IPA LISTSERV POLICY

One significant benefit of membership in the Illinois Psychological Association is the privilege of joining and participating on our listserv. Typically, the listserv has daily postings that contain questions for the group; announcements of relevant opportunities; recent press about psychological issues; requests for referrals; and requests for participation in research. Thousands of messages are sent and received on the list each year, most of which are informative, helpful, worded politely, and clearly relevant to the Association’s focus on psychological research, education, training, practice, and advocacy.

IPA Listserv Guidelines
1. The purpose of the IPA listserv is to facilitate communication among all IPA members on topics related to psychological research, education, training, practice, and advocacy. Messages sent to the listserv should reflect this community objective.

2. The IPA listserv should be used in a manner that is consistent with the rules that APA has established for all of the listservs that it supports (see http://listserve.apa.org/infopages/APARules.html).

3. The Listserv Manager and the Listserv Assistant Manager will be appointed by the IPA President and approved by Council. The Listserv Manager will contact individuals who do not use the listserv in a manner that is professional and respectful of list members. The definition of “unprofessional” behavior and the consequences of displaying unprofessional and disrespectful behavior are stated in the section “Defining Unprofessional Behavior,” found below. The Listserv Assistant Manager will take over the responsibilities of the Listserv Manager when the Listserv Manager is on vacation, or is ill or, for any other reason, is temporarily unable to carry out his/her responsibilities.

4. A Listserv Committee of three members will be appointed by the IPA President and approved by the IPA Executive Committee and by the IPA Council.

Defining Unprofessional Behavior
Unprofessional behavior is defined as any behavior that may be construed as being unsupportive of or disrespectful to listserv members or creating a hostile environment. Examples of unsupportive or disrespectful behavior or behavior that contributes to the creation of a hostile environment include, but are not limited to: hostile or sarcastic responses to a list member’s posting; negative remarks about a list member’s character or motives; repetitive postings; postings that contain statements that distort or misrepresent an event; postings that clearly address a relational issue with a specific list member; postings that are not obviously relevant to the purpose of the listserv.

Constructive criticism and dissenting positions are not considered “unprofessional behavior.” Comments that express a negative evaluation but which do not explicitly offer alternative resources or a helpful course of action or do not ask for engagement are considered unsupportive or disrespectful. Some examples are cited below. These examples are not all‐inclusive.

Unprofessional: “Obviously someone hasn’t been keeping up with the field.”

vs.

Professional: “What about the latest findings from X – might those be something that you might explore? I’d be very much interested in hearing your thoughts about those findings.”

Unprofessional: "Taking this approach is deceitful and misleading."

vs.

Professional: "I disagree with this approach. In my opinion, our clients (or members) would be best served by going about it this way [step 1, step 2, and step 3]."

Unprofessional: “Those in leadership are just trying to hide things from the membership.”

vs.

Professional: “I don’t recall seeing this information anywhere. Can someone tell me where I might be able to access this information, or when it might become available to the membership?”

Consequences of Unprofessional Behavior
To assure that subscription to the listserv is a positive experience, violators of the listserv guidelines will be subject to the following sanctions, listed in order of increasing severity:

1. Listmember will be sent a reminder message about the listserv’s purpose, community standards, and guidelines.

2. Should another violation occur, subsequent to the warning, a listmember will be placed on read‐ only status with the listserv for a 30‐day period. This means that his/her posting privileges will be suspended. He/she will be able to receive messages, but not post any. Asking another listserv member to post a message on one’s behalf while on read‐only‐status is grounds for removal from the listserv on an extended or permanent basis.

3. If, upon return to the listserv, a listmember posts a message that, again, violates our community standards, as stated above, his/her subscription to the listserv will be removed. This removal will follow a review by the listserv committee who will make recommendations to the IPA Executive Committee. The IPA Executive Committee will make the final recommendation for removal from the listserv. This decision to remove the member’s subscription will come within 48 hours of the violating post. Immediately following the violating post, the listmember will be put back on the read‐only status. If the IPA Executive Committee decides not to revoke the listmember’s listserv privileges, the listmember will stay on read‐only status for another 30 day period, after which the listmember could return to the listserv with full privileges.

Why Listserv Moderation is not a viable option for the IPA
1. Subscribers may take offense and threaten legal action.

2. If a list is moderated, then the moderator might approve an allegedly libelous statement, resulting in legal risks and/or significant annoyance to the moderator.

3. It is unfair to ask a volunteer, such as a listserv moderator, to take on this added level of responsibility and risk.

