18. The Story Brought to Date, 1996

The ongoing tensions around the applications for IPA affiliation by the White Society and NYCPT continued well into 1992. On January 7, Charles Hanly sent the text of a letter intended for Jay Kwawer of the White Institute to Joseph Zuckerman for legal opinion. He asked again if the White Institute was willing to adhere to IPA training standards as the price of admission: “I know of no instances in which a group that did not subscribe to IPA training standards has been admitted to membership in the IPA. It appears that you are insisting that the IPA must change its admission standards in order to satisfy the requirements of the William Alanson White. Yet it is clear in the agreement that the IPA has no obligation to modify its admission standards.” Hanly again offered to set up a meeting to clarify these issues and to exchange information.

On January 15, 1992, Hanly wrote to Joseph Sandler, reviewing all the ongoing activities on the several fronts. Zuckerman's letter of response to Stromberg had just gone off. There was no new news on the situation with the White Institute. Concerning NYCPT, Al Solnit was gathering all his papers on the first site visit sequence to send on to Sydney Pulver, chair of the new (second) Site Visit Committee. Meanwhile, correspondence was proceeding apace between Pulver and Herbert Strean over the stipulations for the new site visit process—“Syd is doing a great job”—and Pulver was making clear that although the new visiting process would build on the earlier one, it would nonetheless still encompass a general overview and evaluation of the society and the institute; nothing would be considered concluded on the basis of the first site visit process.

On February 3, 1992, there was a first reaction back from the plaintiff side concerning the Zuckerman letter to Cliff Stromberg. Stromberg had evidently sent the letter to all concerned parties among his clients, and on February 3, Strean had written back to Stromberg. He was pleased “to have