NAPsaC Board Meeting

Executive Board:
Co-Chairs: Prudence Gourguechon, Robert Pyles (APsaA), Co-Chairs
Secretary-Treasurer: Rick Perlman (CIPS)

Representatives:
Martin Gauthier, Canadian Psychoanalytic Society, (CPS), Steve Rosenbloom, (CPS); Elizabeth Fritch, New York Freudian Society (NYFS); Sam Gerson, Psychoanalytic Center of Northern California (PINC), Kyoshi Ogura, Japan Psychoanalytic Society (JPS), Osamu Kitayama (JPS); Leigh Tobias, Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies (CIPS).

Minutes of Meeting

Face to Face, August 1, 2009
McCormick Center, Chicago, Il

Present: Harriet Basseches (CIPS alternate), Elizabeth Fritsch, Martin Gauthier, Sam Gerson, Prudence Gourguechon, Osamu Kitayama, Kiyoshi Ogura, Robert Pyles, Warren Procci, Steve Rosenbloom, Leigh Tobias.

Guests: Seiga Gon (Korean Candidate), Abbot Bronstein (WP); Gunther Perdigao, Secretary-General of the IPA; North American Representatives to the IPA Board: Harriet Basseches, Fred Busch, Nadine Levinson, Arthur Leonoff, Beth Seelig,

Absent: Rick Perlman.

Quorum present

1. Minutes from January 2009 meeting approved.
2. Revised agenda accepted.
3. Treasurer's Report
   1. Request circulation of current finance report to be added to minutes as Treasurer is absent.
      
      ACTION: unanimous agreement for report to be an addendum to current minutes.
   2. Discussion of dues increase. $2.00 per member dues assessment to be taken to each society again for review. CIPS and CPS have ratified the proposed dues structure; others need to report back. It was noted that a two-year lead time is necessary to implement a dues increase.
      
      ACTION: All society votes need to be registered with the NAPsaC Chairs by email as soon as possible.
4. Hosting Social Event in New York in January
   
   APsaA traditionally hosts 2 representatives each from the EPF and FEPAL at the January meetings. There was discussion of how NAPsaC could be involved in this social event.
   
   ACTION: The board approved a plan for NAPsaC to host a modest lunch, to be arranged by NYFS, CIPS (IPTAR), and APsaA reps that are in New York. The lunch invitees are leadership from EPF, FEPAL, and NAPsaC. No partners invited.
5. Working Parties: Abbot Bronstein joined the meeting to report:
   
   The IPA is in favor of further development of the Working Parties model in North America. In North America it will be referred to as Working Groups to distinguish the initiative from the EPF model.
   
   Background:
   
   WP was proposed for NAPsaC to develop its identity. Harriet Basseches, as Chair of NAPsaC, appointed Abbot Bronstein to pilot the project for three (3) years to see what might develop.
   
   WG Steering Committee members, representative of the NAPsaC groups: Abbot Bronstein, Chair; Harriet Basseches, Margaret-Ann Fitzgerald Hanly, Peter Ruderman, Beth Seelig, Ronnie Shaw, Jeanne Wolf-Bernstein (alternate), Nancy Wolf; Prudence Gourguechon and Bob Pyles, ex-officio as NAPsaC chairs. The original seed money from NAPsaC was $2,000.00, which has been used.
   
   Current situation:
   
   A. Bronstein suggests first that WG have one coordinator for the region who has been familiar with the WG from the start and can provide consistency and fairness in dealing with the models and themes. Without this oversite, the potential for divisiveness and competition between themes and models is strong. Ten years is proposed for this position; less tenure for other chairs.
   
   The primary aim of the WP is for psychoanalysts to study psychoanalysis together. Other aims are to learn from each other regionally, to further develop psychoanalytic listening, to sensitize analysts regarding similarities and differences in psychoanalytic technique, and to strengthen psychoanalysis worldwide. Toward this end there needs to be many workshops with a variety workshops of themes.
   
   There are two parts to the WP model: 1) workshops and 2) reflection by the moderators, presenters, and group members after the workshops. This process also develops new moderators.
   
