At the May meeting of the American in Montreal, the Board on Professional Standards passed with only one abstention a resolution expressing its sentiments in favor of a bylaw change which would permit full membership to the non-physicians accepted by the American for training who had both graduated from their institutes and been certified by the Association.
As it stands now, there is no mechanism in place for these individuals to become voting members of the American. Currently, individuals approved for waiver by the Davis Committee can receive full psychoanalytic training in their local institute. In terms of their relationship to the American, they are eligible for affiliate membership when they begin their institute classwork, for associate membership when they graduate, and for certification after graduation. But there is no bylaw in place to offer them active membership in the organization.
Richard Greenberg, Chairman of the Membership Committee, had brought this issue to the attention of the Board. He noted that a letter had already been sent to the institutes regarding the question of full membership in the American for CNMCT graduates, requesting that the membership of the organization be informed about the prospect, and their opinions solicited. Greenberg reported that the response from the institutes was largely supportive, with virtually all in favor of a new bylaw which would permit non-medical people to become members. This favorable assessment was a result of a general perception that the Davis Committee had carefully and successfully evaluated those who had been accepted for training, using local as well as national standards for their assessment of the CNMCT applicants. He noted, however, that there were some who took the position that more time should be extended before membership is made available so that the experiment in the training itself of these individuals could be more completely assessed. He added that his own committee favored a bylaw change now.
It was Carl Davis, Chairman of the CNMCT, who proposed the motion that was accepted by the Board. In doing so he expressed his concern that without such a provision for full membership, the Association was in danger of creating second class citizens both in that organizaton and in the local institutes.
It was clarified that while the Board was near unanimous in its support for a bylaw change, that body is not empowered to vote such a change at this time. Their sentiments must first be conveyed to the Executive Council, and if that body, too, were in support of the concept, then the positive sentiments of both Board and Council could go forward to the institutes and societies in the Fall for their responses. Later, an actual proposal for bylaw change would go before Board and Council for approval, and then the active membership would have to support the bylaw change by a two-thirds majority before it would go into effect.