Dear Colleagues,
As it looks like this trading of posts may go on until all the ballots are in, let me say right away that I completely agree with Drew Clemens that this election is not about certification, or local option, or by-law amendments.
It is about whether we want the more traditional forces who have run this organization for decades (whether in the executive committee or through the Board of Professional Standards) to continue: to resist the call of the future; to resist the call for full and equal rights for social workers, for psychologists, and for academics; to resist the call for candidates to have greater choice in choosing their analyst; to resist the call for greater democratization and for greater investment of power in our democratic processes.
Or do we want our elected officers to speak for the long disenfranchised, to speak to both our elitist history and our inclusive future, to work diligently to move our organization towards a creative and diverse future, to become an association of psychoanalysts that really is at the center of the next generations of psychoanalytic ideas and psychoanalytic practitioners. These are the truly progressive candidates who are best suited to represent all of our members.
As far as depth of experience is concerned, I’ll say, hopefully immodestly and briefly, that mine is unmatched by any recent candidate for this office, with five years as an officer and a total of nine years as an elected member of our Board of Directors, as well as with many years of additional experience in this and in other organizations (rather than take your time here please visit my website at www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com ).
Yes, labels are troubling, but sometimes necessary to clarify differences. I am asking you to vote for the progressive candidates in this election, so that we can all effect the ongoing transformation of our organization into a rich, creative, democratic place for all of us (analysts, therapists, teachers, researchers) who love this field.
Sincerely,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
A Distinguishing Feature of My Candidacy
Dear Colleagues,
The recent exchanges about removing certification from the bylaws help to highlight a distinguishing aspect of my candidacy.
“Taking certification out of the bylaws” would not resolve our difficulties about certification. The leadership of BOPS has been and is likely to remain firm in their insistence that all institutes must follow “national standards”, which include certification.
The difference between my position and Drew’s is clear. He writes:
“The prominent issue of certification should be resolved so that the procedure is perceived to be collegial rather than noxious if it is retained, and the institutes ***through BOPS*** should be freed to be more flexible about how they select training and supervising analysts” (emphasis added).
This would leave the amount of “flexibility” available to institutes up to BOPS which might well amount to flexibility within quite rigid limits.
I trust our institutes to act reasonably. I favor local institute option as to whether or not an institute uses certification as part of their procedure for selecting TAs.
I hope you will vote for me.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
The recent exchanges about removing certification from the bylaws help to highlight a distinguishing aspect of my candidacy.
“Taking certification out of the bylaws” would not resolve our difficulties about certification. The leadership of BOPS has been and is likely to remain firm in their insistence that all institutes must follow “national standards”, which include certification.
The difference between my position and Drew’s is clear. He writes:
“The prominent issue of certification should be resolved so that the procedure is perceived to be collegial rather than noxious if it is retained, and the institutes ***through BOPS*** should be freed to be more flexible about how they select training and supervising analysts” (emphasis added).
This would leave the amount of “flexibility” available to institutes up to BOPS which might well amount to flexibility within quite rigid limits.
I trust our institutes to act reasonably. I favor local institute option as to whether or not an institute uses certification as part of their procedure for selecting TAs.
I hope you will vote for me.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Sunday, December 9, 2007
What Distinguishes My Candidacy for President-Elect
Dear Colleagues (especially the undecided, dispirited, or confused),
My apologies for yet another post, but it seems that my letters and postings about inclusiveness, diversity, democracy, and reconciliation spurred first a flurry of negative responses and have now brought on postings that, in some ways, nearly copy my words and positions. But the differences among the candidates are great, and this is a very important election, so please vote, and vote thoughtfully.
HERE ARE WHERE THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES LIE:
I have said repeatedly, and have long supported, that we need an inclusive and democratic vision of our future. (Among other things this means absolute equal rights and opportunity for social workers, academics, psychologists etc.) Other candidates say ‘yes, but we’re all analysts….’, as though equality can just be assumed.
I have repeatedly raised the issue of diversity (in race, gender, sexual orientation, culture, and discipline, etc.) and our need to embrace diversity as a foundation for creativity and progress. Other candidates have seemed loathe to grapple with this fact in any depth.
I have spoken strongly for our need to attend to our history and to work to reconcile the exclusionary wounds and abuses that have marginalized those within and without our organization. My more traditional opponents think we do best to ignore that history, as if we could possibly move forward or bring people together without fully comprehending it.
