Posts Tagged ‘sex offender’

January 24, 2004 (2005) Request for Investigation (RFI) MCCAULEY, GOLDE, HOLLY-REPS

Sunday, January 18th, 2009






Scanned Document





The Converted Document Below Lacks Accuracy; Therefore, Please see the Attached .pdf file and/or Scanned .tif file above for an Accurate Account.



Box 2325

Florence, Arizona 85232-2325 January 24, 2004

Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 1400 West Washington, Suite 235

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: Unprofessional Conduct
Ethics Violations

McCauley, Pamela #1949

Arizona Department of Corrections

1110 W. Washington Avenue, Suite 310

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

(602) 364-2912

Golde, Jeffrey #3421 Health Services

Cook Unit

P.O. Box 695

Florence, Arizona 85232

(520) 868-0201

Holly-Reps, Sherry #1254

Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman P.O. Box 695

Florence, Arizona 85232

Dear Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners:

From the EPPP all psychologists know that the purpose of licensing and regulating psychologists is for the safety of the public. This complaint is directly related to our responsibility as psychologists to protect the public.

Attached is a copy of documents in support of my claim of violations in ethics and in exerting undue influence upon a supervisee regarding responsibility, control, oversight and review [32-2061.A.13.(q)and(y)]. These are copies of my copy of the PACE entry in my ADOC Personnel File and my response.

I requested a copy of the original complaint by Dr. Jeff Golde; nonetheless, Dr. Holly-Reps, my direct supervisor, declined to give a copy of that written complaint to me. It appeared that Dr. Golde had either taken a complaint from an inmate patient and had typed it up or had joined with his inmate patient in writing a complaint about me.

On the day I was observing the Parole Board hearings for the first time, I was summoned to call Counseling and Treatment Services Program Director Dr. McCauley. Dr. McCauley called to inform me that because of what I wrote in my PACE response, she was going to

have to address some clinical issues with Dr. Golde. I informed Dr. McCauley that I would have preferred that Dr. Golde would have confronted me informally face to face as required by the APA Code of Ethics before writing it up and taking it to Dr. Holly. But as he had not allowed me the opportunity to clarify issues with him, I had not approached Dr. Golde informally.

Moreover, I do not believe that these are matters that may be addressed informally due to Dr. Golde’s violation of the APA Code of Ethics that requires an attempt at informal resolution prior to making a formal complaint. More importantly, it would have been beneficial for all involved to clarify the actual issues prior to escalating the false elements of the complaint into a written report.

Therefore, I wish to cite a violation of the American Association Code of Ethics, the standards that dictate the behavior of psychologists and distinguish psychologists from all others. Furthermore, when I called my immediate supervisor Dr. Holly to inform her of the telephone conversation with Dr. McCauley, Dr. Holly indicated that Dr. Golde had approached Dr. McCauley first with the complaint.  It was intimated that Dr. McCauley ordered
Dr. Holly to write up a PACE complaint and place a negative entry in my file. I will concede that I have no idea of exactly what was said to whom and in what order.

Accordingly, as Psychologist McCauley failed to redirect Dr. Golde to address me on an informal basis, I find Dr. McCauley also to have violated that provision of the APA Code of ethics as well. Even though we are working in a military styled bureaucracy, having and using the APA Code of Ethics and abiding by them would avoid much misunderstanding and the unnecessary escalation of complaints.

However, then is a more grave offense:

I felt pressured, and my master’s level colleague concurred independently and expressed concern that I was being pressured to write this inmate patient a clean bill of health without the benefit of being able to fully assess the inmate patient, to make this star graduate of the Sex Offender Treatment Program not-SMI.

As the inmate is fast approaching the date when he may appeal to the parole board, it appears he is attempting to minimize anything that might preclude his release, including his mental health status and history.

As a licensed psychologist, I am aware that I may NOT sign off on any work for which I have NOT assumed supervisory review, control and authority according to the Arizona Statues. Nonetheless, the Policies and Procedures of the ADOC appear to be contrary to the Rules and Regulations that govern our license as psychologists in Arizona. Therefore, I seek Board clarification on this matter.

According to ADOC Policy in the Mental Health Technical Manual written by Dr. Lutz and Dr. McCauley (April 1, 2000) under Local Procedure

The actions of the treatment team .        . shall be arrived at

by  consensus.

This appears in contradiction to the ADOC organizational chart, which places psychologists at the head of the treatment teams and in contradiction to the Rules and Regulations under which our licenses are held, the Rules and Regulations that govern psychologists’ licenses. Moreover, I was not afforded the time necessary to make a reasonably certain decision regarding the inmate’s Severely Mentally Ill status. Nor should I have been pressured to make the inmate not SMI by the psychologist who had been treating him over a long period of time, who was more familiar with and knew the inmate patient better. And, especially not by a professional who had the authority to make such a determination and sign off on it himself as a psychologist.

These are delicate matters that may only be understood by other psychologists. Accordingly, I respectfully appeal to the board to review these matters and place my confidence in the Board of Examiners to decide and direct us to improve services for inmate patients and for the safety of the public at large.



