I have been asked to write an article opposing external accreditation. I cannot do this. At this time, I neither oppose nor support external credentialing. It is premature, in my view, to write articles or to draw conclusions about this most complex question until further elucidation of the issues. Substantial confusion, questions about partially explored issues, and ambiguities remain from the information generated by the Ad Hoc Joint Committee on External Credentialing—this was the strong consensus of the Board on Professional Standards after a lengthy effort to sort through the issues and facts. Also, the charge of the joint committee was restricted to an exploration of the possibilities of external credentialing. And not only was the focus of the committee possibility, rather than advisability, the original issue was not accreditation but just credentialing in the sense of certification of individuals. External accreditation of Institutes was not in the public discussion

and debate among those who originally launched the joint committee! The merits and implications of creating a second accreditation process in the context of an organization with an established accreditation process that is central to its educational mission is an issue that now must receive very careful consideration.

The Board On Professional Standards has vigorously supported further study of the advisability and implications of external accreditation of Institutes, and the relative advantages of all the various options. As a next step forward the Board has appointed a new committee under Jerry Margolis that is already hard at work, building upon the work that has been already accomplished by the joint committee. I look forward to our receiving from this committee clarification and assessment of our options, at which time further discussion of the issue will certainly be in order.