I have written about the freedom that candidates need to have in choosing the analyst who’s best for them and how, through so-called local option, we can begin to make this happen. The more traditional candidates speak about ‘national standards’, not seeming to realize how our exclusionary and arbitrary national standards have diminished our prominence in the world.
I do favor national standards (just as have been ecumenically designed by the Consortium of major psychoanalytic organizations) and a certification system that is national and independent of our organization, as is the case in all other clinical and academic fields. Those who are more traditional want to obscure this issue, either by diminishing it, by delaying it, by ‘task forcing’ it, or by acting as if all hell (a 3-letter word) would let loose if such changes occurred.
As I’ve noted before, we are at a ‘tipping’ point in our organization, and the choice is to continue with business as usual or to take some creative and evolutionary steps to help our organization thrive as the robust, diverse, and creative umbrella for psychoanalysts and psychoanalysis that it has the potential to be.
Please do contact me if you have any questions or concerns (email wrprocci@sbcglobal.net, or phone 626-793-7957). And please don’t neglect to vote.
P.S. As an aside, it amuses me somewhat to be depicted as ‘radical’ or ‘divisive’. In case you don’t know, I have been the Treasurer of APsaA for the past six years. I’m a middle-aged white guy who walks around our meetings in three-piece suits, quietly listens to the perspective of others, works easily and collaboratively with my colleagues, and rarely utters a four-letter word (though they don’t escape the momentary fantasy).
So, in a sense, I’m an establishment figure who greatly values our organization, who gets things done in productive and cooperative ways, and whose ideas about governance, outreach, research, and practice overlap on many points with our more conservative candidates. But I also think that the differences I’ve outlined above are crucial to the future success and creativity of our organization, and qualify me as the best candidate to lead all of our members.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
My apologies for yet another post, but it seems that my letters and postings about inclusiveness, diversity, democracy, and reconciliation spurred first a flurry of negative responses and have now brought on postings that, in some ways, nearly copy my words and positions. But the differences among the candidates are great, and this is a very important election, so please vote, and vote thoughtfully.
HERE ARE WHERE THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES LIE:
I have said repeatedly, and have long supported, that we need an inclusive and democratic vision of our future. (Among other things this means absolute equal rights and opportunity for social workers, academics, psychologists etc.) Other candidates say ‘yes, but we’re all analysts….’, as though equality can just be assumed.
I have repeatedly raised the issue of diversity (in race, gender, sexual orientation, culture, and discipline, etc.) and our need to embrace diversity as a foundation for creativity and progress. Other candidates have seemed loathe to grapple with this fact in any depth.
I have spoken strongly for our need to attend to our history and to work to reconcile the exclusionary wounds and abuses that have marginalized those within and without our organization. My more traditional opponents think we do best to ignore that history, as if we could possibly move forward or bring people together without fully comprehending it.
I have written about the freedom that candidates need to have in choosing the analyst who’s best for them and how, through so-called local option, we can begin to make this happen. The more traditional candidates speak about ‘national standards’, not seeming to realize how our exclusionary and arbitrary national standards have diminished our prominence in the world.
I do favor national standards (just as have been ecumenically designed by the Consortium of major psychoanalytic organizations) and a certification system that is national and independent of our organization, as is the case in all other clinical and academic fields. Those who are more traditional want to obscure this issue, either by diminishing it, by delaying it, by ‘task forcing’ it, or by acting as if all hell (a 3-letter word) would let loose if such changes occurred.
As I’ve noted before, we are at a ‘tipping’ point in our organization, and the choice is to continue with business as usual or to take some creative and evolutionary steps to help our organization thrive as the robust, diverse, and creative umbrella for psychoanalysts and psychoanalysis that it has the potential to be.
Please do contact me if you have any questions or concerns (email wrprocci@sbcglobal.net, or phone 626-793-7957). And please don’t neglect to vote.
P.S. As an aside, it amuses me somewhat to be depicted as ‘radical’ or ‘divisive’. In case you don’t know, I have been the Treasurer of APsaA for the past six years. I’m a middle-aged white guy who walks around our meetings in three-piece suits, quietly listens to the perspective of others, works easily and collaboratively with my colleagues, and rarely utters a four-letter word (though they don’t escape the momentary fantasy).
