The following are selected items from the Board on Professional Standards and the Executive Council during the 1980 annual meeting in San Francisco. Other items appear separately elsewhere in this issue.
Dr. Laurence Hall raised the question of appointments to Board Committees, pointing out the need for younger and not yet well-known members to serve in these committees.
He also expressed concern about the extent to which our own graduates and members are involved in lending their names, and even working for unauthorized training programs.
Dr. Leonard Shengold, chairman, reported that the Committee has been liberal in its interpretation of reasons to extend Associate Membership, when the member has pledged an intention to seek certification. For those Associate Members uncertifiable because of bad health or other valid reasons, the Committee has recommended waivers for an indefinitely extended Associate Membership, which the Board has granted. Dr. Shengold relayed the Committee's provisional ideas about the creation of a non-voting and non-member category of affiliation with the Association.
After a very lively discussion, during which a variety of conflicting points of view were expressed, the following motion was approved: “The Board on Professional Standards accepts and endorses the position stated in the reports of the Coordinating Committee (relative to membership) and the Committee on Membership. It endorses the position that further study will be conducted.”
Dr. Justin Krent, chairman, reported that the Committee on Certification had acted on 29 new applications and eight reapplications for certification. Twenty-one were approved.
The reasons for deferral of some are varied. The most common cause remains the lack of sufficient evidence of the development of a psychoanalytic process and the presence, instead, of what appears to be psychotherapeutic treatment in the cases presented by the applicants. Some do not describe the termination process adequately. Some were not supervised during the termination phase of their patients' analysis. Case selection continues to be a problem. Another difficulty is that some candidates are not in analysis for a sufficient length of time while they are also in supervision.
Dr. Herbert Schlesinger, chairman, reported that the Committee had received ten applications for research and special training from candidates representing seven institutes and recommended seven for approval: Dr. Suzanne Gassner, San Francisco; Dr. John Hartman, Michigan; Dr. Irwin Hoffman, Chicago; Dr. Paul Ransohoff, San Francisco; Dr. Edward Siegel, Boston; Dr. Phyllis Tyson, San Diego; and Dr. Abby Wolfson, San Francisco.
The Board unanimously approved these applications.
Dr. Robert Gilliland reported that, as part of the discussion of the Report of the Secretary of the Board on Professional Standards, Dr. Robert Nunn of Chicago requested an informal expression of attitude by the Councilors on behalf of their societies regarding the Chicago Proposal on Associate Membership. Neither Dr. Nunn nor any other member of Council requested a formal vote, but there seemed to be general interest in this straw poll, which was then conducted at the instruction of the President, Dr. Rebecca Solomon. The question was, in essence, “how many Societies currently favor the indefinite extension of Associate Membership as it is currently constituted in the By-laws of the Association?” The survey indicated that 17 organizations (including societies and study groups) supported the proposal, ten opposed, and nine were either undecided or not represented in Council at the time of the survey. Additional efforts will be made to gather accurate data on members and potential members who could be affected by the final decision. Discussion will continue at the Fall Meeting.
Again, as it has for the past several meetings, the problem of the National Acceditation Association for Psychoanalysis occupied much of Council's time. The Council heard directly from the Association's legal representative, Mr. Joel Klein, who presented a comprehensive summary of the controversy to date. On April 22 this year, Dr. Arnold Cooper, Mrs. Helen Fischer, and Mr. Klein represented the Association at a hearing before the Department of Education. The inconclusive nature of the controversy was perpetuated when the DOE decided to defer the question of NAAP accreditation until June.
Dr. Mervin Hurwitz, chairman, reminded the Council that the next Spring Meeting of the American will take place May 2-10, 1981, at Hotels Condado and LaConcha in Puerto Rico. The 1982 meeting will be in Boston, and the 1983 meeting in Philadelphia. The 1984 Meeting site has not yet been chosen, but one possibility under consideration is the Del Coronado Hotel in San Diego.
Dr. Edward Joseph, chairman, reported that beginning May 1, 1980, there will be a premium reduction for all new policies and renewals for those members with one million/three million coverage. Reductions range from about 15 percent in California, Florida, and New York, to as much as 40 percent in many other states, depending upon such things as claims experience in the area in which one lives. In addition, Frenkel and Company, our insurance agents, have been able to devise a plan to offer liability coverage to institutes.
Dr. Sydney Pulver, chairman, reported a gratifying registration for the Spring meeting in San Francisco (nearly 1500), and acknowledged the wisdom of the Executive Council in opting for the continuation of two national scientific meetings per year.
Dr. George Klumpner, chairman, reported that the Committee is now ready to embark on a single pilot study based on six volumes of the index data of the International Journal, and anticipates early completion of the 60-year index of that Journal.
Dr. Kenneth Calder, chairman, reported that this Committee was established in 1978 to propose specific procedures and guidelines for the training in our institutes of non-medical candidates to become practitioners of psychoanalysis. Several prerequisites seemed desirable for such potential candidates. They should have a doctoral degree in clinical psychology or mental health. They should be licensed to practice in the state in which they would work. They should have clinical experience sufficient to support psychoanalytic training. They should be expected to have experiences with a spectrum of psychopathology and to have practiced a sufficient variety of psychotherapy.
In keeping with the experimental nature of the proposed program, it would be important that only a limited number of the most highly qualified applicants be accepted. It was further recommended that a committee, similar to that on Research and Special Training, be established to administer this experimental program. The personal qualifications of non-medical applicants for clinical training should be no less than those now required for medical-psychiatric applicants, but the national level committee could not and should not decide about waivers on the basis of analyzability. The committee should set up liaison subcommittees like those of the Committee on New Training Facilities or the Committee on Institutes to monitor the educational and professional progress of accepted applicants and their impact upon the educational program of the institute.
It was emphasized that these were preliminary recommendations and that they should be re-discussed before an actual program was set up.