In the closing minutes of the meeting of the Board on Professional Standards at the recent New York meeting, a motion was submitted which led to a brief, but intense exchange, and passage of the motion by the narrow margin of one vote: 22 to 21.
The motion charged Homer Curtis, the Board's Chairman, to appoint a committee to study the processes by which the chairs and members of the committees of the Board were selected in the past, to ascertain whether there are recognizable patterns in the geographic distribution and durations of these appointments, and also required that two of three Fellows specified by name be placed on this committee.
The motion arose as an immediate consequence of a spirited discussion at a special meeting of the Board which had been held the prior afternoon. Attendance at that meeting was limited to Fellows, former Chairmen, and members of the Coordinating Committee of the Board.
The stated purpose of the special meeting was to allow the Board to meet free of the necessity to deal with administrative and committee matters, to allow sufficient time and an atmosphere conducive to the free exchange of ideas. This would create the opportunity to discuss in depth the general aims and functions or the Board, to clarify the role and concerns of the Board as a standard-setting body, to discuss current problems of psychoanalytic education, and to allow the Fellows an opportunity to air their views—their perceptions and possible misperceptions in regard to the Board.
One strongly expressed view was that Fellows of the Board must recognize that as members of a national standard-setting body, it is necessary that they transcend their roles as parochial representatives of local constituencies— their home institutes.
A number of Fellows took exception
to the implications of this view. They expressed concern over their impressions that the Board's committees and especially the chairs of these committees had been dominated in the past by people from a relatively small number of institutes, and that much of the important work and actual power of the Board lay within this committee structure.
If there is factionalism and parochialism, they say, perhaps the reasons for this might be that too many institutes have been excluded from fair representation in the Board's committees, especially the chairs of these committees. The motion establishing the committee to study the issue named three Fellows who had expressed such concerns, and required that two of the three be on the Committee.
This is an old debate. On the one hand, some believe that by its very nature as a standard-setting and monitoring body, the Board and its leaders attract intense transferences. Graduates must be certified, training analysts approved, the institutes themselves are judged. So-called outside issues, such as proposals to alter membership requirements, have implications for maintaining standards, and the Board must assert its views and influence if possible. The psychodynamics of institute representatives are at issue—their conflicts in their roles as advocates for their local interests
versus the important standard-setting function of the Board. Like the judiciary, the Board should be relatively autonomous from such political or other pressure.
Those who hold this view believe that the Board's committees do laborious and sometimes thankless work in the worthiest of causes, present their honest findings to the Board, and must unfortunately suffer the hurt feelings or anger of those whose particular aims and interests lead them to disagree with particular decisions.
On the other hand, some argue that the structure of the Board is the problem. They say that the major work of the Board goes on in committees dominated by a relatively small number of persons who sincerely but wrongly believe that they are in sole possession of analytic purity and that this leads this influential cadre to deliberate upon and exert authority on matters which lie outside the Board's proper jurisdiction.
These critics also argue that the appointment system prevents fair representation in the power structure by able people from other institutes, who might have differing views, and the Board itself too often functions merely as a rubber stamp for important decisions made behind closed committee doors. They say that the system for nominating and electing the Chairman of the Board itself allows the perpetuation of this closed system.
Most agree that the committee system is necessary in order to accomplish efficiently the enormous work that must be done. Some of those who supported the motion were aware that impressions of unfairness could be based upon deeply-rooted misperceptions which might not be amenable to logic; they did not think, however, that this possibility was sufficient reason to prevent us from obtaining the data for all to see—patterns and durations of appointments could be documented, current and past Board Chairmen interviewed regarding their procedures and the thinking behind them, and so forth.
Those who objected saw the vote as a possibly dangerous and intimidating encroachment on the Chairman's power to appoint — that such a move might limit the Chairman's freedom to govern effectively. There were strong objections to that portion of the motion which required that particular people be named to this committee. Some believed that this was a clear interference with the Chairman's prerogatives, a possible insult to his authority or integrity, and that it might possibly even be illegal under rules of parliamentary procedure.
Others saw no conflict. We can look back without encroaching on the power to govern effectively or the dignity or integrity of the current Chairman. We can learn from the past. As with U.S. Presidential appointments, the power to appoint can be retained while still allowing the legislative body served some power to approve or influence appointments. But we should have facts, not impressions, to aid our deliberations.
43 of 54 possible voting Fellows were present. Some may have left early thinking the business meeting was over. It was not stated when the newly appointed committee was to report its findings. Presumably it will do so at the annual meeting in May in Denver.