OF THE COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF PYSCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO BY MICHAEL PERSINGER, PURSUANT TO THE REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, 1991

CONCERNING A COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE COLLEGE BY

REGARDING THE MEMBER

OF THE REVIEW HELD

Monday, the 25^th day of October 1999, at Toronto

FOR THE BOARD

Shelley Ledger, Member, Presiding*

Ann M. Nunez, Member

Bruce McKenty, Member

*Did not participate in the writing of this Decision and Reasons

This matter concerns the conduct and actions of Dr. Michael Persinger (the Member), a professor who was teaching Ms. Adele Loosemore (the Complainant) in 1994, and his subsequent response to the Child and Development Committee in 1996.

Dr. Persinger was a professor in the Psychology Department of Laurentian University who taught Ms. Loosemore two courses, "Brain and Behaviour", and "Methods and Research Design." In November 1994, a group of graduate students in the Child and Development (CDEV) course, including Ms. Loosemore, filed a complaint with the Dean of Social Services regarding the classroom conduct of the Member. In January 1996, Ms. Loosemore, along with another graduate student, filed another complaint regarding Dr. Persinger's conduct with the CDEV Committee. In his letter of response to the CDEV Committee he made comments about Ms. Loosemore which gave rise to these complaints.

In his letter were comments which were interpreted to be unfounded diagnoses which breached the confidentiality of the student and may have future adverse consequences in her professional choices.

There appeared to be an ongoing battle between Dr. Persinger and the administration of the University concerning students' rights related to their educational environment.

On June 27, 1996, Ms. Loosemore filed a letter of complaint with the College of Psychologists of Ontario (the College) regarding the actions and statements made by Dr. Persinger.

In its Decision and Reasons issued on October 6, 1997, the College's Complaints Committee (the Committee) cautioned the Member regarding aspects of the complaint, framed as three allegations:

Allegation One Dr. Persinger acted in a malicious and intimidating manner toward Ms. Loosemore and this violated standards of professional conduct.

Ms. Loosemore wrote that Dr. Persinger used his status as a faculty member of the Psychology Department and his professional credentials as a psychologist to maliciously and publicly attack her reputation and stop her from pursuing complaints filed with the University regarding his conduct.

She stated that Dr. Persinger breached the code of professional ethics by using disparaging clinical terms, usually reserved for diagnosis, in his written response to the CDEV Committee.

Dr. Persinger responded in part that,

Dr. Persinger included a copy of his February 5, 1996, letter to the CDEV faculty which stated that,

Other information before the Committee included a letter from Dr. Persinger to the Director of CDEV graduate studies, dated March 21, 1994, which stated in part that,

Also before the Committee was a letter written by the Dean of Social Sciences to Dr. Persinger, dated June 30, 1996, which stated that, "I have been concerned with your willingness to publicly malign students and colleagues in a manner which I consider unprofessional and I would urge you in the future to assume a more professional attitude toward those with whom you have disagreements."

The Committee wrote in its Decision and Reasons that,

Allegation Two Dr. Persinger made comments in his letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty that were equivalent to a diagnosis -without conducting a clinical evaluation.

In her letter of complaint, Ms. Loosemore alleged that Dr. Persinger's letters used comments for which no clinical evaluation support was available, and his diagnosis was based solely on separate reports provided to the CDEV Committee concerning his conduct. She stated that the only testing that he could have done was the Meyers-Briggs Indicator Test.

In his response to the Committee, Dr. Persinger wrote that his letters did not contain a diagnosis but were solely a response to the CDEV Committee and Council. He stated that clinical terms were not employed as a diagnosis and that the term "paranoid ideation" is a valid interpretation of Ms. Loosemore's letter of complaint to the CDEV Committee. Dr. Persinger added that her statements were so inaccurate as to be ludicrous and that while Ms. Loosemore may have actually believed what she had written, the probability was high that her statements were misperceptions or confabulations.

The Committee decided that Dr. Persinger's letters did employ clinical descriptions, were authored by him, he presented himself as a psychologist, and submitted on Psychology Department letterhead, while possibly not denoting a diagnosis per se, are clinical in nature and could be reasonably be perceived by others as such. The Committee decided that Dr. Persinger violated Principle 11.5 of the Code by making comments of a clinical nature without conducting a clinical evaluation.

Allegation Three Dr. Persinger violated professional standards by misrepresenting the use to be made of the psychological test administered in his class, and violated Ms. Loosemore's confidentiality by providing information about her to the CDEV Committee and Faculty.

Ms. Loosemore wrote that a test was administered to the class supposedly to measure their "cognitive style." She was allegedly informed by a teaching assistant that Dr. Persinger routinely collected "information" about students, supposedly to help him compose letters of reference. She felt her privacy had been violated by Dr. Persinger's misrepresentation of the test, and was angered by his disregard of her right to choose whether or not she would participate in the assessment. She continued that,

Ms. Loosemore also wrote that Dr. Persinger's letters to the CDEV Committee and Faculty contain descriptions of her, of a clinical nature, which were made public without her consent, and may continue to violate her right to confidentiality and cause her credibility to be questioned. She stated that these letters are on file with the University and may be obtained by the public.