John    or Kent, Ph.D.

Psyc Slog1st

ENCLOSURES seven pages


December 22, 2004


The accounting and_comments from the outset are not accurate.

Regarding the theokelitiCguggestion of charting one’s own course, the question of what one

would do ifoneaAaaaiiiiiilL on his path is a long standing therapeutic anc1AUOINational query. I


did not inVentiii-41,               .        ur FreeIIfan (Beck, Freeman & AssocLatm-Gognitive Therapy

of Personalty DM G rs;4990 ) readily employed it in training. And I have                     elsewhere.

 Upon review oftlaaxIatajw, I observed-that the inmate had not been seenin accordance with the SDS Standards._ Therefore, I scheduled this inmate patient in order to comply with the standards. Both the master’s level therapist and administrative assistant told me Dr. Golde was the only one to seejhisinmate in therapy and that Dr. Golde did not want anyone else to see this inmate. This smacked of an inappropriate proprietary relationship; however, I needed to assure that we were in compliance with the standards as it is my responsibility. The inmate was not “referred to me for me to change his SMI status.’ Rather, I initiated the scheduling of the appointment and:savV the inmate.

However, after scheduling the inmate, Dr. Golde came in for his weekly scheduled day at Cook Unit. I consulted with Dr. Golde informing him that I had scheduled this patient, and then Dr. Golde told me he wanted fue to make the inmate NOT SMI. I felt an inordinate pressure from Dr. Golde to change this inmate’s SMI status. When I suggested to Dr. Golde that since he knew the inmate, and moreover since he wanted the inmate’s. SMI status changed that he [Dr. Golde]

should be the licenced psychologist signing off on this action as (1) I did not have the opportunity to observe the inmate over time and, more importantly, (2) the inmate did not meet the usual criteria under which we psychologists at DOC practice, Dr. Golde pressured me further to change the inmate’s status anyway.

This inmate patient did not meet the typical minimal criteria under which we practice. This inmate had not been successfully off psychiatric medications for a period of at least six months and, in my opinion, and as is the prevailing practice within DOC, it was premature to change the inmate’s Mental health score from a 3 to a 2 under such circumstances.

I was informed, perhaps incorrectly, that this was the number two graduate in the Sex offenders’s Program and that he is schedule for a review by the parole Board and has a fast approaching released ate. He is a short timer. When I suggested to Dr. Golde that he should be the one to change this inmate’s SMI status because he had seen him and knew him best, Dr. Golde urged me to sign off on making the inmate not SMI. I felt a pressure from Dr. Golde to sign off on this inmate– to, in effect, give him clean bill of health.

The inmate also pressured me to change his SMI status. Because I did not know the inmate and


because I was ill that day, and due to the seriousness of the possibility of changing this inmate’s SMI status, I ended up spending more time than usual with that inmate. Also the inmate took as much time as I was willing to give him as he had an agenda and a goal. In the process I learned quite a bit about this inmate and my sense is that inmate may NOT have benefitted from the Sex Offender’s Treatment Program and may in fact remain dangerous to the public.

I assessed the inmate’s gains and resped for the SOTP by asking the inmate to explain the program he had graduated. I know nothing of the program. Part of the complaint was that I

disagreed with the diagnosis. How was Ito make this inmate NOT SMI if his Bipolar Disorder _      

diagnosis was not in question? Anotartzi-the complaint was that I questioned the

of the SOTP programetiVOCal in seeking out information aboarn… the program, it has not been forthcOnung: IVIOreover, how can Idisagree with the philosophyZifi

– program when I do not know the philo§ophy of that program?

During the PACE entry time with Dr. Holly, she, too, emphasized that I should have changed this inmate’s SMI status to no longer SMI. She said it should not have taken as much time as I gave it to change the inmate’s status. When I vocalized that I did not know the inmate and that the inmate did not meet our usual minimum criteria to be changed from SMI to non-SMI, Dr. Holly informed me that ‘Dr. Golde was no longer practicing general services on the unit.’ It was implied that I was to make the change in status on an inmate who had not met the minimal criteria by which we practice: He hadlibt been off psychiatric medications for at least six months and there was no indication that he did not need counseling services.

While treating the inmate, he continued to talk even when I became ill abruptly and had to rush for the sink. There was time to excuse neither myself nor the inmate. It was a brief period of time for my stomach upset, certainly not prolonged. I cleared my throat of minimal material. It was not fun. It was not pleasant. But I knew over the weekend that I was sick and I knew I was the only psychologist to cover the entire Eyman complex that Monday. However, because I had agreed to cover for another psychologist in advance, I went to work ill.

In fact, the FHA was present at Cook Unit Medical and I inquired as to how he thought I should handle it when I was sick and I knew there was no one else to cover. Rod Norris remarked, “You tough it out.” Rather than be applauded for my dedication to the team and my service, my sacrifice, I am being given a disciplinary PACE entry.

