A Progressive Step Forward: Why the Executive Committee's Governance Proposal is the Only Option

The Bylaw

No committee of the corporation established pursuant to or cited in Article VII shall have the authority to bind the Executive Council in any respect whatsoever, including, without limitation, with respect to contracts, monetary matters, or any policies and procedures pertaining to any of the functions or purposes of the Association, such as, for example, policies and procedures pertaining to administration, public information, advocacy, professional education, and certification of psychoanalysts.

For the first time in our long and illustrious history we are on the threshold of major change. This change, approved by the Executive Council and the Board on Professional Standards is embodied in the Executive Committee's six-point proposal for organizational reform; a comprehensive plan bringing fundamental changes in structure and function to modernize and strengthen our professional organization.

The primary obstacle that threatens to derail this inclusive process comes from the bylaw amendment proposal, which harks back to a divisive past outside of consensus within APsaA. The bylaw amendment proposal excludes the many interested parties within APsaA and is not a part of the Executive Committee proposal. We cannot emphasize enough that this bylaw proposal goes against the spirit and compromise of the Executive Committee proposal that was resoundingly approved by all parts of APsaA.

During APsaA's history there have been multiple efforts to solve our organizational difficulties. Almost all became historical footnotes while external threats to our profession only grew. Ultimately, our organizational structure will mean very little if psychoanalysis also becomes a historical footnote. If this ill-timed and divisive bylaw proposal is not defeated, the six-point proposal could become another in a long list of footnotes, and disastrous upheaval in APsaA will result. This is why we ask that you support the Executive Committee's six-point proposal by opposing the bylaw proposal.

The Future

We are at a critical crossroad where we can no longer ignore realities in the modern world of professional organizations. Our founders were in some ways prescient in their design of the APsaA we have known. While “bicameral” has for some become a dirty word, this structure was designed to separate educational functions and regulation from all other aspects of organization governance. It turns out modern organizations separate these entities. All professional organizations have moved to a structure that separates or firewalls organizational management from education policy and regulation. The first objective of APsaA's 2011 Strategic Plan under Governance and Management states: “Move to a governance structure, operations and policies and procedures consistent with model professional association best practices.”

Modern non-profit organizational structures including all involved with education follow federal guidelines unless state regulations are more stringent. Even if an organization is not federally recognized, they follow suit for three reasons:

1. Federal expectations set the compass for the future. Already we have had one of our institutes face the challenge of state regulations threatening the future of its program. The state insisted on proof the Committee on Institutes of the Board on Professional Standards had sufficient rigor, authority and autonomy from the membership organization to approve the analytic training program of the institute. A touch and go situation had a favorable outcome.

2. Federal recognition opens opportunities for grants and loans otherwise not available to institutes or candidates.

3. Good faith efforts of professions to regulate themselves outside of membership organizations demonstrate effort to protect the public, diminishing risk for government intrusion into professional affairs.

Title IV of the Higher Education Act mandates professional organizations that accredit must be separate and independent (CFP Section 602.12(a)(3)) from a trade association. It reads:

“The structure of modern professional organizations must be one that satisfies the ‘separate and independent’ requirement for accreditation outlined in federal legislation.” “Separate and independent” means:

1. “The members of the agency's decision-making body—who decide the accreditation or preaccreditation status of institutions or programs, establish the agency's accreditation policies, or both—are not elected or selected by the board or chief executive officer of any related, associated, or affiliated trade association or membership organization;

2. At least one member of the agency's decision-making body is a representative of the public, and at least one-seventh of that body consists of representatives of the public;

3. The agency has established and implemented guidelines for each member of the decision-making body to avoid conflicts of interest;

4. The agency's dues are paid separately from any dues paid to any related, associated, or affiliated trade association or membership organization;

5. The agency develops and determines its own budget, with no review by or consultation with any other entity or organization.“

Summary

This critical information, often drowned out by the noise of organization politics, is essential to our future. The set of six proposals presented by the Executive Committee are consistent with these principles, reflecting thoughtful cooperation between the officers of the organization and the leadership of the Board on Professional Standards. It promotes the separation of approving/accrediting functions from the membership organization and recognizes the externalization of certification. It directs the Executive Council to review its functioning using a consultant with expertise in non-profit boards of professional organizations.

A Last Word

We are on a constructive path that involves the whole organization, striving for a bright future for our beloved profession. The undergirding of this path is the six-point Executive Committee proposal. It is easy to regress or stay stuck in protracted organizational enactment. But if you want to ensure change by working together on this new path, we urge you to vote NO on the bylaw proposal.