Christian Wolff, MA
Psychologist Associate (Oregon) Inactive
Healthcare Alliance for Regulatory Board Reform (HARBR)
Executive Co-Director & Co-Founder
5726 Coventry Lane | Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804
christianwolff@harbr-usa.org

October 2, 2019

“Oregon Board of Psychology”
3218 Pringle Rd. SE, Suite 130
Salem, Oregon 97302

A Follow Up to the September 24, 2019 email & letter, email subject line:

Request for information from OBOP: Complaint about OBOP: Request for enforcement

And response to the September 25, 2019 reply written by Charles Hill

This should be regarded as a DRAFT. It should be regarded as Part 1 of a series

To: Charles Hill, Executive Director of OBLPCT, OBOP, & MHRA
Also to: All other recipients of this letter

I am a member in good standing of Rotary International. Our motto is Service above Self.

This is quite different in my opinion, from the self dealing nature of OBOP, OBLPCT, and OMB. I will keep my focus to OBOP, OBLPCT and the MHRA, each of which has you Charles Hill, as its Executive Director.

MHRA is the umbrella agency for OBOP & OBLPCT and exists primarily to facilitate the sharing of certain staff. It has no board of its own per se.

OBOP & OBLPCT share the same head staff and the same legal counsel. In my view, the structure and function of each are quite parallel. Most generally what can be said of one can be said of the other.

The voting members of OBOP is comprised of 9 persons who are appointed by the Governor and serve at “her pleasure.”1 Six are marketplace participants (meaning they are psychology licensees and are practitioners of the profession they govern). Three are members of the “public” (meaning they are not associated with the practice of psychology).

According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (after this, North Carolina), a state board comprised of a majority of marketplace participants is “INHERENTLY SUSPECT” for self-dealing at the expense of the protection of the public. Kennedy’s opinion was without reference to any particular board even though it was North Carolina which prompted it.

Kennedy opined that a board so constructed could be considered legitimate if there was MEANINGFUL oversight of that board which was NOT comprised of marketplace participants. So, Charles, this is a question I would actually like you to answer. Who provides that meaningful oversight to OBOP & OBLPCT? I will tip you off. It is NOT MHRA. My assertion is that you have no such oversight.

OBOP and OBLPCT seem to be “rogue boards,” answering meaningfully to no one.

Lets take a look at OBOP’s record in contested cases. It is my belief that OBOP2 has NEVER (EVER) lost a case. I have requested records from OBOP six times in the past year which would evidence ANY case they have EVER lost. Charles, you have yet to deliver this to me at ANY proposed price. Let this be my seventh request for the same.

Why is this important? Hold on – we’ll get to that.

Lets consider OBOP’s method of “trying” accused licensees. Whether the board issues a complaint or a complaint comes from outside the board, the board decides which cases to “open.”

If they open a case against a licensee, THEY “investigate” the matter.

After investigation, THEY decide whether to pursue the charges and what sanctions to propose.

If an accused licensee wishes, they may opt to challenge the accusations and proposed sanctions. The accused licensee asks for a “hearing” before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). An ALJ is appointed by the (Oregon) Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).3 4

The hearing is then held behind closed doors, closed to public oversight and the BOARD, via their DoJ contracted legal counsel (in this case, Warren Foote, AAG) PROSECUTES the accused licensee.

Typically, NO voting board members attend the hearing.

The ALJ writes up an “opinion” which favors the board or favors the client. In my considerable experience, I have found that ALJ nearly always finds in favor of the board, clinging tightly to the boards‘ account of matters.5 This is not ALWAYS the case however. In the case of David T. Bice, the ALJ COMPLETELY exonerated the accused licensee.

Unfortunately for this accused licensee, the board, in bold defiance of the Oregon Constitution’s Separation of Powers clause (Article III, §1), the BOARD rejected the ALJ’s opinion, and wrote the final orders themselves. This is NOT an aberration.

The board apparently goes without government intervention in its violation of the Constitutional protections afforded all citizens of the state and makes the FINAL DETERMINATION in any and all cases it “tries.” Even if it is simply an affirmation of the ALJ’s decision, no hearing is complete until the BOARD decides the final disposition.6

The board is GUARANTEED to win and they have shamefully exploited these illegal “allowances” to their full advantage.

The board NEVER loses.

Now we should take a look at the money involved. In the sanctions imposed, there are often monetary “fines.” Since the board NEVER loses, accusing licensees of violations is a steady source of guaranteed income for the board.

The accused licensee’s guilt or innocence is IRRELEVANT. The board NEVER loses.

Worse, the OBLPCT and OMB (and many other Oregon boards) are “allowed” to assess the costs of the proceedings to the accused licensee IF the board prevails. The board makes the final call. The board NEVER loses.

