Section goals include the promotion of social responsibility for civil and human rights and the values of justice, peace, and the public interest within the science, profession, education, and training of psychology; the recognition of exemplary achievements of social responsibility in the field; and the maintenance within IPA of a focus and forum in which the relevance of social responsibility for all areas of psychological endeavor can be advanced.

Download the IPA’s Social Responsibilities Statement

Recent Campaigns

Letter from the Chairs

Our profession must accept the social responsibility to actively engage in advocacy for social justice in the pursuit of fostering mental health and well-being for all human beings. Psychology, as a discipline, is uniquely positioned to contribute to the dismantling of systemic inequalities that negatively impact the mental health of individuals and communities.

Our role extends beyond the confines of therapeutic sessions; we are advocates for the marginalized, catalysts for change, and champions of inclusivity. Research consistently demonstrates the profound impact of socioeconomic disparities, discrimination, and prejudice on emotional well-being. As stewards promoting the well-being of society, we must use our expertise to highlight these issues and work towards their resolution.

Advocating for social justice aligns with the ethical principles of our profession, emphasizing the importance of respect for dignity and promoting the welfare of individuals. By actively engaging in conversations, research, and interventions that address social injustices, we contribute to the broader narrative of building a psychologically healthier world.

Let us unite in our commitment to understand the complexities of the human psyche and advocate for a more just and equitable society. Through our collective efforts, we can inspire positive change, fostering mental well-being for generations.

The Illinois Psychological Association Social Responsibility Section encourages sustained and deepening “ARC”, Awareness building; Relationship equality, and Commitment to real sustained change in deconstructing systemic oppression and constructing social justice. 

What follows is our most updated listing of resources for deconstructing implicit biases and unpacking privilege to move into a stance of social responsibility. This resource guide focuses on broadening and deepening awareness of the ongoing systemic oppression affecting many groups across the country.

The Social Responsibility Section has included many books below on various topics of social justice and responsibility. Choose the one that may suit your style and fit with your established support/discussion group.  Of course, you could read and process the discussion guides to each of these books!

Books, Websites, and other Resources for Further Learning and Growth

Books:

Volunteering and Resources:

Articles from SRS-IPA Archives 2021-2022

Colleagues,

You may be interested in this statement about the Science Behind Why Women May Not Report Sexual Assault, from APA Dr. President Jessica Henderson Daniel, September 24, 2018.

The mission of the Women’s Issues Section is to promote: (1) the professional interests of women psychologists in IPA, (2) the psychological happiness and well-being of female patients/clients through psychological services, and (3) the psychological happiness and well-being of women in the broader community. We support and empower women to own their own reflective minds, experience stable self-worth, and use their voices. We uphold the broad ranging inclusive ideals related to gender equality in the first, second, third, and fourth waves of feminism, and the lens of multicultural diversity of womanism.

Our mission is pursued through a variety of activities, including but not limited to:

• Connecting women in the section and IPA, and identifying and addressing issues affecting them
• Hosting presentations and discussions of broader women’s issues in the community
• Offering continuing education activities on psychotherapy, psychological services, scholarship, and research
• Working in liaison with other local and national women’s associations and organizations
• Proactively advocating for women’s issues as they relate to psychology

Our mission is also pursued through our commitment to certain core values:

• Inclusion and pluralism in clinical practice, psychotherapeutic orientation, ideas, perspectives, scholarship, training, and research (i.e., including non-reductionism, post-positivism)
• Respectful, constructive, ethical, caring, relationships in clinical practice, psychotherapy, training, ongoing professional development, and professional collegial relations
• Diversity and inclusion in race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity

Message from the Chair 

Women need psychologists who are in the know about issues of critical importance. Economic equality, safe workplace laws, sexual safety, reproductive rights, child rearing, childcare, work/life balance, the list can go on. 

Welcome! One of the best ways to strengthen women’s voices and helping meet their needs is through joining the Women’s Issues Section of IPA.

What will your membership afford you?

• Interviews with psychologists, policy makers, researchers and others who will help deepen our understanding of how to best serve women.  Since women birth everyone, we are helping serve everyone.
• Community with other psychologists curious about and caring for women.
• A forum in which to exchange valuable information: Articles, studies, chapters, TED Talks and the like.

