This past June, the Board on Professional Standards (BOPS) convened lengthy discussions of the proposed bylaw amendment, which came forth between the January 2015 meetings and the February 2015 retreat of the Executive Committee. That retreat produced an alternative to the bylaw amendment, the proposal for comprehensive governance reform as put forth by the Executive Committee. BOPS overwhelmingly affirmed its support for that Executive Committee proposal. The bylaw amendment was in turn opposed. It is seen as a vestige of politics of old, undercutting the spirit of collaboration reflected in the Executive Committee's proposal. As the endorsed alternative, the Executive Committee proposal provides for a process of thoughtful collaborative design of new governance through the development of new structures and consultation with an expert in nonprofit membership governance.
The Executive Committee proposal for comprehensive governance reform was forged from a determination to move APsaA forward from decades of acrimony that have drained needed energy and talent from our organization and profession. To achieve this, decades of rancor and mistrust based on perceptions, misperceptions and politics had to be addressed.
Key elements of the proposal include the externalization of the regulatory functions of BOPS, the creation of a Department of Psychoanalytic Education (DPE) within APsaA to promote discussion and consultation between APsaA institutes on matters related to psychoanalytic education, and, through the assistance of an outside consultant, self-assessment by the Executive Council to examine Council's ability to govern effectively. Inherent to these ideas would be true institute autonomy beyond baseline requirement to adhere to IPA Eitingon standards so that our institutes would maintain IPA affiliation and APsaA would maintain its status as a regional association.
APsaA institutes that elect to adhere to additional standards could participate in an external entity following such standards without needing to leave APsaA or alter their standing. Institutes wishing to require certification for any purpose, including candidate development using the pregraduation pathway and/or as a component of training analyst appointment would use the newly established American Board of Psychoanalysis (ABP). Beginning in January 2016 the ABP will be used by APsaA for the certification examination component of APsaA certification.
The DPE would provide a home for the nonregulatory functions of BOPS, offering a forum for education and consultation between institutes through nonregulatory committees. An Institute Requirements and Review Committee (IRRC) would be developed to review applications of non-APsaA institutes, establishing procedures to determine whether the educational program of an applicant institute was “substantially equivalent” to the Eitingon baseline standards.
Lastly, the Executive Council would begin its process of self-assessment utilizing a consultant for best practices of boards of directors of nonprofit membership organizations. This process would be developed by councilors in collaboration with a consultant of Council's choosing.
Much work needs to occur before a final proposal is presented to our members. Institutes will need to deliberate on these proposals and our members will need to inform themselves of key content areas, including what the Eitingon standards are, which educational functions will rest in the new DPE and which will be externalized, and what the procedures for the new IRRC will be. The consultant's recommendations regarding Council will also need to be considered. Extensive bylaw changes embracing the proposal in its entirety will need to be developed and vetted by our Bylaws Committee, and, ultimately, voted on by our membership. Following the February retreat of the Executive Committee, a task force of BOPS was launched to advise how the nonregulatory functions of BOPS will transition to the DPE, and how the external entity housing regulatory functions could be constructed.
In June BOPS fully endorsed the Executive Committee's proposal to restructure APsaA. The critical elements of timing and synchrony necessary for this proposal to become a reality can only occur after all APsaA members become informed of the components of this plan. In the Executive Committee proposal the Executive Council would gain authority over APsaA functions only after the creation of the internal and external structures as outlined, full revision of APsaA's bylaws for such comprehensive changes to occur, and consultation to Council focusing on modern best practices for nonprofit membership organizations.
The bylaw amendment skips over the process of collaboration and reconciliation needed to restructure our organization, returning to old power struggles of winning and losing. Such a narrow bylaw change would lead to further alienation of members and institutes, inflaming the acrimony and distrust that has haunted our organization for decades. Alternatively, the Executive Committee proposal offers a process for healing and orderly transition. Forged by the Executive Committee through relinquishment of ambitions of winning and losing, it demanded active listening to others' perceptions and positions, respectful and thoughtful communication, and ultimately the establishment of trust. This is the process our entire organization must enter for the kind of healing that will move us toward a better future. The bylaw amendment moves us away from such a process, threatening our collaborative momentum by returning to old power struggles and the inflammation of old acrimonies. For this reason the bylaw amendment was opposed by BOPS, which, instead and without divide, fully endorsed the Executive Committee proposal as the path to reach our goals.
Lee I. Ascherman, M.D., is chair of the Board on Professional Standards.
Elizabeth Brett, Ph.D., is secretary of the Board on Professional Standards.