So, in a sense, I’m an establishment figure who greatly values our organization, who gets things done in productive and cooperative ways, and whose ideas about governance, outreach, research, and practice overlap on many points with our more conservative candidates. But I also think that the differences I’ve outlined above are crucial to the future success and creativity of our organization, and qualify me as the best candidate to lead all of our members.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
My Presentation at the Future of Psychoanalytic Education Conference
Power and Authority in Institute Life
Let me begin by telling you about my background in dealing with authority in educational settings. I have been a Director of a psychiatric residency training program (6 years), a Dean and EC Chair of a psychoanalytic institute (5 years), and a Trustee of a college (9 years).
I’d like to take a moment to describe my observations and my reaction to the educational milieu when I returned to my college as a Trustee 31 years after I graduated. During my undergraduate years, Wagner College was a very traditional and conservative institution. At one time it had been affiliated with the Lutheran Church. Instruction occurred in typical classroom settings, utilizing formal lectures and standard textbooks and other readings. Upon my return in 1999 I found a world of change. Wagner had adopted a “Learning Community” (LC) model for a good portion of its instruction. LC’s include a cluster of courses linked by a single theme and taken by the same students. The LC’s were joined by a reflexive tutorial (RFT) where emphasis is placed on experiential learning in “real world” internship like settings. Writing skills and teamwork were essential RFT elements.
In the world of most psychoanalytic institutes, there probably is not such a contrast between learning today and the way it occurred in 1968. Indeed one could probably trace long term stability in the nature of psychoanalytic education back to the 1920’s with the introduction and development of the Eitingon model. While I think much of the tripartite model is extraordinarily valuable, I also think it highly probable that most educators would find our persistent adherence to one educational approach remarkable. While LC’s and RFT’s may or may not be a useful model for psychoanalytic education, I believe our slowness, perhaps even our inability, to innovate is highly problematic and stifling. As I’ve mentioned in other settings, our psychoanalytic educational programs are running the risk of becoming museums and not incubators of new ideas.
I would hardly be alone in seeing the concept of authority as a culprit in this stasis. There are many diverse key values that are part of an educational process, such as: respect for learning, capacity for innovation, development of new ideas, acquisition of skills, development of professionalism, understanding the value of influence and being influenced to name just a few. Authority does have a role, and an important one at that, in the educational process but it can also stifle, with deadly efficiency at times. We have not been particularly effective at balancing our use of authority or finding its best uses in psychoanalytic education.
Looking over Webster’s I found 8 different uses for the word “authority”, each with a nuanced difference. The meaning for authority I found most problematic for purposes of this discussion, and unfortunately one which I think we utilize too much in psychoanalytic education, perhaps not always knowingly, but at least at some times quite knowingly, is the idea of “a power to require and receive submissiveness”.
While most of us would no doubt not want to see this aspect of authority as having a major role in institute life there is in fact a legitimate place for this concept of authority, and one which is quite problematic for many of us. I am referring to those instances where we need to deal with issues of candidates or colleagues not conforming to various educational or professional requirements and even some extremely serious cases which would require sanctions, disciplinary action, etc. such as cases involving boundary violations, ethical lapses, etc. These are important responsibilities in institute life and areas where we need to exercise this form of authority. Yet it is often difficult for us to adequately discharge our responsibilities regarding these uses. In more serious situations, it can be almost impossible to find colleagues willing to serve on appropriate committees. It does strongly suggest, especially when paired with other difficulties we have with the exercise of authority, that there may be something problematic for many of us when put in positions where we need to exercise authority. While I think that these problems are also endemic to other professional endeavors, I do sense that the exercise of this form of authority may be particularly difficult for many of us as analysts. I am sure many of you will also recognize how hard it is to get faculty members to write “honest” evaluations on our candidates, either for the classroom or for the supervisory setting, and how it can be very hard to accept responsibility for managing candidates’ progression. All of us are no doubt aware of the more than occasional “compassionate graduations”. Yet if we are to be taken seriously as a profession, it is necessary that we be capable of exercising this form of authority.
