Presidents' Council Helps Societies Share Outreach, Solutions

In 1999 the Presidents of Affiliate Societies created the Council of Presidents of Affiliate Societies. The council has become a vital forum through which issues can be addressed that are important to analysts at the local level, and local societies can participate more meaningfully in discussion of national and international issues. For many years, the Presidents of Affiliate Societies met at the biannual meetings of APsaA in loosely organized workshops. At the December 1998 meeting, society presidents had a strong sense that the pressing issues confronting local societies were not reaching the table. These issues often were similar across societies, but at times they were unique. In both cases, consultation with fellow presidents held the promise of useful ideas, a broader perspective, and renewed energy.

A group of society presidents — Elizabeth Brett from the Western New England Psychoanalytic Society, David Dietrich from the Michigan Psychoanalytic Society, Bernard Friedberg from the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis, Christine Hradesky from the Southern California Society, and Burton Lerner from the Association for Psychoanalytic Medicine in New York — proposed a new structure. In place of a workshop with a single, continuing chair who would have difficulty maintaining a broad view of local societies' interests, the group adopted a council structure with a rotating co-chair and a steering committee.

The Steering Committee of the Council of Presidents of Affiliate Societies has a chair and a chair-elect. Each chair serves for two consecutive meetings during his or her tenure as president of a society. A past chair can serve on the Steering Committee for an unlimited time, providing the committee with historical perspective. A number of society presidents have joined the Steering Committee on a voluntary basis, and it has continued to be a vital and informed leadership group. The Steering Committee sets an agenda for each of the biannual national meetings. Committee members remain in e-mail contact with each other and any other interested parties between meetings.

The council has developed a “think tank” identity that benefits us greatly. We are able to consult with one another about common issues and about local, relatively unique issues in a way that has diminished isolation and encouraged more aggressive local leadership. Since December 1999 our discussions have been organized under the broad topic “Meeting the Twenty-First Century: Dynamic Change.” This theme reflects our alertness to the need to keep current and to develop strategies for outreach, education, research, and fundraising that ensure the enduring value and vitality of psychoanalysis.

Outreach, Organization, and Ethics

In the past two years, our discussions have addressed three areas in depth: (1) revitalization of practice through outreach and through looking inward to discern member and candidate needs related to practice; (2) organizational restructuring and the risks and benefits of the training analyst system; and (3) ethical issues, including the moral, legal, and financial implications of establishing standing ethics committees that operate under APsaA's new ethical standards.

In regard to revitalization of practice, we have discussed societies' outreach efforts. These range from crisis intervention in emergency situations to stable programs that involve diverse segments of a community in applied psychoanalytic thinking. The Michigan and Southern California Societies have modeled this latter approach for us. We have surveyed local societies on their structures and activities. We continue to be a receiving ground for information to be shared between analytic communities, as has the Committee on Societies.

In regard to organizational restructuring, we have discussed impediments to change that we encounter. These include power dynamics, which often in societies become organized around the training analyst system. The TA system is seen as an example of oligarchy when what members think they want is a democracy. Many of our society presidents are training analysts, and they wonder whether the TA system per se is the core of the power problem. Some members of the council feel that the meritocracy represented in the selection of TAs has become brittle in the face of changing times. Selection criteria vary across the country; often mystery rather than transparency typifies selection processes.

The council is concerned that organizational change (such as moving to the center model or to academic affiliation) and the examination of organizational structures like the TA system often seem to produce significant discord rather than constructive collaboration within our societies. We have also seen that the de-idealization of colleagues who engage in unethical practices often threatens to cause discord and conflict in our societies rather than a renewed commitment to constructive, collaborative, exploration of the issues.

The council is also concerned that potential change within our psychoanalytic organizations, whether in local societies or at the national level, is often experienced as a crisis rather than an opportunity. The membership often polarizes; disagreements too often result in persistent conflicts rather than open dialogue and problem solving. Despite our worries in regard to change, we are learning that there are creative ways to overcome impediments to collaboration. The recent APsaA meeting in Philadelphia modeled such an approach when the Philadelphia Reunification Committee shared with the membership the minutes of its ongoing deliberations about merging and adopting a center model.

To Continue and Deepen the Discussion

The goal at the council's May meeting in Philadelphia was to continue and deepen previous discussions by presenting examples of standing ethics committees and their fit within their societies. We plan to talk further about such legal considerations as compliance with state law and vulnerability to lawsuit, financial risks, by-law and procedural considerations, and difficulties society presidents encounter when recruiting members to serve on ethics committees. We also want to discuss programs for individual analysts providing ongoing education about ethics and boundaries.

We wish to explore additional questions about ethics: Is our understanding of ethical standards unique to psychoanalysis? What are the implications of a society's having no standing ethics committee? What are the differences and similarities between impairment and ethical violations? What is rehabilitation, and when is it appropriate? What are the best methods of preventing ethics violations?

Our ambitious agenda on ethics obviously could not be fully accomplished in one meeting. However, national meetings set the stage for continued collaboration among the society presidents, who are beginning to benefit from a collegial, consultative network. An updated e-mail list has been established for society presidents and the council's Steering Committee. The list should facilitate continued discussion of our most recent agenda and urgent consultations about new local problems.

The Council of Presidents of Affiliate Societies was included in the agenda of the Executive Council of APsaA for the first time in May 2002. The chair of the presidents' council will continue to report at Executive Council meetings on the local issues that are most pressing and the council's efforts to address them.

The council has become a representative, organized, and increasingly effective voice. We look forward to realizing the potential of local societies to work collaboratively on policy issues equally relevant at both national and local levels. We will work with the Executive Council and the APsaA and IPA leadership to find creative and successful Solutions.