I have several major items you will want to know about if you were not present to hear them discussed at the recent New York meeting. When they appear, the reports of the Secretary of the Association and Secretary of the Board on Professional Standards will cover many other matters that were considered there.
The first matter of interest to the membership is that the Association has purchased a condominium at 309 East 49th Street in Manhattan. This purchase was the culmination of a search for new housing for our Central Office which has taken us several years. Rentals of office space in Manhattan had reached the point that they were prohibitive. If the option of a condominium purchase, with fixed maintenance charges and tax advantages to a nonprofit organization such as ours, had not been available, we would have been faced with either a tremendous outlay of rental money each year or a move to an area far less desirable for our purposes.
Last May the Executive Council and Meeting of Members approved an Executive Committee plan to purchase a condominium, providing that it was within the resources of the Association. After extensive labor, something suitable became available in the early fall, and our negotiations to obtain it were successful. We took title to this space three weeks before our meeting in New York, and by that time we had hired an architect who had prepared plans for construction of the interior space in a way which will allow us maximum utilization for our purposes.
While the total cost of this will approximate one million dollars, a special financial advisory committee to the Executive Committee, chaired by Howard Schlossman, has proposed two highly creative ways of financing the purchase. The Executive Committee had wanted to avoid a mandatory assessment of the membership. Dr. Schlossman's committee therefore recommended both an appeal to the membership for contributions to a housing fund (such contributions being tax deductible) and the sale of promissory interest bearing notes to the membership. These notes, which are suitable for purchase for IRA or Keogh accounts, will earn interest at current, competitive rates. The notes will be retired gradually over the next several years as funds become available to the Association.
In the meantime, large savings in rent will be possible since maintenance charges will be low and, as a nonprofit organization, we will not, we believe, be required to pay real estate taxes. We hope that construction can be completed within three months and that we will be able to move into our new, permanent offices by March or April, 1985.
The next item relates to the possibility of the Association being threatened with legal action. As you may know, much time, effort, and interest on the part of the officers of the Association have gone into a continuing discussion of the question of nonmedical training since the discussion at the Board on Professional Standards and the Executive Council in San Diego last May. As you probably recall, the Council and the Board differed in their approach to the question at the time, and consequently no action has been taken since then. Because of persistent rumors that members of the American Psychological Association were planning to sue the American Psychoanalytic Association to force action on the training of nonmedical individuals, I decided, as President of the Association, to begin discussions with my like officers at the American Psychological Association.
In October, Homer Curtis, chairman of the Board on Professional Standards, Richard Simons, President-elect of the Association, and I met with three officers of the American Psychological Association: Janet Spence, President; Brian Welch, Head of Professional Activities; and Nathan Stockhammer, President-Elect of Division 39 (Psychoanalysis). After we all reviewed the developments within our respective organizations, Dr.
Spence informed us that the American Psychological Association itself had no intention of suing. She stated, however, that if private individuals were individually or collectively to bring suit, the American Psychological Association would tend to side with its own members.
She then had to leave to return to Texas and the remaining two hours were spent in discussion of training issues with Drs. Welch and Stockhammer. We had the impression that they were sincerely interested in obtaining good quality psychoanalytic training for psychologists; much of the discussion centered around the possibilities for developing their own training programs. They seemed to recognize that this would necessarily be a long-term undertaking. The meeting seemed cordial and ended with an understanding that we would meet again to discuss these matters further.
Subsequently, however, we received a brief, formally phrased letter from the two of them on the stationery of a private outside group of psychologists. The letter stated that there would be no purpose in meeting further unless the American was ready to change its attitude toward admitting nonmedical clinical trainees, and the representatives with whom they met were empowered with the authority to make such a change. I replied with a letter in which I inquired as to the nature of the group indicated on the stationery, their relationship with it, and so forth.
In the meantime, we have heard rumors and further words suggesting that groups either acting independently or in concert with each other are threatening, or planning, or considering suits against the American because of its current educational policies. These reports are coming from various parts of the country, where various member institutes and societies are being individually threatened.
At the present moment, no formal legal action has been started. The Executive Committee, with the approval of the Executive Council, is keeping a close eye on all of these matters, but is proceeding with the usual activities of the Association. Any matter that seems referable to these issues is, of course, brought to the attention of our attorneys for their advice and counsel. We certainly continue willing and ready to meet and negotiate with any and all appropriate individuals or groups, within the limitations of our bylaws and the guidelines of our organization.
As a result of the many deliberations of the Executive Committee on these matters, a special advisory committee has been appointed. It is composed of Herbert Gaskill, of Denver, Robert Gilliland, of Houston, and Justin Krent, of Cleveland. This committee is charged with advising the Executive Committee in an effort to arrive at a proposal to be put before the Board and Executive Council next May in Denver. Thus our deliberations on these matters continue.