need to be able to have these discussions in a serious manner.

            1. Tia, I agree completely that there are obvious trolls on here, trying to falsely portray generalist psychologists as alarmist and unprofessional. They make up stories about D.Psych friends confirming the existence of a shadowy agenda to eliminate all generalist registered psychologists or clinically trained friends admitting that their skills were inferior to her generalist training. As well they attempt to alienate Clinical Masters students from the debate by declaring that all such students for the last ten years were so easily susceptible to indoctrination that they all universally believed they are superior to anyone who did not study the same course. As such trolling is easily identified, it is probably best to simply ignore any such obvious troll bait and focus on the real issues dividing Psychology.

              1. Hello old friend! 🙂

                Indeed our time is better spent discussing the real issues dividing our profession. I am very curious to hear your thoughts on JHemsworth’s reply to Dr Jones, where he/she asserted that the 4+2 pathway is being retired?

                Feel free to also comment on my reply to his comment – I am particularly interested in hearing your views on the points used to justify the ongoing exemption of Masters and DPsych graduates from having to sit the national exam.

                1. In response to the question about retiring the 4+2 pathway, this has been on the agenda of the reg bostd for a number of years and was recently stated at a PsyBA presentation in Brisbane I believe. As for postgrads not sitting the exam – these students have already undertaken multiple assessments across multiple subjects, had a thesis passed, and been assessed by supervisors on placements. I dont disagree however that it would be useful for them to also undertake the psych board exam. However, for 4+2 registrants this is generally the only form of objective standardised assessment they undertake.

  2. Once again…is anyone surprised that the APS are trying to be dogdy with the early election???? They do this in some third world countries…….

  3. Just wanting to let you know that the APS has sent me constant reminders to renew my membership. I’m just currently struggling with finding the funds. I hope to get it paid soon because I’m wondering whether our vote will count if we are paying monthly.

    1. Matt, the spill has to happen at the next general meeting. We just don’y have to call for a general meeting anymore now that they have started the process. But the spill i o nthe agenda.
      Please ask everyone to pay their membership fees as we hear they are not sending reminders like they used to.

      1. I was sent a membership reminder.
        However, I still have had no reply as to whether or not my proxy vote was counted at the recent meeting.
        If history is a determining factor then we could expect the clinical faction will continue expanding their power base and acting to privilege the Clinical College members over other APS members – on what can be reasonably argued (as RAPS does) are quite spurious assumptions.
        The simple bottom line is the more supporters of, or members of, the clinical clique in positions of power, the worse off those outside the clique will be in private practice. It really is all quite simple! The unrepresentative Board must be spilt and replaced with one that genuinely represents ALL the interests of ALL members without discrimination or false elitism.

Leave a Reply