Who Can Join? Anyone interested in furthering the interests of women, regardless of gender/gender identity are invited to join the Women’s Issues Section. Membership in IPA is required. To join, contact: Marsha Karey, IPA Executive Director at 312-372-7610 x201 or mkarey@illinoispsychology.org I look forward to getting to know you, and to all that we can accomplish together.

I hope you will join us!

Be well!

Mom’s Hierarchy of Needs by Leslie Forde

Like competitors in any other profession or industry, psychologists must understand basic antitrust principles in order to avoid unnecessary legal exposure. Antitrust awareness is particularly important for psychologists who participate in, or are interested in joining, managed care contracting networks, provider “unions,” or professional associations with their competitors. While these organizations can provide valuable benefits to their members, they also can create significant antitrust risks if operated inappropriately. This article briefly outlines potential antitrust risks in each of these organizations, and provides some basic guidelines for minimizing those risks.

Antitrust Overview
The purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect free and open competition for the benefit of consumers. Competition ensures that consumers will have access to high quality, competitively priced goods and services. In order to protect these benefits, Section 1 of the Sherman Act (the principal federal antitrust statute) prohibits all agreements that unreasonably “restrain” competition. Certain types of agreements are so inherently unreasonable that they are always condemned as “per se” illegal. These per se offenses include agreements among competitors to coordinate or “fix” their prices, to divide “markets” between themselves, and, in some situations, to refuse to deal with their customers (“group boycotts”). Two independent psychology practices must not, for example, agree on the rates they will charge for office visits, the communities or customers they will serve, or the payors with whom they will contract.

The federal antitrust agencies have actively challenged such per se illegal conduct by health care providers and other professionals. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”), for example, recently filed criminal charges against a local society of Texas optometrists who had allegedly met and agreed upon the fees that they would charge for eye examinations. The optometrists pled guilty, and agreed to pay a fine of $75,000. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) similarly filed a civil action against an association of trial lawyers who had boycotted the District of Columbia court system in order to obtain an increase in the fees paid in court-appointed cases. The Supreme Court held that this group boycott was per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Agreements that are not “per se” illegal may still be unlawful if, on balance, their anticompetitive effects outweigh their procompetitive benefits. This balancing test is known as the “rule of reason.” An agreement between two psychology and psychiatric groups to merge into a single practice, for example, would be analyzed under the rule of reason. If the merged practice included such a large share of the communities’ mental health professionals that it could raise prices above competitive levels, it is possible that the anticompetitive effects from this “market power” might outweigh any efficiencies from the merger. Short of full mergers, agreements to enter into joint ventures raise similar issues under the rule of reason. When mergers or joint ventures consolidate all or nearly all of the mental health professionals in a market, antitrust exposure may also result under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracies to monopolize.

Certain types of activities among health care providers (and among competitors generally) are immune from antitrust liability. The Supreme Court has recognized, for example, that petitioning or lobbying the legislature and executive branch to take potentially anticompetitive actions will not generally result in antitrust exposure. Similarly, legitimate attempts to obtain relief through administrative agencies or courts are also generally protected. This protection does not apply, however, when the petitioning activity is simply a sham or when the petitioners engage in illegal activity as a means of obtaining government relief (like the lawyers who boycotted the District of Columbia to obtain higher fees).

The penalties for violating the federal antitrust laws are quite serious. Violation of the Sherman Act is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to three years, fines of up to $350,000 for individuals, and fines of up to $10 million for corporations. The FTC and DOJ share responsibility for enforcing the federal antitrust laws. Private parties injured by antitrust violations can also file civil actions seeking treble damages and attorneys fees and costs.

Guidelines for Provider Networks
Psychologists and other health care providers can collaborate in certain types of “provider networks” without significant antitrust risks, so long as the networks are structured and operated carefully. Provider networks are joint ventures formed by otherwise independent providers. The networks are generally designed to market the providers’ services to payors, and to enter into payor contracts on behalf of those providers. The network is typically owned by the participating providers, and can take any number of organizational forms (such as a limited liability company, a not-for-profit corporation, or a for-profit corporation). For example, independent psychologists, psychiatrists, and clinical social workers might form a limited liability company network to offer mental health services to managed care payors. The providers would continue to operate independent practices, but would agree to participate in certain types of contracts that the network is able to obtain.

