(a)

1. (1) Any complaint/ethics investigator, whether an Arkansas Psychology Board member, a board employee, or an independent contractor, appointed by the board to conduct an investigation of a particular complaint, shall be free of any prejudicial conflict of interest relating to the complainant, the respondent, and/or the subject matter of the complaint in order to foster unbiased, impartial data gathering and recommendations making.

2. (2)

   1. (A) Should a prejudicial conflict exist or arise for the investigator that would adversely impact fairness of the investigation process, he or she shall recuse from the case or matter unless the parties should mutually waive that recusal option and permit the investigator to continue pursuit of the investigation.
   2. (B) In the event of an investigator’s recusal, the board or its designee will then appoint an alternate investigator for that matter or case.

3. (3) The existence of a conflict may be raised by:

   1. (A) The investigator;
   2. (B) Any board member;
   3. (C) Administrative staff; and/or
   4. (D) Any party to the complaint or matter needing investigation.
4. (4) Should a dispute arise regarding the validity of a conflict allegation and/or its prejudicial character requiring a recusal, the members of the Complaints Committee of the Arkansas Psychology Board, excepting the investigator with the alleged conflict, shall by majority vote make that determination, with any tie in that determination procedure resulting in that determination being referred to the board for resolution.

(b)

1. (1) Unless otherwise waived by a potential respondent, any respondent who is licensed by the board or is an applicant for licensure is entitled to expect that the allegations and facts of the complaint or investigated matter are subject to review by at least one (1) member of the Complaints/Ethics Committee or its selected consultant who possesses qualifications and/or experience that is substantially comparable to, or greater than, that of the investigated respondent.
2. (2) It shall be presumed that a psychologist respondent would necessitate another psychologist to serve in that reviewing capacity, while a psychological examiner would require either a psychologist or psychological examiner in that role.
3. (3) It is further assumed that, due to the generic nature of the board’s licenses (i.e., without specialty licenses), any licensed psychologist can serve that requirement of a reviewing role as being in possession of qualification and/or experience comparable to that of the typical respondent unless the nature of the complaint’s allegations clearly and convincingly raise an issue that a unique and highly specialized body of knowledge and/or practice or procedure is involved in the matter and therefore the matter or complaint requires a reviewing professional to possess even a greater degree of comparability in qualification and/or experience to that of the respondent.
4. (4) It shall be the Complaints/Ethics Committee’s responsibility to determine the existence of that required substantial comparability of at least one (1) reviewing member or consultant.