This mean’s the outcome of any such adjudication process is “pre-determined,” or “rigged.” It is a “farce,” a “pretense,” fraudulent.

Again this motivates the board to allege violations against licensees because in doing so, they are GUARANTEED revenue at the licensees’ expense.

But does this make the boards ROBBERS? No. It makes them RACKETEERS and where two or more or them have been involved in depriving anyone of their constitutional protections, it makes them CONSPIRATORS as such conspiracy is described in Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights7 8

So often documents generated by OBOP and OBLPCT are signed by or reference “the Board.” Because this keeps all persons from knowing who to call for redress on problematic matter, we can only reasonably presume one or both of two possibilities. The masking of any true author is designed to elude accountability, or that ALL board members (voting board members, staff, legal counsel and the associates of each) have reached an informed consensus – together).9

Racketeering10: I am happy that Merriam-Webster makes prominent the feature of racketeering which is most relevant to the matter and nature of the OBOP & OBLPCT activity being presently examined and considered; extortion.

What power do these boards have over “their” licensees?

According to what appears to be Oregon “law,” the Oregon Board of Psychology has the power to revoke a licensee’s license to practice psychology. That is, according to what appears to be Oregon “law,” the Oregon Board of Psychology has the power to take away a person’s livelihood, their income, their ability to provide for their families, their good reputations, their ability to secure employment elsewhere, and so on. That is a LOT of leverage. How is that leverage used, or if you prefer, how could that leverage be used? It can be used to silence or discourage dissent. It can be used to extort compliance with board overreach. It can be used for market capture by arbitrarily and capriciously eliminating those who pose threats to a TYPE of market the insular board finds most favorable to their personal bottom lines, and this at the expense any licensee the board chooses to burden with their unjustifiable and aggressive games.

“The Board” never loses.

Because the board never loses, more and more uninitiated licensees targeted by the boards’ villainy agree to sign off on that which is commonly called a “Stipulated Agreement.” A “Stipulated Agreement” is not unlike a “plea bargain.” We, as citizens can never know who is innocent or guilty in allegations facilitated by “the board” because the accused licensees are never afforded, despite cheap-costume mimicry, due process as GUARANTEED citizens of the United States by the Constitution of the United States, Amendments 511,1412, & 913. Given that the board never loses, and given that they threaten the license and livelihood of licensees, and given that there is no due process afforded the accused, guilty and innocent licensees alike are coerced by the board to avoid the greater loss assured by a challenge to the board. Thus, the boards are able to leverage “quick money,” and “easy money” at a lesser cost to themselves and at the licensee’s (monetary) expense. Inasmuch, as the coercion to stipulate is pitted against an actionably greater sanction, the signing of a stipulated agreement may, in the language of racketeering and extortion, be considered the payment of a “board’s ransom” by the licensee.

Even in this, the licensee will be cheated. Uninitiated licensees have no idea what will still happen to totally decimate their lives and careers. Even the smallest sanctions by OBOP or OBLPCT (or OMB) will be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NCDB). This is known as the “mark of death” to a licensee. It is a black-mark and the NPDB becomes a de facto black-list. A NATIONAL black-list. Many states will not license psychologists or counselors or physicians with any black-mark on the black-list by statute. There are no large or small black-marks in such cases. A “fail to sign a chart-note” violation functions, practically, the same as a “sexual impropriety” violation. The NPDB black mark is never removed. There is NO recovery for the licensee, ever.

So how is it that OBOP & OBLPCT protect the public? This is HUGE, Charles. As Executive Director of OBOP, I do hope that you both know and honor this. Protecting the public is OBOP’s number one charter. If OBOP is not effectively protecting the public, we must ask why they exist and what purpose they serve. If not protecting the public, we must ask what is OBOP doing?

I may get this wrong Charles, so I would like you to explain this in your own words. That is a real request. You are in a position to provide empirical evidence. I, due to OBOP’s apparent codes of opacity am often left with only Reason14 to construct hypotheses and assertions I can stand by.

We’ll first look at two basic classes of potentially “bad licensees” that the public may need protection from:

Those who are declared guilty by the board after undergoing board processes.
Those whose complaints against them are dismissed, closed, and sealed after first review.

Those who are declared guilty by the board after undergoing board processes.

I have already described the constitution-violating processes reserved for those the boards extort and rob. Anticipating, Charles, that you will point out the justice-saving right reserved for those you may consider “sour grapes” licensees, I will address the matter of “judicial review.”

Increasingly, AS-WORD-GETS-OUT15, more and more licensees are appealing the despotic “Final Orders” of the boards who have prosecuted and tortured16 them.

