Whatever happens in our organizational restructuring, one thing is certain: The Board on Professional Standards (BOPS) will be no more. When I became secretary of the BOPS in 2001, Ron Benson, the newly elected chair, told me that every BOPS chair has the fantasy that s/he will be the last. I may not be the last, but I will probably be the penultimate BOPS chair. Every plan that has been floated about a future structure for institute representation changes the name of the body representing institutes. The balance of power within the American Psychoanalytic Association is also altered by every suggested plan. One plan calls for the creation of a Board of Psychoanalytic Education that would serve as a committee of the corporation, subject to the review and rescission of its decisions by the Association's Board of Directors. Another plan calls for the creation of a Council of Institutes as a successor to the BOPS. This Council of Institutes would be a subsidiary corporation within the Association that would provide autonomy for standard setting and credentialing functions. I have suggested externalizing the credentialing functions in a separate independent corporation or corporations.
The Executive Council is our Association's Board of Directors. It is structured as a body of representatives of our psychoanalytic societies. In contrast, the BOPS is structured as a body of representatives of our psychoanalytic institutes. There are many more psychoanalytic societies than there are institutes in the Association. If the body representing institutes functions as subordinate to the body representing societies, educational interests will be secondary to other interests of the general membership organization. Some think this would be a good thing, and believe New York law demands the subordination of BOPS.
It is true that New York State corporate law does not recognize our present structure. In the context of New York State law, the BOPS has been described as a “legal nullity.” The BOPS currently would be regarded as a committee of the corporation by the State of New York, and thus subordinate to the Board of Directors, the Executive Council. Our bylaws have a different intent. We try to function in accord with our bylaws because they reflect the will of the members. Our bylaws embody a separation of powers with mutual consultation between the BOPS and the Executive Council. We have been advised by our expert attorney that we can continue to function according to our bylaws during the period in which we are working to come into compliance with New York law by restructuring.
We need a new broadly representative structure or structures to carry out these public interest functions with integrity.
The vote taken in January in the Executive Council sending the report of the Task Force on Reorganization (TFoR) back to the TFoR for revision has created uncertainty. Those who believe the BOPS should be subordinate to the Executive Council have stated that the governance issue is now settled. If it is, this will fundamentally alter our Association's psychoanalytic culture. Our educational standards and every decision of the BOPS regarding accreditation of institutes, certification of graduates, the status of new training facilities, training and supervising analyst appointments, waiver applications for academics and those clinicians who would not otherwise be eligible for training will be subject to the review and rescission of the Executive Council. Would our institutes want to have their educational decisions subject to review and rescission by their local societies? Is this what the members of APsaA want?
The “local option” bylaw amendment garnered 57 percent of the voting membership's support. Clearly, certification, its link to training analyst status and our centralized standards are losing value to the membership. The representatives of our institutes on the BOPS need to listen. Members, as well as some of our institutes, want change. Fair enough; standards should evolve. We need change, but on what basis? Who should decide how and what we change?
If we subordinate educational interests to the membership organization, psychoanalytic education will become subject to our guild interests. Would this be preferable to our present system? The BOPS may have generated too much ill will to receive the membership's support for its functions in their present form. Yet in all other professions, the accrediting and certifying agencies recognize the serious conflict of interest of a credentialing body being subordinate to a general membership organization. We should too.
What do our members want for our educational functions? Do we want psychoanalytic institutes to be subordinate to psychoanalytic societies? Do we want the educational standards and educational credentialing decisions of the Association to be determined by representatives of societies, of institutes, or by some kind of independent, joint process?
If the membership wants institutes subordinate to societies, will psychoanalytic educators continue to be willing to serve the Association with the level of commitment that our current activities require? How will this affect the quality of everything we do? How long will it take for disaffected members to look elsewhere for professional affiliation?
Eric J. Nuetzel, M.D., is chair of the Board on Professional Standards.
What effect will such developments have on the future of the American Psychoanalytic Association?
These are questions worth pondering as we consider the end of the BOPS and the demise of its functions. Is it possible for the essential public interest functions (standard setting and credentialing) to be replaced in some way, shape, or form with something better? Whatever we decide, we must not lose or compromise the integrity of these public interest functions. This is our duty and responsibility as one of the major psychoanalytic organizations in the world. Regardless of how you may feel about certification, its link to training and supervising analyst appointments, and the functioning of the BOPS in general, I hope you understand that the public interest functions of the BOPS should be safeguarded for the public and for the profession. We need a new broadly representative structure or structures to carry out these public interest functions with integrity—inside or outside of the Association. As we say a requiem for the BOPS, perhaps we can simultaneously build structures that will serve the public and the profession well for the next 50 years.