BOPS tackled its routine business quickly. Cal Narcissi and Myrna Weiss were elected as co-chair and co-secretary of the Board on Professional Standards—their terms will begin in June 2007. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussion of the proposed bylaw amendments known as Renew the American. These amendments were proposed by four officers, the three most recently elected presidents of APsaA, Jon Meyer, Lynne Moritz, and Prudy Gourguechon and the BOPS chairman, Eric Nuetzel.
Nuetzel reviewed how the four officers decided to propose the Renew Plan. Following the failure of the Council to endorse the report of the Task Force on Reorganization (TFoR), many members associated with BOPS felt demoralized. These members, some longtime opponents of splitting the organization, began to consider models for a complete externalization of BOPS functions.
The proposers of the Renew Plan each believed strongly that the certifying and accrediting functions of BOPS were member benefits and assets of the organization. So they began to devise a tentative plan that would incorporate aspects of all current plans as well as some ideas of their own. They worked in confidence, because at first they felt it would be premature to announce their planning since it was experimental. Once they determined that those members interested in externalizing BOPS would most probably develop a plan, they had a very short period of time left to finalize their proposal.
The proposers consulted legal counsel, as required under the current bylaws, so that the proposal would be formulated in legal bylaws language and ready for discussion before the June meetings. Nuetzel expressed the hope that concerns about the timing and confidential planning could be put aside in favor of a thoughtful discussion of the content of the proposal.
Nuetzel divided the plan into four categories for discussion: the Board of Directors (BOD); the four committees of the corporation, Council of Societies (CS), Council of Institutes (CI), Council for Research and Scholarship, and the Affiliate Council; the APsaA Board for Accreditation and Certification (BAC); the removal of the certification requirement for training and supervising analyst (TA/SA) status as a criterion for BOPS service; and the creation of a Clinical Fellow designation for those who have been certified. The proposed BAC would be a subsidiary limited liability corporation (LLC) responsible for the narrow functions of accreditation and certification.
Hope was expressed that the Renew Plan would have a unifying effect, providing the Association with a functional structure designed to relieve tensions and get work done.
Many fellows praised the proposers for their determination and fortitude. Jon Meyer explained that the new BOD was based on the principle of one member, one vote and that the directors would be nominated regionally and elected nationally, with the addition of five public members who would provide assistance in legal, financial, public relations/advertising, and fundraising needs. The Renew BOD follows the recommendations of Victoria Bjorklund, the Association's legal counsel on New York not-for-profit law, who said that all the research indicates that the optimal number of members of a BOD is 7 to 15 members.
Thoughtful discussion revealed that most of the fellows were aligned with one of three orientations. Those who continued to hope for the collective wisdom of the members of APsaA were generally supportive of the Renew Plan. The plan was compared to the growing national trend of psychoanalytic centers in which fractious disagreements between societies and institutes were no longer a problem. Instead differing opinions were seen as between individuals, and the majority could win in a democratic process. Hope was expressed that the Renew Plan would have a unifying effect, providing the Association with a functional structure designed to relieve tensions and get work done.
Those who doubted the possibility of any resolution of opposing opinions raised objections about the size and composition of the BOD and possible fault lines within or between the CI, CS, and BAC. They wanted more time to study and modify the plan. While they were generally in favor of a smaller, more agile BOD, they were concerned that elections for directors might encourage further polarized political maneuvering. Further, they thought that any unfriendly directors, who might be ignorant of the values of BOPS, might overly influence and make the work of the CI and BAC difficult.
Their main objections, however, had to do with the disruption of the long developed fabric of BOPS. They worried that splitting the executive and nurturing functions of BOPS might lead to a regulatory body (BAC) in which the need to struggle with real problems would give way to received prejudices and a CI with a watered down facilitative function with little clout. These fellows preferred an externalized BOP.
However, many recognized that the organization might not be ready to take this step until one more unifying attempt was made. Eventually, many agreed that the Renew Plan had potential for success. They could see
that relief of stressors such as the removal of the certification requirement for TA/SA status might provide adaptability, allowing the structure to absorb problems. They felt that if the Renew Plan failed, the organization might then be more open to a plan for externalizing BOPS.
Finally there were those fellows who believed that further, organization-wide discussion might still bring resolution. They advised the proposers to withdraw the plan in favor of one more organized effort to develop grassroot support for a new proposal before it was sent to the members.
Many discussants seemed to agree with Nuetzel when he said, “The need is urgent. The educational mission of BOPS is in real trouble. [Negativity towards BOPS] is having a corrosive effect on every level of this Association.”
A motion was made and seconded for BOPS to endorse the Renew Plan. However, many agreed that a blanket endorsement would obscure the richness and introspective nature of the discussion. Furthermore, an endorsement might fail to convey their wish that each local group struggle with problems and potential solutions. All four proposers said they were willing and eager to travel to any psychoanalytic community within the APsaA to discuss the plan with the members directly. Many expressed a desire to foster in-person conversations as opposed to contentious Internet bickering.
For this reason, a motion to table the motion to endorse was passed. It was decided that a statement would be prepared, reflecting the range of opinion within BOPS, thereby enriching subsequent discussions. The vote was 28 to table, 12 against, and 3 abstentions.