We do not however, need to use this component of authority for issues concerned with transmission of knowledge and development of new ideas. We have gotten ourselves into a lot of difficulty when we have. There are many situations where we have brought the “power to require and receive submissiveness” component of authority into our educational processes as opposed to our regulatory processes. Many of our positions concerning requirements for admission, graduation, membership, and TA advancement, all of which may be considered under the rubric of “standards” are prime examples. So often, especially in APsaA Institutes, these are taken as “givens” and not considered as subject to negotiation or open review, discussion and objective consideration. This also creates a general ambience which can be stifling of innovation and creativity in our teaching. My own belief is that our “new” candidates, who are far more likely to represent women, gays, psychologists, social workers, other mental health professionals, and academics, are much less likely to accept the handing down of this form of non-challengeable authority than our traditional candidates have historically been. Missing from this list of new candidates, in my experience, are significant numbers of ethnic and racially diverse groups which should represent a new priority for us. I believe our increasing difficulties, especially in some APsaA Institutes, in recruiting new candidates derives from a sense by potential applicants of the presence of such a stifling environment, i.e. a museum, not an incubator.
A final element of authority, which is constructive, comes from two additional ideas in Webster’s, notably the concept of “justifying grounds” or “convincing force”. For psychoanalysis to be credible as a school of thought and as a healing art, there must be such a justifying, convincing perception or belief about what we do. This cannot be gained by decree, as I believe we have often tried historically, with spectacular lack of success. Rather it can be accomplished only by the transparent, open discussion of our ideas and a willingness to have all of them examined in the crucible of public review.
Perhaps at some future time, a senior psychoanalytic graduate will return to his/her institute of origin and be pleasantly surprised by the flowering of new forms for learning.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Let me begin by telling you about my background in dealing with authority in educational settings. I have been a Director of a psychiatric residency training program (6 years), a Dean and EC Chair of a psychoanalytic institute (5 years), and a Trustee of a college (9 years).
I’d like to take a moment to describe my observations and my reaction to the educational milieu when I returned to my college as a Trustee 31 years after I graduated. During my undergraduate years, Wagner College was a very traditional and conservative institution. At one time it had been affiliated with the Lutheran Church. Instruction occurred in typical classroom settings, utilizing formal lectures and standard textbooks and other readings. Upon my return in 1999 I found a world of change. Wagner had adopted a “Learning Community” (LC) model for a good portion of its instruction. LC’s include a cluster of courses linked by a single theme and taken by the same students. The LC’s were joined by a reflexive tutorial (RFT) where emphasis is placed on experiential learning in “real world” internship like settings. Writing skills and teamwork were essential RFT elements.
In the world of most psychoanalytic institutes, there probably is not such a contrast between learning today and the way it occurred in 1968. Indeed one could probably trace long term stability in the nature of psychoanalytic education back to the 1920’s with the introduction and development of the Eitingon model. While I think much of the tripartite model is extraordinarily valuable, I also think it highly probable that most educators would find our persistent adherence to one educational approach remarkable. While LC’s and RFT’s may or may not be a useful model for psychoanalytic education, I believe our slowness, perhaps even our inability, to innovate is highly problematic and stifling. As I’ve mentioned in other settings, our psychoanalytic educational programs are running the risk of becoming museums and not incubators of new ideas.
I would hardly be alone in seeing the concept of authority as a culprit in this stasis. There are many diverse key values that are part of an educational process, such as: respect for learning, capacity for innovation, development of new ideas, acquisition of skills, development of professionalism, understanding the value of influence and being influenced to name just a few. Authority does have a role, and an important one at that, in the educational process but it can also stifle, with deadly efficiency at times. We have not been particularly effective at balancing our use of authority or finding its best uses in psychoanalytic education.
Looking over Webster’s I found 8 different uses for the word “authority”, each with a nuanced difference. The meaning for authority I found most problematic for purposes of this discussion, and unfortunately one which I think we utilize too much in psychoanalytic education, perhaps not always knowingly, but at least at some times quite knowingly, is the idea of “a power to require and receive submissiveness”.
While most of us would no doubt not want to see this aspect of authority as having a major role in institute life there is in fact a legitimate place for this concept of authority, and one which is quite problematic for many of us. I am referring to those instances where we need to deal with issues of candidates or colleagues not conforming to various educational or professional requirements and even some extremely serious cases which would require sanctions, disciplinary action, etc. such as cases involving boundary violations, ethical lapses, etc. These are important responsibilities in institute life and areas where we need to exercise this form of authority. Yet it is often difficult for us to adequately discharge our responsibilities regarding these uses. In more serious situations, it can be almost impossible to find colleagues willing to serve on appropriate committees. It does strongly suggest, especially when paired with other difficulties we have with the exercise of authority, that there may be something problematic for many of us when put in positions where we need to exercise authority. While I think that these problems are also endemic to other professional endeavors, I do sense that the exercise of this form of authority may be particularly difficult for many of us as analysts. I am sure many of you will also recognize how hard it is to get faculty members to write “honest” evaluations on our candidates, either for the classroom or for the supervisory setting, and how it can be very hard to accept responsibility for managing candidates’ progression. All of us are no doubt aware of the more than occasional “compassionate graduations”. Yet if we are to be taken seriously as a profession, it is necessary that we be capable of exercising this form of authority.