Price Setting and Contracting Issues.
Regardless of organizational form, the price-setting activities of networks raise some of the most significant antitrust risks. Only in limited circumstances can networks legitimately negotiate contract rates with managed care companies, employers, and other payors. Specifically, price negotiation is permissible only when the payor contract creates substantial financial risk-sharing or “clinical integration” among the competing providers in the network. When a particular contract does not involve financial risk-sharing or clinical integration, any attempts by networks to negotiate fees for participating psychologists and providers would create significant price-fixing exposure.

In recent health care policy statements, the FTC and DOJ describe a number of types of contracts that create the necessary financial risk-sharing. For example, when a psychology network receives a fixed capitated fee for each enrollee regardless of the actual services provided, the network’s psychologists share in the financial risk that the cost of those services will exceed the capitated amounts. This shared risk results in common incentives to control utilization and provide care in a cost-effective manner. Similar risk-sharing exists when the network is paid a fixed percentage of the payor’s premium for all required mental health services, or when the psychologists’ fees are subject to substantial withholds, penalties, or bonuses based upon their ability to meet utilization or cost-containment goals as a group. Likewise, substantial risk-sharing can result from the payment of “global case rates” for a complex course of treatment requiring coordination and management of varying services from providers in multiple disciplines (e.g., psychologists, psychiatrists, and hospitals). Each of these arrangements creates a shared financial incentive among providers to furnish care in an efficient manner. As a result, the FTC and DOJ will not view the network simply as a mechanism for entering into anticompetitive price-fixing agreements. Psychology networks are therefore free, for example, to negotiate with payors about the level of capitated, percentage-of-premium, or global case rates that they are willing to accept.

Arrangements involving “clinical integration” can also result in efficiencies, and can similarly permit networks to negotiate price terms with payors. For example, a network that invests significant capital in computer systems and personnel to monitor overall utilization, quality, and cost-effectiveness of participating psychologists, and that disciplines and excludes psychologists who fail to meet these goals, may be considered clinically integrated. In contrast, a network that simply creates a utilization review committee, but does not actively monitor, educate, or discipline its psychologists, would not be considered clinically integrated. Unfortunately, the agencies do not provide much guidance about networks falling between these two extremes. As a result, networks should be very cautious in relying upon clinical integration alone to justify price negotiations with payors.

Without financial risk-sharing or clinical integration (for example, when a contract reimburses psychologists using a simple fee schedule), networks must not negotiate fees on behalf of their participating psychologists and providers. Such collective negotiations would be considered per se illegal price-fixing. The mere fact that the providers have created a new corporation or limited liability company to perform the negotiations does not insulate them from this price-fixing liability. In fact, the FTC and DOJ have been very active in challenging physician networks and physician-hospital organizations that have attempted to negotiate fee-for-service rates. Most recently, the FTC challenged the activities of a Colorado physician network that allegedly negotiated non-risk fees for its participating physicians. Only in very limited circumstances – for example, where the substantial majority of a network’s business involves risk-sharing – might a network avoid price-fixing exposure for negotiating fee-for-service rates.

However, networks can facilitate non-risk contracting using a mechanism commonly known as the “messenger model.” Under this model, an independent third-party or network employee would act as a “messenger” between payors and individual network psychologists. The messenger would simply transmit payor offers to participating psychologists for their individual consideration, and relay the psychologists’ responses back to the payor. The messenger would not negotiate rates or attempt to coordinate the psychologists’ responses. One variation of the messenger model allows individual psychologists to commit in advance to any payor offers that exceed predetermined fee schedules set independently by the psychologists. Because these models can create significant risks if not implemented correctly, networks should seek antitrust counsel before dealing with payors.

Network “Overinclusion” Issues.
In addition to raising price-fixing issues, networks can also raise market-specific issues if they include too large a panel of providers. When such "overinclusion" occurs, the antitrust concern is that an insufficient number of providers will be available to form competing networks or contract with competing managed care plans. Overinclusive networks may therefore be able to exercise “market” or “monopoly power,” and raise prices above competitive levels.

