Board and Council

The following appointments of New Training and Supervising Analysts were approved by the Board on Professional Standards, in New York on Dec. 18, 1976.

Dr. Edward Weinshel, past Chairman of the Board, gave an address in which he discussed the following issues:

1. His conviction of the need to provide equal opportunities for full training for properly qualified non-medical colleagues.

2. His belief that, at this time, our current membership policy and procedure are good ones. In both accrediting Institutes and certifying individual graduates, it is important, he stated, to acknowledge the patient, persistent and rewarding educational and consultative endeavors directed toward a more effective observance of those principles which we commonly believe to be crucial.

3. With the increasing powers of the Board on Professional Standards, it is important that the Board give careful consideration to the use of those powers. There should be a creative tension between the Institute and the Board, with a continual dialogue taking place. Standards must be altered only slowly, cautiously and only after thorough deliberation and a reasonable degree of consensus.

The final Report from the Ad Hoc Committee for Los Angeles detailed the origins and nature of the difficulties encountered by that Institute, the efforts that had been made by the Committee in liaison with members of the Institute to resolve them, and the progress that has been achieved. The Committee felt that progress had been made in beginning to resolve some of the difficulties in the educational program, in establishing working dialogue between various elements in the Institute, and in beginning to clarify procedures to be utilized in working towards solution of the problems that remained. While expressing hope that these problems could be resolved, the Committee noted that the progressive developments they observed involved as yet only a minority of the faculty and student body and it remained to be seen whether the momentum could be carried forward. It made the following specific recommendations in relation to Los Angeles:

1. A consultative and advisory relationship between the Board and the Los Angeles Society and Institute be continued rather than any change of status of the Institute from full accreditation. The present Ad Hoc Committee be appointed to serve without time limitation in a liaison, consultative, advisory capacity to Los Angeles.

2. The moratorium of May, 1976 on selection and graduation should be rescinded and supplanted by collaborative processes between the new Advisory Committee and the Los Angeles Institute.

The Ad Hoc Committee also made additional recommendations of a more general nature to the Board. These were as follows:

1. That the Board deal at the national level with the Freud-Klein controversy in the perspective of scientific theory and its appropriate place in any comprehensive curriculum.

2. The Board should consider a continuum of communication with its Institutes, ranging from consultative-liaison at one end for an optimally functioning Institute, to an advisory/consultative relationship requiring shared responsibilities when an Institute is in trouble.

3. The Commitee on Institutes should be designated the primary agency of the Board for establishing Committees with such on-going consultative responsibilities to accredited institutes.

Both Board and Council approved the recommendation of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Certification. This initial proposal makes certification by the Board explicit, with the addition that applicants may request and obtain certification without being required to become members in the Association. Any by-law amendment required to implement these proposals will be presented to the membership.

The Committee on Institutes reported its intention to schedule site visits once every five to six years. To do its job satisfactorily, it will need to have four site visits, instead of two, each year. It also stressed the importance of having continuous contact and exchange of information with each institute through the use of small sub-committees.

The Committee on Membership reported that there were sixty-eight applications for membership and six re-applications. Of this number, fifty were recommended for active membership.

The Committee on New Training Facilities reported on its visit to the Cincinnati and St. Louis Provisional Institutes. Both Institutes were commended on their achievements. A special Advisory Committee will be appointed to work with Cincinnati on educational matters.

It was recommended that St. Louis be granted independent status and the Board voted acceptance of the recommendation.

At the Council meeting, Dr. Granatir supported the idea of retraining the services of a Legislative Review Consultant for a

period of one year, subject to review after six months. This consultant will keep the Association informed about issues such as confidentiality, third party payment, training and research which may come before regulatory or legislative bodies in order that we may take the appropriate action. The Council endorsed this idea and a $10 assessment on all Society members to cover the cost of the work of this Consultant.

Dr. Cooper reported on the success of the Workshop for Mental Health professionals on the Treatment of Adolescents which was held on the weekend prior to the Winter Meeting. The Workshop was over-subscribed and was well received by the participants. A second Workshop devoted to another topic is being planned for next year.

The Committee on Arrangements announces its intent to return to the practice of meeting in the same place as the American Psychiatric Association. As a first step in this direction, the Association will meet in Atlanta, the site of the APA Meeting in 1978, instead of Puerto Rico, as originally planned.