Dr. Persinger responded that the collection of the Meyers-Briggs (which is a cognitive style inventory, not a "personality test") data has been coordinated for several years by the lab manager. The purpose of the study is to collect sufficient data to discern which cognitive styles are most successful in various laboratory environments and whether or not students who ultimately concentrate in Behavioural Neuroscience display specific cognitive style. He stated that the students are told that they can have their own individual results if they wish, and the results can be useful in vocational planning. He stated that he has never reviewed Ms. Loosemore's nor any other students' results, nor has he interpreted any for the other participants in the project. Dr. Persinger provided a copy indicating the wording of the consent form:

Dr. Persinger responded that he did not conduct a psychological assessment and therefore did not need Ms. Loosemore's consent. He continued to state that he did not need consent relating to comments made in response to her allegations because these allegations were made public without his knowledge. He also stated that because these comments were made in a University setting, they were not of a clinical nature.

The Committee decided that there was no evidence that Dr. Persinger used Ms. Loosemore's Meyer-Briggs results to form an opinion of her, and therefore did not violate Principle 1.32 of the Code which states that psychologists should explore and collect only information which is germane to the purpose for which consent has been obtained.

Principles 1.38 and 1.40 of the Code deal with members being careful not to relay information gained in the process of their activities as psychologists, and which the psychologist has reason to believe is considered confidential by those persons, except where required or justified by law, and to only share information with others when there is the informed consent of those involved, or in a manner that the individuals involved cannot be identified except as required or justified by law, or in circumstances of actual or possible serious physical harm or death.

The Committee decided that the descriptors in Dr. Persinger's letters were framed in clinical terms, could be mis-perceived by others, and were made without Ms. Loosemore's consent. Therefore, Dr. Persinger did violate Principles 1.38 and 1.40.

The Committee issued a strong caution to Dr. Persinger with respect to his future conduct towards others, in his professional capacity:

The Committee also provided the following advice (emphasis added by the Committee) to Dr. Persinger,

The Member was dissatisfied with the Committee's decision and in a letter received on April 17, 1998, requested that the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (the Board), then the Health Professions Board, review it.

In his letter requesting review, Dr. Persinger questioned the jurisdiction of the Complaint's Committee because "this is a political-academic issue and was not related in any manner to my realistic obligations and responsibilities as a Registered Psychologist." He also challenged the reasonableness of the Committee's decision:

• "The process by which the Committee derived their decisions was not thorough. They ignored data and did not verify the validity of comments by the complainant. They confused letters concerned with other issues as directly related to this case. The arguments and conclusions of the Members of the Complaint Committee were based upon invalid suppositions and demonstrated minimal logical consistency."

• "The manner in which the College released the information, as demonstrated by a letter from the complainant that was distributed to about 20 Faculty Members in three departments at the university, may have permanently damaged by [sic] reputation and vocational future."

Ms. Loosemore, in her written submissions to the Board, stated that,

• the Committee had jurisdiction, in that the new Standards for Professional Conduct were in effect on December 2, 1995, and the central allegations of her complaint occurred in February 1996. The new standards included an educational setting and Dr. Persinger had three months to become aware of them;

• concerning the "ignored data," the Committee correctly ignored information concerning the conflict in the administration of the graduate program because it sheds no light on questions the Committee considered while formulating decisions about violations of ethical standards;

• the "confused letters concerned with other issues" in fact were submitted by the Member. These are the letters to Dr. Lewko, March 24, 1994, and from Dr. Tesson to him on June 30, 1995. The letter to Dr. Lewko was written at a time when she was not yet a member of the Masters program. When viewed in context, the 1994 letter helps reveal a behavioural pattern which supports her allegations about the deliberate and malicious nature of Dr. Persinger's 1996 statements about her;

• regarding Dr. Persinger's issue with the "invalid suppositions," the Committee correctly did not make a finding when there was no support for the allegation, such as their disposal of the complaints about the Meyers-Briggs test. The Committee stated that it could not determine what information was provided to Ms. Loosemore in the context of the Meyers-Briggs test; and

regarding the College's release of its decision, it was she who sent it to the CDEV Faculty members after its release, so that it could have no impact on their fact gathering or decision making.

Subsection 33(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, the Health Professions Procedural Code (the Code), provides that the Board, in conducting a review of a decision of the Complaints Committee, shall consider either or both of the adequacy of the investigation conducted, or the reasonableness of the decision.

Dr. Persinger raised the question of jurisdiction based on the event having taken place in a university setting. While it his contention that statements made in the realm of academia are sacrosanct and above complaint, the Board is of the opinion that the new Standards for Professional Conduct, which include the academic area in relation to education and training, which were in effect on December 2,1995, were binding at the time of the complaint, February 1996. The Board is of the opinion that three months is an adequate time frame for a member of the profession to become familiar with the Standards of the Profession, and finds the Committee well within its jurisdiction to review this complaint.