We do not however, need to use this component of authority for issues concerned with transmission of knowledge and development of new ideas. We have gotten ourselves into a lot of difficulty when we have. There are many situations where we have brought the “power to require and receive submissiveness” component of authority into our educational processes as opposed to our regulatory processes. Many of our positions concerning requirements for admission, graduation, membership, and TA advancement, all of which may be considered under the rubric of “standards” are prime examples. So often, especially in APsaA Institutes, these are taken as “givens” and not considered as subject to negotiation or open review, discussion and objective consideration. This also creates a general ambience which can be stifling of innovation and creativity in our teaching. My own belief is that our “new” candidates, who are far more likely to represent women, gays, psychologists, social workers, other mental health professionals, and academics, are much less likely to accept the handing down of this form of non-challengeable authority than our traditional candidates have historically been. Missing from this list of new candidates, in my experience, are significant numbers of ethnic and racially diverse groups which should represent a new priority for us. I believe our increasing difficulties, especially in some APsaA Institutes, in recruiting new candidates derives from a sense by potential applicants of the presence of such a stifling environment, i.e. a museum, not an incubator.
A final element of authority, which is constructive, comes from two additional ideas in Webster’s, notably the concept of “justifying grounds” or “convincing force”. For psychoanalysis to be credible as a school of thought and as a healing art, there must be such a justifying, convincing perception or belief about what we do. This cannot be gained by decree, as I believe we have often tried historically, with spectacular lack of success. Rather it can be accomplished only by the transparent, open discussion of our ideas and a willingness to have all of them examined in the crucible of public review.
Perhaps at some future time, a senior psychoanalytic graduate will return to his/her institute of origin and be pleasantly surprised by the flowering of new forms for learning.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Monday, November 26, 2007
It Is a Pleasure to Welcome You to My Website!
It is a great honor and privilege to be a candidate for President-Elect of our Association, and I appreciate your taking the time to visit this site. Here you will find all of my campaign postings to the openlist and the electionlist as well as the regular mail letters I sent to each member of APsaA. I have highlighted here my positions on ten very important issues about bringing psychoanalysis into an even more rewarding future.
It is a great honor and privilege to be a candidate for President-Elect of our Association, and I appreciate your taking the time to visit this site. Here you will find all of my campaign postings to the openlist and the electionlist as well as the regular mail letters I sent to each member of APsaA. I have highlighted here my positions on ten very important issues about bringing psychoanalysis into an even more rewarding future.
- Our Politics of Old Are Inadequate, 11/19, 9/30, 8/12
- Certification/TA Link, Goals, Letter 2, 9/21
- Less Central Regulation, Goals, Letter 2, 11/13
- Strengthening Executive Council, Goals, Letter 2
- Development, Goals, Letter 2, 11/15
- Do We Become an Incubator or a Museum?, 11/2
- Transparency, 11/2, 9/9
- Diversity, 10/10
- My Background and Track Record, Letter 1, Biography, 8/21
- Advocacy, Goals, Letter 2
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Medicare Reimbursement Reductions
Dear Colleagues,
I hope all of you had a very happy Thanksgiving holiday.
Many thanks to Jon Rosenfeld for bringing the Medicare fee schedule cuts to our attention. I reviewed the reimbursement rates for the LA area and found decreases ranging from 6-13% for the services Jon referenced, similar to his findings for Manhattan. I echo Jon’s plea to all of us to immediately contact members of the Senate Finance Committee in an effort to reverse these cuts.
For now there are three points I’d like to make regarding this issue and I will be brief.
First, I think it goes without saying that we need to keep our seats at the appropriate third party reimbursement negotiating tables. We must remain vigorous in our advocacy efforts for the benefit of both psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis as treatment modalities. Many of our colleagues work in these systems and these are pathways for many who need our assistance.
