The Executive Council has voted to conduct a referendum to ascertain what action, if any, the members of the Association would like to take with regard to membership for a group of non-physician Training and Supervising Analysts. Members will be asked to express a preference for one of three alternatives:
¶ Full membership
¶ Some form of restricted membership
¶ No membership
The decision to hold a referendum, which was reached after a long debate at the December 14 meeting of the Council, represents the most recent in a series of efforts to resolve the question of membership status for this group, who have been actively involved in training at a number of Institutes for some years.
In 1964 a committee chaired by Dr. Douglas Bond recommended full membership status for the group, but this recommendation never reached a vote by the members. A second committee, headed by Dr. David Beres, proposed a By-Law amendment creating a category of “Special Member”; the group of non-physician Training Analysts would have been eligible, under this By-Law, for a limited
form of membership which excluded the right to vote or hold elective office. Council approved this By-Law amendment in May, 1967, and voted to submit it to a vote by mail ballot. When a number of societies objected to the mail ballot on the grounds that there had not been enough time for discussion, the Executive Committee postponed the ballot, and brought the issue back to the Council in December.
The extended debate in Council brought to the fore again the three divergent points of view on this issue: one group of Councilors felt the Special Member proposal did not go far enough, and that full membership would be appropriate; another group felt restricted membership would be proper; a third preferred no membership at all for the group in question. Doubt was expressed as to whether any type of membership would command the two-thirds majority that is necessary for the passage of an amendment to the By-Laws.
A great deal of the discussion centered on finding the best way to determine the wishes of the members on this issue. One proposal was to “start over again” — i.e., to rescind the mail-ballot on the “Special Member” amendment, and submit for a vote an amendment offering full membership; should this fail to win a two-thirds majority, the “Special Member” proposal would be submitted to a vote.
Another idea was embodied in a motion to give the membership an opportunity to express its will on all of the three possible alternatives simultaneously, in the form of a referendum. Depending on the outcome of such a referendum, it might be possible to frame a By-Law amendment that would command the necessary two-thirds majority; alternatively, it might become clear that no form of membership for the non-physician analysts would have any chance of approval. The referendum would serve only as an expression of opinion and would not commit the Association to any course of action.
In the final vote, Council decided to rescind the mail-ballot on the “Special Member” By-Law and to submit the issue to a referendum.