The bylaw amendment proposes a structural correction in APsaA's organization. Its objective is to affirm the authority of its Board of Directors (BOD), the Executive Council, in all matters of APsaA's governance. It aims to undo the bicameral governance divided between the Executive Council and the Board on Professional Standards (BOPS) in APsaA's bylaws.
The existing bicameral arrangement gives BOPS exclusive authority to regulate educational and practice standards within our professional organization. The Executive Council representing the membership is precluded from exercising any input or oversight in this regard. Therefore, the members have no say in the professional standards that regulate their educational and career paths within APsaA. By affirming the BOD's authority, the amendment will secure full membership representation.
Psychoanalysis has evolved beyond the confines of the original vision embedded in the standards upheld by BOPS. This causes chronic dissatisfaction among the membership. As practitioners they were precluded from participating in updating the standards while simultaneously losing trust in the validity of the existing standards and of BOPS procedures. This has severely strained collegial bonds and dissipated energy within APsaA, limiting its capacity to adapt to changing internal and external conditions.
The strain is visible even within the Standards Document itself. The multiple exceptions in training analysis waivers and frequency requirements listed in the document make it evident the standards it promulgates are no longer practical or realistic. The BOPS Committee on Institutes found one-third of the approved institutes were in serious trouble. Some of them are moving to define their own standards since the BOPS standards are at odds with their conditions for survival. The system is coming apart at the seams. While BOPS leadership continues to claim its authority prerogatives with regard to training standards, BOPS does not—and indeed cannot—demonstrate its fitness for the task of proving and maintaining their viability. The bicameral arrangement underwriting such authority thus loses the legitimacy for its perpetuation. We need to move on.
And we are moving on, as evidenced by the recent six-part proposal from the Executive Committee for functional reform, endorsed by the Executive Council and BOPS. The proposal envisions externalized certification and institute choice to use it or not. Along with creation of a non-regulatory Department of Psychoanalytic Education on a par with other departments that report to the Executive Council, it thereby effectively dissolves the specific BOPS functions of regulating professional standards within APsaA. Freed from constraints of imposed regulations, such a department would become a seat for a true educational conversation between institutes, based on innovation and exchange of ideas.
The proposed bylaw amendment similarly and simply recognizes this unitary organizational principle of streamlined authority as residing in a board of directors (in line with the New York State Not-for-Profit Law.) The rhetoric from the leadership of BOPS that the amendment undermines the endorsed overall reformative proposal from the Executive Committee misrepresents both its spirit and mode of introduction. Signed by over 50 member petitioners months before, it predated the Executive Committee initiative. Furthermore, both proposals are fully aligned in the understanding that the streamlined representation and authority are a necessary precondition for the envisioned overall reforms. The argument that the amendment proposal vitiates the proposed reform package is a rhetorical straw man raised in hopes of conserving BOPS authority over standards.
This is not surprising. Conservatism has been a defining characteristic of APsaA's history, with BOPS installed as the curatorial guardian of psychoanalytic standards. This role is cemented by the requirement of intertwining psychoanalytic training of candidates with their analyses within the system. This encourages an abiding attachment and allegiance to the system, reinforcing its status quo. Cherished standard paradigms then escape needed reviews of their continued professional relevance. Indeed, such is the degree of identification with it and with the zeal for regulatory control, that the proposed amendment is being experienced by some in near personal terms, as an assault on, and offense to, their own beings and self-esteem.
So, the conversation about the amendment is another example of the difficulties in separating rhetorical from substantive propositional discussions in our organization. In recognition of the high emotional stakes, the Executive Council has resolved that regardless of the outcome of the membership vote on the amendment, it would undertake no action with regard to educational standards until all proposed reforms are in place together.
Luba Kessler, M.D., is councilor for Psychoanalytic Association of NY; on faculty of Institute for Psychoanalytic Education affiliated with NYU; in private practice in Long Island, NY. She organized the signature drive to bring the bylaw amendment to membership vote.
Following joint and separate discussions in San Francisco, the BOPS fellows and the executive councilors delivered their respective advisory votes on the amendment proposal on its substantive merits. Despite a strong campaign by the conservative BOPS leaders against it, 18 BOPS fellows—in a shift away from the customary lockstep formation—voted for the amendment, with 23 against. The following day, the Council delivered an overwhelmingly strong vote in support.
The petition for the bylaw amendment by more than 50 members was undertaken on behalf of the evolving needs and aspirations of APsaA's membership. It anticipated the reformative proposal issued by the Executive Committee, resolutely galvanizing the Executive Council and BOPS. The amendment aims to include all members in substantive conversation about their profession, its standards and its organization. The vote on it is a referendum on reform at APsaA.