Notwithstanding, because I was able to give that much time to the inmate and observe the inmate patient under those circumstances, because he never stopped talking about himself even while I hit the sink and vomited, my provisional impression is that this inmate may have a 301.5 Histrionic Personality Disorder, Manipulative Subtype (Millon) and as such is not a candidate for psychotherapy. Moreover, because of the failure of the inmate to brag about the program he had just completed and his inability to explain the program to me, I surmise that the inmate may not have been treated successfully. Rather, the inmate’s talents in manipulation precluded him from successful treatment. In other words, had he been assessed by myself or a competent psychologist, the inmate may not have been considered for treatment. He certainly would not have received priority consideration for placement. Should there have been a waiting list, this


inmate may have been placed at the bottom as an unlikely candidate for therapy.

I could not sign my name onto this inmate’s plans for early release and place the public safety in jeopardy.

Finally, when my master’s level colleague informed me of her concerns that I might change the inmate’s status from SMI to no longer SMI, I listened. And I learned. She said that she was hoping the inmate might tell me himself He committed his offense while in a manic episode.

Frowaedge of the literature (Goodwin and Jameson), the classic manic episode occurs once E

-.-Thdefore, six months is insufficientto detenninekwhether or not the

person  as amc-Depressive – Illness and thus qualifies for S statim. In other words, six – –

months.is_an Indequate test for the possibility of a Bipolar Type ,I Disorder. One must be obserAr.ed_ovesignificantly greater period of time.


Moreover, since the inmate had plenty of opportunity to establish rapport with me and since he didinof seek to work openly and honestly with me, I concluded that the SMI status should remain positive.

It saddens me to think that a fellow psychologist would pressure me to make his star pupil no longd SMI when he probably knows that the inmate represents a risk. It saddens me that my fellow psychologist and my supervising psychologist would both intimate that I failed by not changing the status of this inmate patient. I dare say that the treating psychologist may be too invested in himself and in his program to admit that this inmate may still be a danger to the

public. Why does he not sign off on the change in SMI status himself since he knows this inmate so well? Could it be that he is overly and inappropriately invested in the graduate of his Program?

pro        .

Moreover, I have a complaint against my colleague: If I suspected a fellow professional of knocking my program, I would approach him or her myself directly and inquire on an informal basis first before taking this to a higher lever. I would do this because it is required by the American Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics—Our Code of Conduct that defines what we do and who we are as psychologists The APA Code of Ethics requires that one psychologist approach another psychologist and seek to resolve ethical issues informally before making a formal complaint. Dr. Golde did not do this and as a result we have a gross misunderstanding—at my expense, of a disciplinary PACE entry.

More to the point, I do not think that Dr. Golde believes I knocked his program or he would have confronted me. Rather I think that Dr. Golde may be overly invested in his inmate patient graduate and may have taken this shot at me in retaliation for my having failed to follow his directive to make his prized student no longer SMI. Or perhaps his officemate down the hall in Central Office may have influenc

John Taylor Kent, Ph.D. Psychologist II

Board of Behavioral Health Examiners January 5, 2009 Letter KAUFMAN Complaint #2006-0002 LISAC-10372

Monday, January 5th, 2009
The .pdf file is attached and is accurate:
While the text is copied below:

January 5, 2009

Selena Samarripaz, Investigations

Board of Behavioral Health Examiners

3443 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3811


RE:         Complaint #2206-0002

                LISA KAUFMAN, LISAC-10372

Dear Selena Samarripaz:

I would appreciate the opportunity to address the Board before it takes action; however, I have been ill and re-reading this today, I realize that my request may be too late.

Since the Substance Abuse Subcommittee cut my presentation short and had already voted to dismiss my complaint, I wonder how the full committee of the full Board would regard this?  At least the aspect of a licensed substance abuse practitioner using her license to gain employment to treat sex offenders?  Certainly, even a cave man would realize that might be practicing beyond one’s training & competency, far outside of the scope of one’s Licensed Independent Substance Abuse Counselor licensure?

Finally, since Kaufman demonstrated such gross disregard for ASRS statutes by filing false, frivolous and slanderous charges with superiors at the Arizona Department of Corrections and lying under oath in court in Florence, it seems rather negligent that the Board and/or the Substance Abuse Subcommittee failed to protect the public by not having her examined when a licensed psychologist notified the Board about his concern for such potential problems.  Lastly, I witnessed Kaufman lie to her own Substance Abuse Subcommittee.

To say I am disappointed in the Board’s processes and apparent outcome would be an understatement.  I am coming to the conclusion the purpose of licensure in Arizona is NOT to protect the public but to protect the State, the power structure, the status quo and the politicians who make such serious errors in judgment putting the public at risk that cover-up becomes modus operandi.  Expediency appears to be the name of the game.  Protecting the State, and NOT the public nor the poor wards of the State, is what it appears this Board’s mission.  Indeed, every inmate sex offender Kaufman treated may have been damaged by Kaufman’s emotional problems with men AND her eagerness to engage in practicing beyond the scope of her competency, training and license.  That’s sick!   I will never forget when she ran repeated interference against my clinical judgement (which is better) resulting in one poor individual with a bipolar disorder having to suffer unnecessarily.


John Taylor Kent, Ph.D.

Psychologist (Inactive)