Second, we must also fight for parity of reimbursement among all psychoanalytic practitioners. After reading Lori Post’s note I looked again at the reimbursement rates in LA and discovered that Social Workers are reimbursed at a rate about 25% less than that of psychiatrists for the same services. This is not acceptable and we must attempt to correct this. Psychologists, at least in the Medicare system in LA, are reimbursed at rates similar to physicians.
Third, given the major secular changes occurring in the insurance industry, changes such as; ever declining treatment dollars, ever increasing and more stringent utilization review procedures, and ever fewer units of service provided, we must continue to look for other ways to support psychoanalytic treatment among potential analysands. One small example is that we need to direct the results of our efficacy studies not only towards potential third party reimbursers but also towards members of the public who need our services.
We also need to keep in mind that some of our members wish to work entirely outside of these third party systems and they need to be assured of appropriate confidentiality protections. We must support them as well.
My background has given me the skills to deal with issues such as these. I am a longstanding member of our Committee on Government Relations and Insurance (CGRI) as well as its former Chair (97-00). While Chair I participated in direct discussions with national level Medicare officials including the national Medical Director. As Treasurer for the past five years I have vigorously advocated that we provide CGRI with as much financial support as our budget allows.
You can count on me to put my energies and experience as well as our organizational resources behind efforts such as these.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
I hope all of you had a very happy Thanksgiving holiday.
Many thanks to Jon Rosenfeld for bringing the Medicare fee schedule cuts to our attention. I reviewed the reimbursement rates for the LA area and found decreases ranging from 6-13% for the services Jon referenced, similar to his findings for Manhattan. I echo Jon’s plea to all of us to immediately contact members of the Senate Finance Committee in an effort to reverse these cuts.
For now there are three points I’d like to make regarding this issue and I will be brief.
First, I think it goes without saying that we need to keep our seats at the appropriate third party reimbursement negotiating tables. We must remain vigorous in our advocacy efforts for the benefit of both psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis as treatment modalities. Many of our colleagues work in these systems and these are pathways for many who need our assistance.
Second, we must also fight for parity of reimbursement among all psychoanalytic practitioners. After reading Lori Post’s note I looked again at the reimbursement rates in LA and discovered that Social Workers are reimbursed at a rate about 25% less than that of psychiatrists for the same services. This is not acceptable and we must attempt to correct this. Psychologists, at least in the Medicare system in LA, are reimbursed at rates similar to physicians.
Third, given the major secular changes occurring in the insurance industry, changes such as; ever declining treatment dollars, ever increasing and more stringent utilization review procedures, and ever fewer units of service provided, we must continue to look for other ways to support psychoanalytic treatment among potential analysands. One small example is that we need to direct the results of our efficacy studies not only towards potential third party reimbursers but also towards members of the public who need our services.
We also need to keep in mind that some of our members wish to work entirely outside of these third party systems and they need to be assured of appropriate confidentiality protections. We must support them as well.
My background has given me the skills to deal with issues such as these. I am a longstanding member of our Committee on Government Relations and Insurance (CGRI) as well as its former Chair (97-00). While Chair I participated in direct discussions with national level Medicare officials including the national Medical Director. As Treasurer for the past five years I have vigorously advocated that we provide CGRI with as much financial support as our budget allows.
You can count on me to put my energies and experience as well as our organizational resources behind efforts such as these.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Our Diversity: Openness, Honesty and Reconciliation
Dear Colleagues,
Our organization has moved well beyond the rancor that accompanied the lawsuit which permitted psychologists (and, ultimately, social workers) the freedom to train at APsaA institutes. I am proud of this fact, but disturbed by what I have heard from some of you during this campaign via phone calls and emails.
It is perplexing to me that some members, perhaps many, do not feel fully accepted as equal partners in our organization. Some social workers and psychologists, as well as some of our CORST colleagues, have felt they receive fewer analytic case referrals than their medical colleagues. Others have felt excluded from key committee assignments. Some have felt they were not ‘tapped’ for TA/SA roles at ratios comparable to their medical colleagues. And a number of our social work members have pointed, with some pain, to the fact that a few of our institutes still do not accept licensed social workers for training.
We can add to this the residual animus felt by our mental health colleagues who have not trained at our institutes. Just a few years ago, our expensive market research revealed a strong reluctance by these colleagues to refer patients to us, even and especially those patients who could profit from analysis.