The FTC and DOJ have issued guidance in two “safety zones” created for “physician network joint ventures.” Although the safety zones are technically limited to physician networks, the safety-zone standards nevertheless provide useful guidelines for networks involving psychologists and other providers. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the enforcement agencies explain that they will not challenge a “non-exclusive” network in which the physicians (i) share substantial financial risk, and (ii) constitute no more than 30% of any given specialty in the relevant market. Similarly, they will not challenge an “exclusive” risk-sharing network with 20% or less of the physicians in each specialty. The agencies are more concerned about overinclusion in “exclusive” networks because they restrict the ability of participants to join other networks or contract directly with payors, and therefore are more likely to have anticompetitive effects.

Physician networks that fall outside of the safety zones are not necessarily unlawful under the antitrust laws, and will be examined by the FTC and DOJ on a case-by-case basis. Where the physicians are sufficiently integrated, these enforcement agencies have looked at the likely competitive effects of such networks, and have concluded that many non-exclusive networks exceeding the thresholds were nevertheless unlikely to pose antitrust problems. For example, the FTC staff concluded that a physician network with approximately 45% of the obstetricians and 50% of the pediatricians in the relevant market did not raise concerns where the network was non-exclusive, and where competing networks already existed. In contrast, DOJ rejected a proposed network accounting for 50% to 77% of the pediatricians in several New Jersey communities where payor objections and network contract provisions suggested that the network would likely be able to exercise market power.

When applying these principles to psychologists, the calculation of market shares would be somewhat different, because psychologists compete not only with other psychologists, but also with other types of mental health professionals (such as psychiatrists and possibly clinical social workers). In order to determine whether a network includes more than 20% or 30% of area providers, it would be appropriate to include other mental health providers who are viewed by payors and patients as substitutes for psychologists. Thus, even a network with 50% of the market’s psychologists might not pose competitive concerns if the network’s overall percentage of mental health professionals were less significant. Again, these antitrust risks depend upon the specific nature of competition in the relevant market, and must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Do Unions Provide Antitrust Protection?
In recent years, health care professionals have become increasingly interested in joining unions. Under certain circumstances, the collective bargaining activities of unions on behalf of their members are exempt from the antitrust laws. However, this “labor exemption” applies only when employees are using a union to bargain with their employer. As a result, independent psychologists and psychology practices could not use a union to negotiate provider contracts with a health plan. A Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, for example, recently refused to certify a New Jersey union as the exclusive bargaining agent for independent physicians in contract negotiations with an HMO. The union had argued that the physicians should be considered HMO “employees,” as a practical matter, because of the significant control exercised by the HMO. The Director rejected these arguments, however, and concluded that the physicians were simply independent contractors not covered by the labor laws.

Collective action by independent psychologists through a “union” is therefore no different than collective action through a provider network. Absent financial risk-sharing or clinical integration among the psychologists, union negotiation of the psychologists’ fees would be per se illegal, just as it would be in the context of provider networks. Last year, for example, the FTC challenged a “strike” called by the College of Physicians-Surgeons of Puerto Rico to demand pricing changes under the Puerto Rican government’s indigent care plan. Under the settlement agreement, the physicians agreed to pay $300,000 in restitution and agreed not to engage in any future group boycotts or collective price negotiations. The FTC is also presently investigating the activities of the Florida-based Federation of Physicians and Dentists, which claims to be engaging in “messenger model” contracting on behalf of its independent physician members.

What Can Associations Do?
Like provider networks and “unions,” professional associations are organizations of otherwise competing providers that should not be used as a means of setting prices or boycotting health plans. These activities create significant antitrust exposure. Nevertheless, national, state, and local associations can engage in a number of valuable collective activities without substantial antitrust risks. For example, associations can represent psychologists’ interests before legislatures, government regulatory agencies, and courts. These government advocacy activities are generally immune from antitrust scrutiny. As the Puerto Rico case demonstrates, however, the protection is not available when the government is simply acting as a purchaser of health care services, and the association uses an illegal boycott as a means of demanding more favorable pricing.

