Public Comments

April 5, 2016

To whom it may concern,
I just reviewed the proposed changes to the APPIC by-laws mentioned in this email.
One proposed change (Page 2, Article V, Section 1) is that the phrase “North American” be changed to “American” in the description of which programs are eligible to be APPIC members. I don’t know if the intention is to exclude Canadian programs or if it is based on an assumption (incorrect) that Canadian programs would identify with the description “American.” I think it would be important to leave it as “North American” or to change it to “American and Canadian” (given that North America also includes Mexico and Mexican programs are not eligible to be APPIC members).
Sincerely,
Martin M. Antony, PhD, ABPP Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Ryerson University 350 Victoria Street

Dear APPIC,
One of the proposed changes (Page 2, Article V, Section 1) indicates that the phrase “North American” be changed to “American” in the description of which programs are eligible to be APPIC members. A rationale for the change isn't provided in the comments, so it's not clear whether this change is based on an assumption that Canadian programs would also identify with the description "American”, or whether the intention is to exclude Canadian programs.
Assuming the intention is not to exclude Canadian programs, I feel it would be important to either leave it as "North American" or change it to "American and Canadian".
​Thanks for soliciting our feedback!
Stephanie
Stephanie E. Cassin, Ph.D., C.Psych. Associate Professor and Director of Clinical Training Department of Psychology Ryerson University 350 Victoria St. Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3 (416) 979-5000 x. 3007

April 6, 2016

I Just read the recent APPIC bylaws. I was hurt and appalled by the decision, reflected in the changes proposed in the bylaws.
These decisions are reflected in the addition of the statement, in the purpose section, to APPIC responsible for the "national" matching service. It is also reflected later in the proposed changes in the by-laws to change "North American" to "American".
As a former APPIC Board chair (Membership) and award winner (2004 - Special Recognition for Distinction in Psychology Internship Training), I had always found APPIC to be an inclusive environment. While recognizing the pressures the organization has been under over the years to deal with the varieties of opinions and training models within the US, it was always open to ensuring inclusiveness in keeping Canadian programs as part of their approach to understanding training diversity.
I suppose that the one part I find the most saddening is that the APPIC board made this decision in such a manner. There was no public discussion on that issue, no reaching out to Canadian programs to describe their position and perhaps negotiate, and no openness of this decision in presenting their proposed bylaw changes. It appears as if the APPIC board is hoping to make this change surreptitiously.
If the decision by APPIC' board to remove Canada from its organization, and if they continue to follow through on this decision in this circuitous manner, I will be forced to rrethink my acceptance of my award that I had once been so proud of.
Dr. Ian Nicholson Director - Centre for Mental Health Research Department of Psychology University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Page 2, Article V, Section proposes that the phrase “North American” be changed to “American” in the description of which programs are eligible to be APPIC members.
Is this intentional? Because it would exclude all Canadian programs.
Thanks
Clarissa Bush
Dr. Clarissa Bush, Ph.D., C. Psych., ABN Director of Training in Psychology Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Ottawa ON Canada K1H 8L1

Article II. Purpose
The Association is organized and operated to:
 -Ppromote high quality training in professional health service psychology (also known as professional psychology).

 -Pprovide a forum for exchanging views; recognizing differences; establishing policies, procedures and contingencies on training matters; and resolving issues for which common agreement is either essential or desirable.
 -Rrepresent the views of APPIC members training agencies to groups and organizations whose functions, objectives and/or actions impact our membership.
 -Ffacilitate exchange of information between institutions and agencies offering doctoral internships, and postdoctoral professional training in health service psychology, and doctoral internship and postdoctoral students in psychology.
 -Eestablish and monitor policies for matching students seeking internships or postdoctoral training with sites providing such training, including oversight of the national psychology internship match and postdoctoral selection guidelines.
 Establish and monitor a standardized online application to be used in the internship and postdoctoral selection and matching processes.
 Provide informal and formal problem consultation services for doctoral program associates, internships, postdoctoral programs, and the students training in those programs.
 Produce and disseminate information related to education and training in health service psychology.
Again, this excludes all Canadian programs. Is this the intent?
Disregarding typos of course, I’m sure they are not the intent
Thanks
Clarissa Bush
Dr. Clarissa Bush, Ph.D., C. Psych., ABN Director of Training in Psychology Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Ottawa ON Canada K1H 8L1

Dear APPIC Bylaw Committee I am a Director of Training at a Canadian internship site, APPIC member program (1846). I am writing to express my concern about one of the proposed changes to description of APPIC eligible programs:
Specifically, one proposed change (Page 2, Article V, Section 1) is that the phrase “North American” be changed to “American” in the description of which programs are eligible to be APPIC members. This gives the impression that Canadian programs may be excluded. We have already determined the equivalence of CPA and APA accreditation and a great number of American students apply to our Canadian internship program each year. I strongly urge the committee to take this into consideration. Perhaps if the goal is to indicate that Mexican programs are not eligible, the wording could be changed to “American and Canadian”.
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my concerns.
Best regards,
Heather McNeely, Ph.D., C.Psych Director of Training Clinical Psychology Residency Program St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton
Associate Professor Director of Continuing Education Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences McMaster University
Mailing Address: Clinical Neuropsychology Service, G185 St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton West 5th Campus 100 West 5th Street Hamilton ON L8N 3K7

Article XII, Section 2:
“Copies. All members of the Association will receive gratis copies of the publications in #1 & #2 above. Members may be charged for copies of other publications if authorized by the Board.”
Should the term “access to” be used instead of “copies of” since these may be in electronic form?
Elihu
Elihu Turkel, PsyD Director of Psychology Training Associate Director of Psychological Services Combined Department of Psychiatry The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, and North Shore University Hospital/Manhasset 75-59 263rd Street Glen Oaks, NY 11004

April 7, 2016

Hello, In addition to the concerns raised by my colleagues regarding the change from North American to American and under purpose specifying “national” psychology internship match, I had two addition questions:
1) I wondered about changing "professional psychology" to "health service psychology" throughout the document. While it is indicated in the first instance that Health service psychology is also known as professional psychology, there is no explanation for the change. Personally I find the term health service psychology exclusionary and aligned with those who position themselves within the medical model. For instance, a good portion of the work of post secondary counselling centres and internships involves career development or academic success skills, neither of which would fall under health service psychology.
2) I am curious as to why associate members are not described under membership. This was not in the old bylaws so not a change but seems like an omission.
Regards,
Sharon —
Sharon L. Cairns, PhD, R.Psych Associate Professor Director of Training Counselling Psychology University of Calgary