   A workshop is a group of twelve that is constellated one time with a moderator and a presenter as two of the twelve. One case is presented in depth, and discussed around a theme that has been designated ahead of time. The twelve members choose to participate according to a theme of interest to each participant. The groups are formed to contain members from each IPA region. The workshop provides the raw data that is then used by the Working Party (or, Working Group.)
   
   Reflection on the workshop takes place during the workshop and afterward. The moderator guides discussion around the theme of the workshop during the workshop. Afterward a report is written and circulated to all members of the workshop. Then the moderators from the workshops, and members of the steering committee confer about the outcomes reported. The ongoing education of how to moderate the groups toward constructive (rather than defensive) functioning is considered. There is also collection of reports and outcome of discussion.
   
   The work-group after the data-gathering workshop carries the kernel of the idea, the theme, of that workshop and develops it by writing reports, sharing reports, and developing workshop moderator skills that emerge as important and useful from the experience in the workshops. The name Working Party or Working Group represents this reflective part of the whole process.
   
   The funding needed for the Working Groups is for housing the workshops (collection of data) and to support the ongoing work of the Working Party/Group (processing of data). The costs include: some transportation costs for some moderators, housing the Groups, and telephone expenses.
   
   It was noted that Working Groups differ from Clinical Conferences in that one case is focused upon for a particular theme to be explored during the workshop and afterward. Clinical conferences provide a forum for all participants to present, and there is not a formal reflective portion or the focus on a product of the group process for use later, nor use of or development of moderators. Both are useful for participants, but are different in aim.
   
   One question was whether moderators need training, and therefore why fund training? The discussion lead to the experience that structured groups seem to promote a constructive group process, hopefully to prevent the kind of occurrence that happened to one to one NAPsaC member in an other-than-WG-group.
   
   To date the WG themed workshops are: Initiating Psychoanalysis; Specificity of Psychoanalysis; and, Comparative Clinical Methods. Education is not a part of the WP or WG offering. There is a plan to add one more model: Child Psychoanalysis, in Washington, D.C., in the Spring of 2010. To date the WG have been well attended and are considered successful because of the enlivening effect the groups have on all participants and a perceived enlivening and broader perspective taken back to societies as well. This seems to also enliven the profession as a whole. There are two more meetings planned, in New York in January, as well as Spring 2010, to complete the pilot project.
   
   The WG is now asking for $5,000.00 from the North American region. Right now participants pay a minimal charge. The participants will be charged more to participate in New York and D.C. The requested funds are to defray the cost of 1) meeting rooms 2) presenters' and possibly the moderators' plane and hotel for workshops and 3) plane fare and/or lodging for moderators in meetings that are sometimes separate from the workshop meetings. There has also been a request for rooms at the APsaA meetings in January, but A. Bronstein reports little is actually promised.
   
   According to A. Bronstein, the long-term projection of funds needed to be a self-supporting region would $60-80,000.00 per year. He proposed raising NAPsaC dues to $10.00 per member to cover the expenses. The EPF and FEPAL dues are $100.00 and $85.00 per member, respectively. The IPA is supportive of development of the WG to enliven and promote psychoanalysis worldwide. There is a strong encouragement for the North American Region to support development of the WG.
   
   The question remained: how does NAPsaC want to support this effort?
   
   IPA Board members joined the meeting
   
   The Board members reiterated the view of the WP/WG: 1) to enliven psychoanalytic practice by sharing and learning face to face with Members and Candidates from all three regions 2) to further awareness of an individual, society, or regional bias in technique 3) to develop a body of data and literature that might support an 'evidence-based' definition and value of psychoanalysis. It was noted by the IPA Board members that incoming IPA President Charles Hanley is in full support of the WP/WG effort.
   
   Summary of questions from NAPsaC Board to IPA Representatives: 1) How are participating group members given informed consent to join a workshop? Answer: by choosing to participate via description of the WG, and by choosing the theme of the workshop 2) What are term limits of all organizers? Answer: (noted above). 3) Is there a conflict of interest at the IPA level with funding to WP if an IPA Member on the IPA Board is personally invested in the WP? Answer: No. D. Tuckett is going to Chair CAPSA, which will fund such projects, and he has been involved in one WP, the CCM. However, he has a committee and an Executive Board to provide check and balance. Also, all themes of WP/WG are encouraged by the IPA. 4) Where is the oversight of the WP vested? Answer: in the IPA Board now. 5) Can participants simply pay their own way to the meetings? That is one option, but hopefully there can be global support for this project which is aimed at professional self-reflection for analysts themselves, and the profession as a whole.
   
