Beth Seelig announced that after generous support from APsaA, the American Psychoanalytic Foundation, and APsaA members, as well as many others, the New Orleans Psychoanalytic Center (NOPC) is making progress on its revival efforts. Denise Dorsey expressed intense gratitude, saying that she wanted everyone to know that the majority of members of the NOPC community had been overwhelmed with the devastation from Katrina. She said, “We were just shaking our heads saying, ‘there is just no way.’ It felt totally impossible. But with the heartfelt response, both emotional and financial, we have been resuscitated. The majority of our group is feeling vastly better and I just want to say thank you.”
Myrna Weiss enthusiastically reported that the Committee on Institutes (COI) workshop had begun a discussion about the role of the training analyst and the faculty of the institute in candidate education. The workshop was oriented around the following questions: What is the rationale for the current training analyst system? What should be the role of the institutes and the national organization in the selection of training analysts? And should TA and SA be separate designations with different requirements, different tracks of development, and different selection processes? There seemed to be a consensus that some form of TA system was important for the analysis of candidates, but there was no consensus on the question of what form it should take.
The Project for Innovation in Psychoanalytic Education (PIPE) committee members are still in the process of gathering information and formulating recommendations about the complex and sensitive subject of the current training analyst system and its functions, both positive and negative. Michael Singer said that, in their study, the members felt they must keep in mind the best interest of the candidate, while not neglecting the interests of the faculty. It is not good to ask an applicant for training to switch analysts; however, it could work out to be better in some circumstances. He said, “Choosing a candidate is probably the thing we do least well. Insuring they have the best chance once admitted might be better than having to ask them to leave down the road or graduating them for the wrong reasons.” Eric Nuetzel, speaking as the chair of BOPS, added, “We try to give institutes maximal latitude within the parameters of our standards, many of which can be waived, to allow them to appoint anyone they want to be a training analyst. It's a local decision. There has to be a way out of this dilemma, to give institutes some flexibility but to maintain that core idea that there has to be some assurance that the person is minimally competent.”
Phyllis Tyson, as the new chair, reported on the Committee on Child and Adolescent Analysis (COCAA) sponsored workshops, which are now open to chairs and faculty of child committees as well as to graduates and candidates of child programs. The workshop at this meeting was entitled “Child Analytic Consultation and Community Outreach.” After three stimulating presentations and discussion, the committee had concluded that community outreach can help both child and adult practices. The three institutes represented by the presenters, the Hannah Perkins Center and the institutes in St. Louis and Houston, have been thriving because of their community outreach activities. Communities have many needs, especially in the area of child care and education. These needs present many opportunities for institutes to help the community and, by so doing, to help themselves. COCAA strongly recommends that institutes develop child and adolescent psychotherapy programs, low fee clinics, community outreach, and new training centers.
In his report, Cal Narcissi said that the potential for injury in the certification interview had become apparent to the members of the Certification Advisory Research and Development Committee (CARD). At the next meeting, Narcissi and Kirsten Dahl plan to sit in on the interviews as observers for the purpose of gathering data that will be used in subsequent training of interviewers. In an effort to increase the percentage of graduates who apply for certification, the committee wants to advertise the theoretical diversity of the Certification Examination Committee (CEC). CARD is also considering regionalization of the certification procedure. With four regional teams with at least one representative from each institute, certification may become a possibility for those who prefer not to travel or cannot afford to travel to the national meetings.
Stuart Hauser stated the goal of the Committee on Research and Education (CRED): to enhance opportunities for research, critical thinking, and scholarship in the educational activities of our institutes and organization's educational activities. Many committees, PIPE, COCAA, CEC, CARD, and the Task Force on Reorganization, had already found the resources of CRED to be helpful. Hauser said that there are many opportunities to study questions, and the membership of CRED would like to see the services provided by CRED become systematic rather than serendipitous.
Robert Galatzer-Levy emphasized, as he explained the recommendations of the Task Force on Reorganization (TFoR), “If we do not work together and decide how to proceed with governance, we will spend the next decade struggling…and if we struggle and use our energies only to fight with one another, the major job of this organization, that is to accomplish things in the world, will not get done.” A lively discussion preceded BOPS's acceptance of the TFoR proposal.