Katherine Appy, Amherst School Committee Chair
So it will be interesting to see if the venerable Daily Hampshire Gazette follows up on the recent expose published by my friends at the Republican, although they did not connect an important dot concerning Ms. Appy's role as a member of the Amherst School Committee.
You know, the elected folks who should be setting a good, positive example for the kids in a town where education is King (or Queen, as the case may be).
And of course the other consideration is how quickly would the Gazette have jumped on this if it had involved the school committee member Katherine Appy replaced?
Or what would have been the response on the Internet from Cowardly Anon Nitwits? Ms. Sanderson would have been tarred-and-feathered, and then crucified with dull, extra long, rusty nails.
30 comments:
I'm sure she'll make some pathetic excuse that she lost track of the time, and that she had forgotten to do the continuing ed. requirements. No one will say anything, everything will be fine. Just keep drinking the Kool Aid Amherst.
But remember?
She told us that she is a nice person.
She told us that Professor Sanderson was not.
It was a flimsy, phony basis for a candidacy. But it was enough to allow the school bureaucracy to begin to regain its control of its overseers. The Town went back to sleep, and pretended that the critique of the status quo by Sanderson and Rivkin was now yesterday's news.
And they all lived happily ever after.
Schadenfreude.....especially for those with a superiority complex about their own sense of civility.
Dr. Appy, you had it coming.
"...tarred-and-feathered, and then crucified with dull, extra long, rusty nails."
And the reference to pushing a PR flack off a tall building.
Larry, your blog is getting positively deadly! Which, considering your low readership, might not be a bad thing! Keep up the drama.
Checked my sitemeter lately?
Both average visits per day and average visit length (up 50%) at sustained all time high.
Fortunately my sitemeter counts even the Cowardly Anon Nitwits.
More site visits can be because people look because they can't help themselves from looking in the way can't help but looking at a car wreck, or because it's healthy discussion. The reader will have to decide.
When I was writing my paid professional column for the Amherst Bulletin (which I did for 14 years) my goal was always to pen something half the readers would absolutely hate, and the other half would absolutely love.
Nothing has changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7CkluOHQv8
Stroke stroke stroke.
SSSSSSSStrooooke stroke stroke
stroke
stroke
aaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd ah, hoo, let's see um, what else now?
Oh yeah,
--------> FAIL <--------
(but listen, don't let it get you down Ponziville, you still got ~plenty~ of Xanax...)
Anyone know what this video is? Youtube says it does not exist.
"Youtube says it does not exist."
Yeah. Just like most of the controversies Larry tries to drum up.
Actually it worked fine for me. It's an Amherst Media broadcast of her appearance on Conversations just before the election.
You could tell it was going to be a boring election as the video only received 24 views.
Darn. Don't know why it did not work for me. Will try again.
I think there is more to it than this -- I know it is true for a MA nursing (RN) license and suspect it is true for a Psychologists license -- you have to submit your CEUs when you renew your license (not unlike submitting the W-2s when you file your taxes) and unless the Commonwealth is completely stupid, they wouldn't have renewed her license if she hadn't included indication of having met the continuing education requirement.
This isn't hard to do -- I've been at a lot of conferences where they hand out the paperwork and she could have gone to one of these, or taken an on-line "course" that you get credit for if you (a) pass the quite sophomoric multiple choice questions and (b) send in some money.
So the big question is how she got her license renewed? What did she turn in for documentation? Did she lie?
This is kinda like not renewing your drivers' license -- and you get arrested if you are driving with an expired license -- and I argue that this is a lot worse in that members of the public presumed that she had a valid license.
One other thing: She advertises herself as a "marriage & family counselor" and she has a practice in Amherst. This means that the majority of her patients live in Amherst.
And with a "marriage & family" practice, she is professionally seeing both parents with children in the school system and possibly the children themselves. She likely is writing documentation as to the fitness of parents, child custody and the rest.
Exactly why is it not an inherent conflict of interest for her to be on the school committee? Exactly why isn't it problematic that she knows intimate & personal information about some of her constituents?