Associations can also provide various types of information to health plans and other purchasers. In one “safety zone,” the FTC and DOJ explain that they will not challenge the collective provision of medical information to purchasers, absent extraordinary circumstances. Associations can collect outcomes data related to a particular procedure that the members believe should be covered, and provide that data to a purchaser. The association can also discuss the scientific merit of that data with the purchasers. Similarly, an association can develop suggested practice parameters for particular types of clinical cases. The Agencies recognize that such information exchanges can ultimately increase quality and efficiency.

Nevertheless, associations will be exposed to substantial antitrust risks if they attempt to coerce a purchaser’s decision-making or threaten a boycott of a purchaser that does not follow the associations’ recommendations. In one Supreme Court case, for example, a federation of dentists refused to provide payors with x-rays used in making utilization and coverage decisions. The Court agreed with the FTC’s allegations that the agreement was an illegal group boycott, and rejected the dentists’ argument that quality of care concerns justified their actions. In reviewing association activities generally, it is also important to recognize that antitrust exposure can result not only from explicit agreements, but also from unspoken agreements and parallel conduct among their members.

* * * * *

In general, psychology networks and associations are capable of providing significant procompetitive benefits, and their related antitrust risks are manageable. Because the consequences of improper formation and operation can be so significant, however, it is imperative that the participants in these organizations understand the relevant antitrust issues and conduct themselves accordingly.

Equal Employment Opportunity
The Illinois Psychological Association (IPA) provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, sexual orientation, marital status, number of dependent children or the ages of the children, physical or mental disability (visible or nonvisible), or any other basis on which discrimination is prohibited by federal, state, or local law. This policy applies to recruiting, hiring, training, promotion, and all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Sexual Harassment
IPA in its effort to maintain a safe, fair, humane, and respectful working environment for all employees sets forth its policy regarding sexual harassment. The principles and practices described in this policy apply equally to harassment due to race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any of the other characteristics enumerated in the Equal Employment Opportunity statement above. IPA deplores such conduct and will not tolerate any acts that violate this policy. IPA employees, agents and supervisory staff are prohibited from harassing other IPA employees on the basis of the enumerated characteristics.

General Principle I
Staff and members are professional; all interactions should be on a professional-to-professional basis.

Guidance
1. Harassment or intimidation of any nature is not tolerated. Civility, courtesy, and mutual respect in all interactions are expected.

2. Relationships among professionals require equality. Requests made of one party should stand the test of reciprocity.

3. Over time relationships can often become more personal. It is important that mutual respect continue to be part of the ongoing relationship.

General Principle II
Staff’s primary responsibility is to facilitate the work of the group; requests from board or committee members should relate to the goals of the group.

Guidance
1. Staff are responsible for providing support for the board or a committee. This includes, but is not limited to, making meeting arrangements, developing agenda items, working with chairs to facilitate meetings, acting as resources at the meeting, and carrying out and managing complex and extensive activities subsequent to the meetings.

2. Requests from members to staff that go beyond staff responsibility such as personal favors (i.e., picking member up at the airport, making reservations for personal activities, etc.) are not appropriate, and generally will not be honored.

3. A member with a disability may request special assistance or specific accommodation that may initially appear personal in nature, i.e., holding a door open, carrying meeting materials for a person with a disability, or reading written material for a person who is blind or visually impaired. Such accommodations may allow the member with a disability to carry out functions or tasks consistent with the purpose of the meeting and may aid in that person’s interaction or participating in the meeting.

There are some requests that are personal in nature, i.e., a member asking for staff to pick up dry cleaning or arrange for tours of a popular local museum. Staff should always have a personal level of comfort when providing a requested service or accommodation. Requests may be denied if determined personally inappropriate or clarified as inappropriate by senior staff. It is not the responsibility of the staff person to anticipate any person accommodations or requests.

General Principle III
In meetings after regular working hours and in social situations, staff are still performing work-related duties.

Guidance
1. Social functions and/or meetings outside regular working hours or outside regular meeting locations are characterized by more informal and sometimes personal interactions. It is important to remember that in these situations, staff and members are expected to remain professional and courteous.

