The meeting of the Board on Professional Standards in Boston last May was progressive and productive. Issues of governance and of educational methods and standards were equally prominent in the agenda.
The much-anticipated final report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Study Certification lived up to its billing. Co-chairs Cal Narcisi and Don Rosenblitt and their committee produced a document whose implications went far beyond the matter of certification per se and addressed profound philosophic issues basic to our structure. (The full report is available on our Web site.)
The committee strongly supports the concept of certification. The report asserted that the sole purpose of certification should be to assure competence as a clinical analyst. The committee concluded that certification is necessary to assure the public that we are committed to professionalism and self-assessment.
Certification is necessary to assure the public that we are committed to professionalism and self-assessment.
The committee's specific recommendations were far-reaching. The report recommended dividing the duties of the current Committee on Certification between two committees. One would administer the process, and the other would study it. The report also made various suggestions to improve the validity and reliability of the examination and to broaden its methodology. Its most visionary recommendation was that the certification body be independent of both the membership organization and the Board on Professional Standards and its accrediting bodies. The committee felt this was best to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest and that it was best for the profession of psychoanalysis as a whole. The committee advocated a fast-track approach toward achieving its recommendations.
A thoughtful and full discussion of the report followed its presentation. All the Fellows of the Board who voted accepted the report; two abstained.
I have already appointed a new ad hoc task force, chaired by Beth Seelig, to develop a roadmap for achieving implementation within two years. This roadmap will define steps to be taken within BOPS. The new task force will also need to consider how its report can be integrated with other efforts toward reorganization now being considered within our Association. Our objective is to have the best, fairest, and most meaningful certification process that can be achieved, one that will have wide recognition and prestige.
The new BOPS Task Force on Reorganization made its first report. Co-chaired by Leon Hoffman and Eric Nuetzel, the task force began by considering the role of the educational perspective within APsaA. It is considering such questions as the place of BOPS's functions after a reorganization. Should they be internal or externalized, in full or part?The task force's report said that the “educational functions and values of APsaA are precious assets that should be safeguarded in any restructuring plan.”
The Fellows took up the two by-laws proposals that were submitted by petition of members. BOPS has the right to send its comments along with the proposed amendments when they are sent to the membership. In an extensive discussion, the Fellows made several modifications in the wording of the BOPS position statement. They opposed the proposed amendments of the by-laws, feeling they were ill-timed and piecemeal at a time when comprehensive change was best. The Fellows felt also that the proposed amendments contradicted the collaborative relationship between Board and Council mandated by the agreement developed by the Task Force on Education and Membership.
The final statement opposing passage of these by-laws amendments was overwhelmingly approved by the Fellows. On Thursday at the Executive Council, an equally rich discussion took place. By a wide margin, the councilors voted not to accept the proposed by-laws amendments.
As I interpret the actions of Board and Council, they both supported a collaborative and consensual approach to reorganization of our Association's governance and opposed piecemeal and divisive approaches. The two representative bodies favored a consultative relationship to each other as was the mandate of the education and membership process.
The Board considered the first report by the Task Force on Training Analyst Standards. Myrna Weiss, chair, said the task force was rewriting the standards to emphasize the availability of waivers. The most difficult situation to resolve is when a potential candidate is in analysis with an analyst who is not a training analyst. The task force considered means to permit a continuation of this analysis for training purposes, but it is a complex task to develop a methodology consistent with our quality and educational responsibilities and consistent with sound psychoanalytic principles.
The Fellows were very responsive to the issues raised by this initiative and made many excellent and wide-ranging proposals. Some were concerned that methods for assessing an analyst for a potential waiver be carefully crafted to protect the privacy and integrity of the ongoing analysis. Others spoke of the financial burdens of training analyses on candidates and training analysts alike. The task force will continue its efforts toward progressive and responsible change.
Ronald M. Benson, M.D., is chair of the Board on Professional Standards.
I announced to the Board that as suggested by Newell Fisher, the BOPS Membership Committee will greatly modify its application procedures for IPA graduates who want to become members of APsaA. The current process is too cumbersome. The new streamlined process will involve filling out a very simple application form. I have also asked the BOPS Membership Committee to consider methods to allow some non-IPA graduates to join APsaA.
The Fellows, by acclamation, elected Nuetzel and Seelig as the next chair and secretary of the Board. Their terms will begin after our meetings in San Francisco next June.
Once again, the actions and discussions of the Board and of the Council seemed to demonstrate that there is substantial consensus about the kind of Association we wish to be. It seems that our long-standing amalgamation of educational and membership concerns is widely supported, and the consultative relationship between Council and Board continues to work effectively.
The task that confronts us now is to bring those values within the umbrella of the laws that govern non-profit corporations and to assure that such educational matters as accreditation and certification are insulated from influences that might compromise their objectivity. We have managed the insulating aspects for many years and, with diligence and good will, we can accomplish the goal of complying with the not-for-profit laws also.