Rule Change

The Rule change described below was approved by a Ballot of the IPA Membership in May 2009. 81.9% of the Members who voted were in favour of the change. To read the revised IPA Rules document CLICK HERE.

The following information was sent to Presidents, Secretaries and Administrative Secretaries of all IPA Societies and the Regional Organisations on 12 August 2008.

Survey of the IPA Membership

Proposal to Transfer the Authority to appoint IPA Direct Members from the Business Meeting to the IPA Board.

Introduction

In July 2007 the IPA Board of Representatives voted unanimously that the authority to appoint IPA Direct Members should be transferred from the IPA Business Meeting to the IPA Board.

Background

2. Direct Membership is a temporary type of IPA membership and ceases when a Direct Member becomes a full or associate member of an IPA Constituent Organisation (a Provisional or Component Society). There are currently 72 Direct Members. An average of 10 to 15 Direct Members are approved at each Business Meeting.

Considerations

3. Under the IPA’s current Rules, only the Business Meeting may approve a recommended analyst as a Direct Member of the IPA. This has three disadvantages as follows:

a. Business Meetings only occur every two years. It is thus possible for an individual who has been recommended to and by the Board as a Direct Member to have to wait up to 18 months for the next Business Meeting to approve the appointment. The length of wait and infrequency of Business Meetings is dispiriting to those who fully meet the criteria to become IPA Direct Members.

b. The Board already has authority to create Study Groups, which are normally comprised of Direct Members. However, approval of Study Groups is often held up until the Business Meeting has approved a sufficient number of Direct Members to constitute a Study Group.

c. Most Direct Members are unknown to those attending Business Meetings. The Business Meeting is also not the appropriate forum to question the process by which an individual was assessed for Direct Membership, something the Board is required to scrutinise. The Business Meeting is thus only rubber-stamping a recommendation that has been appropriately checked by the Board. It is thought that the Board will consider such applications even more seriously it if knows it is making the final decision.

4. The Board proposes that authority to appoint IPA Direct Members should be vested in the Board, subject to two conditions:

a. The approval should require a two-thirds majority of the Board’s Entire Voting Membership, the majority usually required where the Board is making significant decisions. At present this requires 16 or more Board votes, regardless of the numbers of voting members attending any particular Board meeting.

b. Any Direct Members approved by the Board should be announced at the next Business Meeting.

5. The benefits of this proposed change will be:

a. That once an applicant for Direct Membership has been appropriately assessed in accordance with IPA procedures, the application may be put to the next Board meeting, so that the maximum delay in the Board’s consideration of the issue is six months.

b. That the process of creating Study Groups, which are approved by the Board and not by the Business Meeting, can be shortened, as there will be no need for the Board to wait for the Business Meeting to approve the required number of Direct Members in order to approve Study Groups.

IPA Rules Changes Required

6. As this policy change requires amendments to the IPA’s Rules, the proposed amendments must be subjected to membership ballot. The changes required to the IPA’s Rules are shown below (underlined indicates an addition, highlighted in yellow indicates deletion) in four current entries as follows:

a. Rule 4, Section B(4): Training IPA Direct Membership. The selection, supervision and training of students may be carried out by a Study Group only when authorised by, and under the jurisdiction of, the Board Sponsoring Committee. On the recommendation of a Sponsoring Committee, the Board may, by a two thirds vote of its Entire Voting Membership, recommend, and the Business Meeting may accept a Study Group member as a Direct Member of the IPA. Those approved by the Board as Direct Members will be announced at the next Business Meeting.

b. Rule 5, Section B: IPA Direct Membership. Under special circumstances or where no Constituent Organisation exits, the Board in its discretion may, by a two-thirds vote of its Entire Voting Membership recommend and the Business Meeting may accept, as an IPA Direct Member any psychoanalyst with adequate training and experience who meets all IPA Criteria for IPA Direct Membership. Those approved by the Board as Direct Members will be announced at the next Business Meeting. IPA Direct Membership terminates when the IPA Member becomes a Full or Associate member of a Component or Provisional Society or the Regional Association.

c. Rule 5, Section E: Termination of IPA Membership. (1) Loss of Constituent Organisation membership. An IPA Member who is not an IPA Direct Member ceases to be an IPA Member when that person ceases to qualify as a member of a Constituent Organisation, unless the Board grants interim IPA Direct Membership (until the next Business Meeting).

d. Rule 6, Section B(2)a: Quorum action by majority vote [in Business Meetings]. A quorum of at least:

(i) 100 IPA Members may by majority vote accept a report of the Board or any Organisational Officer.

(ii) 150 IPA Members may by majority vote pass any non-binding resolution or action. A non-binding resolution is one that expresses the Meeting’s preference but does not take or require any action by or for the IPA or the Board.

(iii) 200 IPA Members may by majority vote approve (a) Component Society or Provisional Society status or (b) accept a Direct Member of the IPA [per Rule 5, Section B]Other references to Direct Members in the Rules do not need changing to reflect this new policy.

Consultation

7. The IPA Rules and Procedures Committee (formerly the Constitution, Bylaws and Procedures Committee) strongly supports these proposed changes to the IPA’s Rules. The IPA’s legal counsel has confirmed that the 4 proposed changes to the Rules above are the only changes required by this proposed change of policy.

Please let us have your views

8. Under IPA Rule 10, Section A(1), the Board may initiate amendments to the IPA’s Rules. After this, each proposed amendment must be submitted to the membership for comment, and then distributed to all members by ballot, including the members’ views received.

This proposed amendment is now being put to you the IPA Membership and we are asking you to send in your views to Jo_b@ipa.org.uk so that they may be included in the material that will be sent with the mail ballot in February 2009. All comments should be received by December 31st at the latest. Comments received after this date cannot be included with the ballot material.

Yours sincerely

Monica Siedmann de Armesto

Secretary General

International Psychoanalytical Association

Secretary General’s summary of views received:

‘I received 21 responses to the survey on this issue one of which came from the Board of an IPA Component Society. All the responses received were in favour of the amendment. All agreed with the reasons stated above. One asked if the 2/3 majority vote from the Board was necessary and if a lower number of votes might be considered.’