2. Staff and members can view social situations differently. Members may find these settings a time to relax and to enjoy the company of others. For staff, these events are part of their professional obligations. It is important to recognize that individuals may experience these situations in different ways.

General Principle IV
All staff ultimately report to the Executive Director of IPA and receive work instruction from their supervisor.

Guidance
1. Members should recognize that work priorities for staff are set by the staff’s supervisor. It is not appropriate for members to give work direction to staff, except in cases in which the chair directs implementation of decisions made by the board or committee. If members make an unusual and unreasonable request of staff, it is appropriate for the staff to notify their supervisor of the request.

2. If a project requires unusual resources from a specific staff person, the chair may contact the Executive Director to request that priorities be re-assigned, if possible.

3. Some staff may be asked to leave during executive sessions of the board or committee, however all staff may not be excluded without prior approval of the Executive Director or his/her designate, and without a member of the Executive Committee being present during the executive session.

Guidelines
Airfare is reimbursed at Supersaver rate.

Transportation to and from the airport is reimbursed.

Hotel rate is reimbursed at no more than the American Psychological Association rate or equivalent "corporate" rate and limited to the duration of the event. If extra nights are required, either prior or subsequent to the meeting, approval of the IPA Executive Director and Treasurer must be obtained no fewer than 30 days prior to the meeting.

Transportation to meetings via automobile is reimbursed at the current IRS rate.

Parking is reimbursed up to $22 per 24 hour period.

Non-function meals are reimbursable up to $25 per day. Reimbursement does not include alcoholic beverages.

Telephone charges are reimbursed for IPA related business only.

Appropriate and reasonable gratuities will be reimbursed.

Any voluntary assumption of expenses is welcome.

Procedures
1. Forty-five (45) days prior to the meeting, the IPA volunteer and Executive Director will come to an agreement regarding payment of expenses.

2. All requests for reservations (air and hotel) must be cleared by the IPA office no less than 14 days in advance. The IPA staff will attempt to assist in the making of these reservations.

3. Reimbursement will not be made without a receipt.

State: ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Comprised of 59 Legislative Districts
59 Senators (31 Republicans, 28 Democrats)
118 Representatives (58 Republicans, 60 Democrats)

The Legislative Process: Bill Drafting
Only legislators may introduce bills and amendments to bills. Bills often result from the
concerns of constituents (Illinois citizens).

There are three types of bills:

1. Revisory Bills – Makes technical changes in the form or in the wording.

2. Appropriation Bills – A bill which provides money for the operating expenses of a state agency including their staff and programs, or start a law that provides money for new programs such as Family Support.

3. Substantive Bills – Makes major changes in existing laws or creates new laws.

1st READING — Every bill that is introduced by a legislator must first be read by its title in the house it began in. A bill is then given a number and is then assigned to a standing Committee. Generally, Committees are specialized by subject or topic area. For example, elementary and secondary education, insurance, human services, and mental health.

Once a bill is assigned to a committee, it is on the committee’s calendar. The committee sets deadlines which they must follow. If a legislator wants to help a bill it is up to them when the bill will be read. The committee’s have certain times which they meet each day.

If a legislator wants a bill read at a specific meeting, he/she needs to tell the chairman, so that the bill can be put on the schedule.

The chairman will call the bill and the legislator can bring in information and witnesses to help get the bill passed. People who oppose the bill also have a chance to speak now. If you wish to speak you must fill out a "witness slip" indicating if you are for or against the bill. During the reading of a bill is when each of you as a constituent has a chance to affect legislation. This is also the first time that a bill can be amended.

Amendments are ways in which to change a bill. Often the sponsor of the bill will suggest an amendment. Working on bills and amendments is a major part of the legislative process.

After everyone has had a change to speak for or against the bill, and any amendments are accepted into the bill, then the Committee has to take action on the bill.

They have three choices: Do Pass, Do Pass as Amended, or Do Not Pass

A bill may be killed in a couple of ways: one is if the sponsor doesn’t ask for the bill to be read, then it dies at the deadline for reporting of bills from committee. If the bill is just "held" it never goes anywhere, or it may be put aside to be studied later. The bill has now gone through committee and passed on a "Do Pass" or "Do Pass as Amended" motion. Now it goes on….