The record of investigation (the Record) contains the letter of complaint and the Member's letter of response. The Complainant was provided an opportunity to comment upon Dr. Persinger's response and did so. All relevant information appears to have been acquired from the Member. The Record contains all this information and was before the Committee.

The Board was not made aware of any additional information which, had it been acquired, might reasonably be expected to have affected the Committee's decision regarding the complaint. Accordingly, and having reviewed the information in the Record, the Board determines that the Committee's investigation was adequate.

In making its decision the Committee set-out the information it considered relevant to its assessment. Having reviewed this information, the Committee concluded that Dr. Persinger violated Principle 2.14 of the Standards of Professional Conduct. It also found that he violated Principles 1.2, 1.24, 1.3, 1.35, 1.38, 1.40, 11.1, 11.2, and 11.5 of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. The Committee had the expertise to make these findings, and there is no information in the Record that the Committee acted unreasonably in doing so.

The Committee issued a strong reminder and several advice recommendations to Dr. Persinger.Under Schedule 2, Sec. 3 (l) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, which governsthe members of registered health professions and the attendant Colleges, the College has the following objects:

3. (l).3. To develop, establish and maintain programs of standards of practice to ensure the quality of the practice of the profession;

3. (l).5. To develop, establish and maintain standards of professional ethics for the members;

3. (2) In carrying out its objects, the College has a duty to serve and protect the public interest. 1991, C.I 8, Shed.2, s.3

The following information was contained in the Member's submissions,

• letter to Dr. Lewko, Director of CDEV, dated March 12, 1994 - "As I indicated in my letter of 10 November, 1993,1 am requesting information regarding guidelines by which graduate students can be reprimanded or dismissed from a program when they engage in blatant attempts: 1) to manipulate grades and to erode academic standards, and 2) to impugn the reputation and status of professors by employing both slander and libel. Is there any specific policy regarding the treatment of graduate students who have a repeated history that constitutes a significant personality disorder (e.g., paranoia), when this behaviour: a) generates an environment that is inhibitory to graduate teaching and b) instigates needless distress and counterproductive behaviours in fellow students?"

• response letter from the Dean of the Social Services faculty, dated May 25, 1995, in a request for information from Dr. Persinger regarding his teaching CDEV 5206 - "I recall that you were quite categoric in my suggestion that I act as a mediator between you and the students. This was not an isolated incident. An evaluation of the CDEV 5206 carried out in 1992 and which surveyed 22 students who had taken the course in the previous three years made special mention of the stressful character of the learning environment as the issue which most concerned students. Students described oral feedback to in-class presentations as 'snide, derogatory and humiliating'... I note your own response to this appeal has been to characterize it as an attempt to manipulate grades, lower standards and demean the faculty involved";

• response letter to Dr. Persinger from the Academic Vice-President, Paul Cappon, dated June 9, 1995 -"4) I am concerned about some of the correspondence which I have seen. You may know my firm view that no disagreement on academic matters justifies any disrespectful comments about any University colleague";

• information letter concerning Dr. Persinger being awarded a Performance Award for 1994/95 from Dean Tesson, dated June 30, 1995 - "I am pleased to inform you that you have been awarded a Performance award for the Academic Year, 1994/5... At the same time I have been concerned about your willingness to publicly malign students and colleagues in a manner which I consider unprofessional and I would urge you in the future to assume a more professional attitude toward those with whom you have disagreements"; and

• response to alleged complaints from CDEV Methods Course: Winter 1994 -"D) This 'complaint' is a collection of lies and exaggerations that are sufficient to require psychological counselling for this student."

The Board has reviewed the Record and has serious concerns about the pattern of conduct exhibited by the Member over a period of some six years, from 1992 to 1998. There is absolutely no responsibility taken by the Member for any of the situations which gave rise to this complaint. There are indications in the material submitted by the Member, noted in part above, that he has been advised of concerns about his professional conduct since 1992. His letter requesting this review, dated April 12, 1998, demonstrates his dismissive attitude toward his peers, "The arguments and conclusions of the Members of the Complaint Committee were based on invalid suppositions and demonstrated minimal logical consistency."

Taking into consideration the variety and number of violations to the Code of Ethics (9), the Member's continuing deviation from the Standards of the Profession, and the length of time that this conduct appears to have been practised, the Board is of the opinion that the decision to issue a written caution to Dr. Persinger has little likelihood of achieving the remedial objectives intended of it and is therefore unreasonable.

For all of the above reasons the Board finds the Committee's decision to caution Dr. Persinger to be unreasonable and, therefore, pursuant to paragraph 3 of subsection 35(1) of the Code, the Board returns the matter to the Committee and requires it to refer Dr. Persinger to the Quality Assurance Committee.

DATED at TORONTO

this 4th day of July 2001

(signature of Bruce McKenty)

Bruce McKenty, Member