As well, the Oregon Court of Appeals (OCA), is increasingly issuing “Reverse and Remand” opinions in favor of the licensees. In my own reading of these cases, OBOP nor OBLPCT (nor OMB) show much regard at all for the REVERSE part an appellate court Reverse and Remand. Only the Remand part – which puts the licensee back to square one where they are again found guilty by the board(s).

No stalwart licensee, in such instances, seeking full exoneration, has ever succeeded. Some appeal again, and some a third or even forth time.

It is unreasonable to believe such determined boards have not calculated the certainty that the frustrated appellants will eventually run out of money for their attorneys whereas the boards will not. A fiscally frugal licensee will realize the futility of their efforts and simply lose spirit and their belief that the state will make justice realistically accessible to them. Then there is the assessment of fees to the losing party which is ALWAYS17 the licensee. The longer a licensee stays in the fight for justice the more disempowered and disheartened they become. They build up inevitable debt to the board for the privilege of being abused under color of law.

Because the boards systematically subvert due process and publish only documents which cast them in a favorable light,18 the public can never know – in fact, it CANNOT be known objectively – whether the accused licensee is actually guilty or not.

This gives the APPEARANCE that the board is doing their job. But giving the APPEARANCE you are doing your job (protecting the public) is WORSE than doing nothing. The public puts their trust in OBOP to really protect them – not simply look like they are doing so.

Those whose complaints against them are dismissed, closed, and sealed after first review.

It is done in the name of confidentiality. The principle is that those who have done no actual wrong should have their cases COMPLETELY dismissed and nothing about them or the complaint against them should be revealed to the public. In and of itself, this seems quite reasonable and fair. Unfortunately, there is a flaw in this, and this may be the reason the boards such as OBOP and OBLPCT need the meaningful oversight described in detail in North Carolina. Do OBLPCT & OBOP (and OMB) not officially recognize this flaw? I have never seen any evidence to suggest they have tried to address and fix it. How can this be? It is beyond belief.

Because the complaints which are dismissed, closed, and sealed after first review become “confidential,” they also become “secret.”19 In my opinion, this valid matter of confidentiality becomes a “convenient” mechanism by which boards can operate arbitrarily and capriciously without getting caught, This convenient cloak also makes a board “INHERENTLY SUSPECT.” As the boards appear to have, under unconstitutional color of law, the ability to sanction and profit from innocent licensees, they also have the apparent power, under color of law, to dismiss cases in an arbitrary fashion without getting caught. That is, the board is positioned to let slide, the complaints against those they favor, those who are politically aligned with their agenda, those who could profit them financially, and the public would never be the wiser. They would never know.

It this a paranoid conspiracy theory? No. We have no way to (easily) prove whether OBOP & OBLPCT (& OMB) are letting truly dangerous or guilty practitioners slide. That is the point. We cannot tell. And if the public cannot tell whether the board is protecting the public, the board is NOT protecting the public.

So if the boards do not protect the public meaningfully what IS it they assemble for?

It will be exceedingly difficult to convince me that every single member of these boards and their staff (and legal counsel) do not see the protocol the boards operate under as an abomination – and as a tragedy for all licensees who are subjected to the boards abuse of authority under the color of law. Yet, I am not aware of any knowing OBLPCT or OBOP (or OMB) board member, past or present, who has spoken out against this or tried to affect a remedy.

My fellows and I at HARBR20 may seem as if we are only concerned about the well being of licensees. This could not be further from the truth. We are fighting for the well being of patients and clients and the friends and family of patients and clients and for anyone who will ever become a patient, a client, a caring third person, or a licensee.

I assert OBOP & OBLPCT (& OMB) are illegitimate, self-dealing, market-capturing abusers of authority under the color of law presenting, in toto, a grave danger to the public and to the public trust.

Undoubtedly, my assertion will be challenged. So how do we find out?

Charles, how do you think we can find out? Governor Brown, how do you think we can find out? Attorney General Rosenblum, how do you think we can find out?

Collectively, we have alerted Oregon’s highest authorities countless times and they have done nothing. Much more often than not our complaints and concerns, replete with evidentiary support – at least at the prima facie level – are categorically ignored.

Secretary of State Clarno, how do you think we can find out if there is merit to my assertions? Public Records Advocate Ginger McCall? Public Records Advocacy Council?

Let’s return to transparency.

On September 24, 2019, I wrote a reasonably simple request to the Oregon Board of Psychology. At its core, it was simply this:

“A request for the Public Meeting Minutes for the OBOP, September 13, 2019
Regular Public Meeting to be published by October 4, 2019 in final form or
reasonable, good-faith, true draft form.”