Second Reading which is considered on both the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each chamber or house gives a bill three readings. The first comes right after the introduction. The second comes after a "do-pass" recommendation from a committee. The bill is then put on a second-reading calendar of the House or Senate.
Second reading is the amendment stage, where changes can be made, and this is the only time when changes can occur. On a typical day, the legislators have many bills on their second reading calendar.

The presiding officer reads through the bills and if the legislator who sponsored the bill is there, then the other legislators discuss sit and may make changes to it. However, if the sponsor is not there, the bill is not discussed but still stays on the calendar for second reading.

In the House the clerk has to record the amendments, get them printed and each member must have a copy of the bill before they can discuss the amendments.

In the Senate, the amendments don’t have to be printed unless five or more Senators ask for them to be printed. Committee amendments added in the Senate must be adopted on the floor.

In the House, an amendment adopted in Committee, can be changed or taken off the bill during second reading.

Often the original sponsor of the bill will want to make small changes in it, and in this case the other legislators agree to do so by voicing their opinions. If the sponsor wants to make a big change in the bill, then he explains it to the others, and asks for their support. Often the others won’t be in favor of the change and will ask questions about it.

In order to adopt an amendment, a majority of the legislators must be present and votes "yes". If they aren’t sure if the amendment passed or not, then they will take a vote on an electronic voting machine. Each time they do this it is recorded in the journals of each house.

After they have gone through all of the amendments, the bill is considered to have been read for the second time. Now the bill goes on to what is called the "Third Reading".
Third Reading is only for voting on whether or not to pass a bill; amendments cannot be added at this time. The third reading must take place at least one legislative day after the second reading.

The sponsor of the bill explains why the bill should be passed and then the other legislators discuss it. Sometimes they debate over it for a very long time, and other times they discuss it very quickly or not at all. It takes 60 yes votes in the House and 30 yes votes in the Senate to pass a bill.

If a bill passes, then it must go through the entire process again in the Second House. If no changes or amendments are made in the Second House, then it goes to the Governor for approval. If he has no problems with it, then he signs it and it becomes a law.

The Governor
The Governor has 60 days to consider every bill passed. If he wants the bill to become a law he then signs it or he vetoes it. If he does nothing with the bill, it automatically becomes law after 60 days. A vetoed bill is returned to the house where it was originally started — it has 15 days to be passed and it must do so by 3/5ths margin (71 House; 36 Senate).

There are four kinds of vetoes:
1. Item Veto — When the Governor wants to eliminate part of a bill, but might not want to eliminate all of it, he/she will only veto the parts which they do not want it a particular bill.

2. Reduction Veto – This is an section which the Governor may take to reduce a specific budget item.

3. Amendatory Veto — If the Governor wishes, he/she can change a part of a bill, and still pass the rest of it.

4. Total Veto – If the Governor wishes, she/he can reject a bill completely, and by doing this no part of the bill is passed.

Contact(s):
Gregory Sarlo, PsyD, Co-Chair

Kristina Pecora, PsyD, Co-Chair

The IPA is very active in the legislative process at both the state and federal level. As an organization, the IPA takes stands in support of, and opposition to, bills. It also introduces bills to the state legislature. IPA members, interested psychologists, and consumers are encouraged to play a role in the legislative process and this section of the website provides them with the tools needed to engage in this process.

I. Description:
The Legislative Committee is charged with the following responsibilities:
1) Monitoring, developing, and promoting legislation at state and federal levels, which has relevance to the interest and practice of psychology,

2) Developing and maintaining relationships with legislators and legislative committees having an interest in the mental health and well-being of the citizens of Illinois.

3) Recommending to IPA Council legislative actions to be taken in the interest of the profession and the public.

II.Meetings:
Generally, the 3rd Friday of the month at 2:00 PM at the IPA office (or virtually via Zoom).

III.Continuing Education Events:
The IPA-LC generally presents a formal workshop at the IPA Annual Convention in November. This event typically runs 1 ½ hours affording participants 1.5 CEs.

VII. Grassroots Efforts:
The IPA-LC mentors and encourages psychologists willing to forge relationships and liaisons with their legislators to advance the science and practice of psychology and to serve others for the public good.