The expression often is stated as "conflict of interest or appearance thereof" and while I am not saying that she does this (or doesn't do it), what is to prevent her from telling parents that if they don't support her as a school committee person, she (as psychologist) will declare them to be "unfit parents" (if not "mentally ill") and have their children taken away from them.
Remember that it is "appearance thereof" -- the standard is that she *could* do this, with the issue of if she actually is doing it being quite irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if she is using HIPPA-protected medical information to pursue her goals as a politician -- the issue is that she could and the violation is the potential that she might do this, not that she actually is.
It kinda is like the decent guy who does the "right thing" when he sees the drunken girl at the party -- he gets her home, but he takes along a female friend as a witness that he didn't do anything inappropriate. And if she is wet, either from passing out in a snowbank or loss of bladder control, the female friend has to put her into dry clothing because you can't leave her soaking wet. And you turn around and face the far wall until the female friend says she is done.
Women have two arms & two legs, just like guys, and I am more than capable of removing wet clothing and finding something in her room to put onto her. And for what it is worth, I am far more sexually attracted to the female friend willing to help me with this than I ever would be to some drunken looser (who p***** herself, how "ladylike"). But it still would be inappropriate for me (a man) to change her into dry clothing.
I argue that it is equally inappropriate for Dr. Appy to be on the school committee of the schools that the children of her patients attend. She may be quite ethical, as would I in putting the drunken girl into dry sweatpants, but....
Sheesh Ed,
Two long posts with nothing but could be, maybe it is yada yada yada - full of innuendo of wrong doing with not one FACT!!!!!
Larry, when you stop posting these innuendo filled attacks on people from Ed where he has not included ONE FACT!!!!
Once and for all, Ed - GO AWAY!!!!
"Two long posts with nothing but could be, maybe it is yada yada yada - full of innuendo of wrong doing with not one FACT!!!!!"
Yeah and all ~you've~ been doing the last 3 or 4 years, while you SHOULD'VE been here asking god damned questions like Ed, is calling him a moron and telling him to go away...
Why?
I think you know why, I think we ~all~ do.
Now you, YOU "GO AWAY!!!".
Please.
I did not call Ed a moron - I pointed out that his two long posts had NO FACTS - and were filled with slanderous innuendo ONLY. Ed has never contributed anything useful to any conversation.
From the APA's Ethical Principles -- which Massachusetts considers binding on psychologists:
3.05 Multiple Relationships
(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.
A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.
Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical.
(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal compliance with the Ethics Code.
(c) When psychologists are required by law, institutional policy, or extraordinary circumstances to serve in more than one role in judicial or administrative proceedings, at the outset they clarify role expectations and the extent of confidentiality and thereafter as changes occur. (See also Standards 3.04, Avoiding Harm, and 3.07, Third-Party Requests for Services.)
3.06 Conflict of Interest
Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation.
Ed, your scenarios, which somehow seem more like your fantasies, are always creepy and totally unrelated to the subject! You cant find a better way to make a point?
Larry, I just noticed that the Gazette has a story about this topic on its website. Will you be able to link to it here?
No, they hide behind a pay wall .
Oh ok. Guess we can wait until tomorrow to read the article. Looking forward to your comments about the article.
Larry, the case was closed on 10/18/2012 which was more than four months ago, and we are just hearing about this now???
And $2,200 is a relatively large fine -- the DPL is fining other people $500 or so -- and that is an interesting document you have because her license appears now to be valid, but if she was practicing without a valid license, isn't that kinda like driving without a valid license?
Yo Ed. Have you read the article in the Gazette today? Maybe you want to read it - it has alot more infomation than what has appeared on this blog and in the Republican.
Notice according to the Gazette she issued her letter to fellow School Committee members "this week."
The notice to School Committee was most likely just sent this week because, duh, the article just came out this week.
The Republican article came out on Friday, mine on Saturday.
"This week" - the article quoting this week came out on Monday. Friday to Monday...yea, an inordinate period of time for a response!!!! Get a life, Larry.
I'm on digital time. As public officials should also be.
Yo Larry,
A volunteer wrote a letter of explanation to her colleagues that she was NOT required to write. Get over it.
Post a Comment