It was addressed to OBOP generally because I’d been unable, despite assistance from The Oregon State Archives Division, the Oregon Blue Book, and the OBOP website, to discern who the Custodian of Records was for OBOP. The online Oregon Blue Book as of October 1, 2019 under State Government / State Agencies A-Z does not even list OBOP. It is not under “Oregon,” nor “Board,” nor “Psychology.” The same is true for OBLPCT. One can easily find “Medical Board, Oregon,” and “Social Workers, State Board of Licensed.” Eventually, I found the Mental Health Regulatory Agency. Charles Hill was listed as the Executive Director. Randy Harnisch21 was listed as both Records Officer and Administrative Rules Coordinator, positions which, though no one would know, are actually held by Charles Hill & LaReé Felton respectively.

The first time I was made aware that Charles Hill was the Custodian of Records for (OBOP? OBLPCT?) was when he wrote this in his saucy letter to me on September 25, 2019 – the letter to which I am now responding. Similarly, although she has held the position for most of her 12 year tenure with these boards, I would have been unable to identify LaReé Felton as the Administrative Rules Coordinator had OBOP not sent out an email with her name and role-function on a newly submitted Rule Proposal.

This gives the appearance that neither Mr. Hill nor Ms. Felton wish to be known in their roles associated with records. If one is not known, one cannot be reached and if one cannot not be reached, one cannot be held accountable. Nor then, it follows can one be accessible for questions, challenge or redress.

As mentioned earlier, I petitioned Ms. Felton six times to provide me with information which she would not give me.22 I resorted to asking her then, to give me a gratis copy of the of the list of licensees and their information so that I could do the work myself. She never sent me that information. This year, in recent months, as there is important information developing in the Rogelio Daniels23 matter – a matter about which no one at OBOP or OBLPCT would actively reveal information to the public or to licensee’s, I had to send in a veritable “spy”24 to get the emails of licensees for OBOP & OBLPCT, and even then this was very difficult. The person I sent went down to the physical offices of these agencies in the Morrow Building on Pringle Road in Salem and presented payment on the spot, in person. This was decided upon as a way of expediting our receipt of the information. Since we were asking for the FULL records (ALL the information requestable which could be found in the “licensee lists,” I believe that the records could have been sent by email to the payer on-the-spot with only a few keystrokes.25 Instead, one of the spreadsheets took days to receive, and the other, upwards toward a week. Joy Wilson & I spend a half a day trying to discern what was wrong with the information we received. What we found with the OBOP list is that it had been severely redacted. We had PAID for one thing and were given another. We were given material which would directly impede our work due to the missing information, or rather, the specific missing information.

As of September 5, 2019, it could be found on the OBOP website, 3907 licensee records.26 27 28 Ms. Wilson and I received the OBOP list on September 4, 2019. We received 3066 records. 841 were missing. See footnote for the breakdown.29

Our hypothesis: These records were tampered with.

Why OBOP tamper with these records? I have a VERY reasonable hypothesis about this, but will save this for another time when this matter is looked at more closely. It will not reflect well on OBOP.

The problem has been brought to the attention of OBOP and on September 11, 2019 we received a response.30 They offered that they did not understand that we were interested in licensees who, though “licensees” were “Psychologist Associates.”31 There are, in fact no Psychologist Associates in the records OBOP provided, nor any email addresses for any of the 1238 listed in the various inactive categories.

I am an OBOP licensee. I am a Psychologist Associate. I have been “disciplined” by OBOP and have a story about that. I can be looked up in the OBOP website Licensee Search. I am in the FULL set of records. I am listed as “Inactive.” I pay my licensing fees. Yet, differentially, if “a person” were to rely upon the set of records which OBOP provided us in redacted form, no one would know that *I* even exist. Not so much as my name, mailing address or phone number was included in the list OBOP provided us despite our payment of the FULL $35.00 fee.

Rhetorical question: Why would anyone at OBOP not want people to know that *I* exist and can be contacted?

As of October 2, 2019, we still do not have the records that we ordered and paid for. We got something significantly less than what we paid for.

Charles, does this seem like fraud to you? What is your opinion Mr. Foote, DoJ legal counsel to OBOP, OBLPCT & OMB? Are you advising the board on this matter? What are you advising? I do hope you know that it is your duty (you swore an oath) to protect the public first and the board second.

Note: I end this draft somewhat arbitrarily. I wanted to get a response to all recipients within a week. There is just so much and so much is urgent and immediately relevant for the protection of the public. Expect more – like I do.

Please forgive my typos. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Christian Wolff

Cc:

The Oregon Governor’s Office
The Attorney General’s Office
The Secretary of State’s Office
Warren Foote, SAAG & Staff
Oregon Board of Psychology Board Members & Staff
Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors Board Members & Staff
Mental Health Regulatory Agency
Oregon Public Records Advocate’s Office
Oregon Public Records Advisory Council
Healthcare Alliance for Regulatory Board Reform
The Press
The Investigatory Press
The Oregon State Bar Association