   Members of the IPA Board suggested voluntary NAPsaC dues be requested for the WG project, for example, $25.00 per member.
   
   The NAPsaC Board responded to Bronstein and IPA Board that funding will take more time and discussion than the NAPsaC time line and internal organization presently allows.
   
   ACTION: a proposal needs to be developed to evaluate the effectiveness and value of the WG.
   
   ACTION: Financial support for WG is tabled at present. Further discussion and information is needed to decide.
6. IPA Education Conference Arthur Leonoff reporting:
   The October 30-31 Conference in Boston is part of the IPA Oversight on Education committee work, and as such a follow-up to the ongoing work on psychoanalytic education in all 3 IPA regions.
   
   This is a clarification; the conference is not one of the WP nor WG. The representation at that conference from the North American Region is as follows: APsaA: 5 reps; CIPS: 3 reps; CPS: 2 reps; NYFS: 1 rep; PINC: 1 rep; IPA E&O: 3 reps. Societies are urged to choose senior representatives such as directors of training and senior educators as soon as possible to confirm.
   
   The aim of the conference is to self-reflect on the region's process in the presence of the Other as represented by the members of the committee on Education and Oversite.
   
   ACTION: names of reps to be reported back to Co-Chairs.
7. NAPsaC-EPF Clinical Conference
   
   There is a tri-regional Conference in Portugal at the end of July 2010 "on the beach." NAPsaC is invited to apply. It is a 'pay your own way' conference.
   
   ACTION: send invitation to NAPsaC Board list.
8. New Study Groups
   
   There are two new IPA Study Groups: Korean and Vermont. NAPsaC will invite them to join our Board.
   
   The new groups would be provisional members of the NAPsaC Board for two years, without voting privileges, to understand the work of NAPsaC. If they would like to join after that time, they will do so under NAPsaC by-laws.
   
   ACTION: The Board approved unanimously to adopt this policy for any new group to NAPsaC.
9. IPA 100 years celebration
   
   NCP and PCC on the West Coast will have a celebration of Freud's great grand-daughter's sculpture and chamber music.
   
   ACTION: NAPsaC will be added as 'sponsor' of the event.
   
   Beth Seelig also noted the sponsorship of "Creativity Through the Lifecycle" a conference to be held at Emory University on October 24-28, 2010. It will be an interdisciplinary conference. It could be simulcast in Canada or other locations. NAPsaC was asked to consider coordinating the simulcast. It would cost little money.
10. Discussion re place of NAPsaC versus other regions
    
    The NAPsaC co-Chairs noted NAPsaC is a new organization, whereas EPF is much more established. For NAPsaC to support in the way IPA asks is premature at this time.
    
    The IPA Board recognized the differences, and also reminded North America to be aware of more than its own region; that there is an aim to have a global presence of psychoanalysis for its survival and its development which requires a broad view beyond each region. The new Board of the IPA would like a forum to be in place where leaders of each region can meet and converse and not leave a sector out.
    
    NAPsaC asked that the priorities of the new IPA Board be outlined. The Secretary-General outlined the following:
    1. That Board members have "greater Board involvement." One change toward that end is that a Board member can now also chair IPA committees, and in so doing have greater contact with the work of the committees.
    2. Outreach: we need to replenish psychoanalysis. Reach to universities, other professional groups. There is a Public Information Committee, and a new Outreach Committee (chair: Marvin Margolis).
    3. Research: the aim toward greater coherence between theories. That is, if all are studied, can a baseline be established that harmonizes all psychoanalytic theory? This is why the IPA Board supports WP and WG.
    4. Streamline the expenses of Broomhills. NAPsaC suggested streamlining the print materials also, as they are too 'print-dense' at present.
11. Next meeting: Conference call
    
    A lot of work and discussion remains. A conference call on a Sunday morning was suggested. The next face-to-face will be at the APsaA meetings in January.
    
    ACTION: The Board approved a Sunday AM conference call, date tbd.
12. The meeting adjourned at 1:05 PM, CDT.