After hearing a report on a poll of membership opinion, the Executive Council voted in December to submit to the membership a by-law amendment granting full membership to a group of lay training analysts. Dr. Herbert Herskovitz, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee which had conducted the referendum, reported first on its results. The response, compared to the usual number of responses to questionnaires, had been good: 59% of the membership had responded, although not every respondent had answered all the questions.
One thing was unmistakably established by the referendum, Dr. Herskovitz reported — 89% of those responding were in favor of some type of membership for the group of non-medical training analysts. The responses as to the various possible types of membership did not produce so clear-cut a result. About 60% of those responding (which would be less than the necessary two-thirds majority to amend a by-law) favored full membership.
A great many of those whose initial preference was for restricted membership indicated that, if this were defeated, they would not oppose full memberhip. In the light of these results Dr. Herskovitz's committee recommended that the Executive Council submit to the membership a by-law amendment granting this group full membership, making it clear to the members that if this failed to achieve a two-thirds majority, they would next be asked to vote on another by-law amendment, creating a more restricted type of membership category.
It was made clear that if the Council submitted the full membership by-law, as proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee, it would be done with no recommendation from Council, pro or con. After considerable discussion, a motion was passed that a by-law, proposing full membership, be submitted to the members of the Association and that an Ad Hoc Committee be appointed to draw up such a by-law.