We intend to keep the IPA listserv unmoderated. All members can post messages directly to the list. Infractions of the listserv rules, therefore, will be addressed only after the fact.

Thank‐you for your cooperation in adhering to these principles that will help us maintain a supportive professional community.

Practice Guidelines Regarding Psychologists’ Involvement in Pharmacological Issues

These guidelines were developed by the American Psychological Association (APA) Division 55 (American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy) Task Force on Practice Guidelines. The task force was chaired by Robert E. McGrath. Task force members included Stanley Berman, Elaine LeVine, Elaine Mantell, Beth Rom–Rymer, Morgan Sammons, and James Quillin. Additional input on the guidelines was provided by Robert Ax, representing Division 18 (Psychologists in Public Service). None of the individuals involved in the development of this document has any personal investment in pharmaceutical products of any kind, nor did the developers receive any financial support for its creation.

The task force anticipates that these guidelines may deserve reconsideration in a relatively brief time frame, given anticipated changes in psychologists’ role in pharmacotherapy as well as changes in the perceptions and use of psychotropic medications. In particular, it is the belief of the members of the task force that future efforts should include consideration of whether some elements of the enclosed guidelines merit elevation to the level of practice standards. Accordingly, this document is scheduled to expire as APA policy in August 2014, five years after the date of its approval and adoption by the APA Council of Representatives. After this date, users are encouraged to contact the APA Practice Directorate to confirm whether this document remains in effect.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the Practice Directorate, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002–4242.

Is the IPA RxP Initiative new or sudden in its process?

The RxP Subcommittee of the IPA Legislative Committee was established in 1991 with the express purpose of pursuing prescriptive authority for psychologists with APA approved specialized training in clinical psychopharmacology. IPA first introduced a prescriptive authority bill in 1998 with state Senator Carol Ronen as our chief sponsor. This RxP initiative has been routinely discussed in association meetings or forums that are open to all members. Since 1991 prescription privileges for psychologists in Illinois has been discussed and designated as an active agenda item with the membership of IPA and publicly on numerous and regular occasions. IPA elected officers and section chairs have followed specific IPA policies regarding IPA activities on prescription privileges just as it follows these specific processes for other action items. The issue of prescription privileges has been regularly discussed at monthly Legislative Committee meetings. These meetings are open to any IPA member and the times and dates of these monthly open meetings are posted in every issue of the IPA quarterly Newsletter. Since 2006, the issue of prescription privileges has been the subject of at least one article in every newsletter except for 2 of the last 19 issues of the Illinois Psychologist and has been discussed at every Legislative Committee meeting in all but 2 Council meetings. We know that IPA Area Code Representatives have discussed RxP with their constituents in both formal and informal meetings. From January 2011 through the present, the RxP legislative initiative has been discussed at every Council meeting (January 22, 2011, April 16, 2011, June 18, 2011, September 17, 2011, and January 21, 2012). At the January 2011, the September 2011, and the January 2012 meetings votes had been taken on this initiative. At every one of these votes, the RxP initiative had been confirmed nearly unanimously with, at times one abstention or, at other times, two abstentions. There were no negative votes. Moreover, in every IPA Newsletter, an RxP Committee is shown as an official Committee of the Association.

How has the IPA Council tried to balance competing opinions about RxP?

During the last five years of IPA Council Meetings, there have been several votes on RxP activities and all of these Council votes have included thorough discussions of this complex issue with consideration of minority and majority Council and member opinions. Each of these votes affirmed the IPA’s engagement in RxP lobbying activities. During the last year, as noted above, RxP votes had been taken at the January 2011, September 2011, and January 2012 meetings. At every one of these votes the RxP initiative had been confirmed nearly unanimously with at times one abstention. There were no negative votes.

Have General IPA Membership Dues or Contributions been used in the IPA – RxP Initiative?

No. The IPA Executive Committee and Council have been sensitive to Council and Member wishes that the funding for the RxP Initiative come from separate funding sources rather than from the general legislative fund. This is done so that members may choose to fund or not to fund the RxP initiative. The source of funding for the RxP effort is from monies contributed solely for the purpose of the RxP legislative effort. The RxP funding is not coming from any general IPA membership revenue stream. The details of the Treasurer’s Report are available to the IPA Executive Committee and the IPA Council. Any IPA member who wishes to know details about the IPA Treasurer’s Report should talk with any member of the IPA Executive Committee or the IPA Executive Director. IPA will follow established procedures for releasing budgetary information.