Of course, no organization is without unhappy members, and perhaps these problems are not widespread. To some they may even seem like old news. But those of us who would be elected to our highest office have a special and unremitting responsibility to resolve any and all problems that arise from our organizational struggles with change and diversity. Here are three ways I believe we can catalyze this important process:
First, we must, as an organization, openly and non-defensively acknowledge the errors of our history and the hurt our exclusionary policies have caused.
Second, we must initiate a forum (and a concomitant task force) to explore, discuss, and report on the issues and conflicts that our diverse backgrounds and training may still engender.
Third, we must reach out humbly and respectfully to the psychoanalytic arms of all major psychology and social work organizations, as well as to psychoanalytically-interested academic groups from the humanities and sciences to explore and pursue together areas of common interest and concern.
Some would prefer that we sweep these issues under the carpet. Others would say we are doing the best that we can, or that we must move slowly. And others, sadly, proclaim when these issues are addressed, as I have been addressing them, that it just creates further conflict and hostility. What kind of psychoanalytic attitude is that?!
We must not be afraid to face the errors of our ways, to pursue unhesitatingly our goals of equality and openness, nor especially to work assiduously to resolve the problems and concerns of our many and varied members. With open eyes and honest debate, I think we can continue to be proud of our organization and help it evolve into the larger umbrella of diverse and creative people and ideas that is its full potential.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate, President-Elect, APsaA
Our organization has moved well beyond the rancor that accompanied the lawsuit which permitted psychologists (and, ultimately, social workers) the freedom to train at APsaA institutes. I am proud of this fact, but disturbed by what I have heard from some of you during this campaign via phone calls and emails.
It is perplexing to me that some members, perhaps many, do not feel fully accepted as equal partners in our organization. Some social workers and psychologists, as well as some of our CORST colleagues, have felt they receive fewer analytic case referrals than their medical colleagues. Others have felt excluded from key committee assignments. Some have felt they were not ‘tapped’ for TA/SA roles at ratios comparable to their medical colleagues. And a number of our social work members have pointed, with some pain, to the fact that a few of our institutes still do not accept licensed social workers for training.
We can add to this the residual animus felt by our mental health colleagues who have not trained at our institutes. Just a few years ago, our expensive market research revealed a strong reluctance by these colleagues to refer patients to us, even and especially those patients who could profit from analysis.
Of course, no organization is without unhappy members, and perhaps these problems are not widespread. To some they may even seem like old news. But those of us who would be elected to our highest office have a special and unremitting responsibility to resolve any and all problems that arise from our organizational struggles with change and diversity. Here are three ways I believe we can catalyze this important process:
First, we must, as an organization, openly and non-defensively acknowledge the errors of our history and the hurt our exclusionary policies have caused.
Second, we must initiate a forum (and a concomitant task force) to explore, discuss, and report on the issues and conflicts that our diverse backgrounds and training may still engender.
Third, we must reach out humbly and respectfully to the psychoanalytic arms of all major psychology and social work organizations, as well as to psychoanalytically-interested academic groups from the humanities and sciences to explore and pursue together areas of common interest and concern.
Some would prefer that we sweep these issues under the carpet. Others would say we are doing the best that we can, or that we must move slowly. And others, sadly, proclaim when these issues are addressed, as I have been addressing them, that it just creates further conflict and hostility. What kind of psychoanalytic attitude is that?!
We must not be afraid to face the errors of our ways, to pursue unhesitatingly our goals of equality and openness, nor especially to work assiduously to resolve the problems and concerns of our many and varied members. With open eyes and honest debate, I think we can continue to be proud of our organization and help it evolve into the larger umbrella of diverse and creative people and ideas that is its full potential.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate, President-Elect, APsaA
We Must Deal with the Real World
Dear Colleagues,
Sunday’s very pertinent article about psychoanalysis in the New York Times
Week in Review section has led to several notes on our member’s list. All of these postings strongly suggest the need for us to be far more actively involved in very real world issues such as: demonstrating the validity of our ideas, validating the utility of our treatment, and working together with other colleagues in the academic, psychoanalytic and mental health communities. I completely agree with those sentiments and I have expressed that view any number of times in the past and during this campaign.
Unfortunately there has for many years now been a major impediment to our ability to turn our eyes towards these outside communities, namely the continuing divisiveness of our struggles over the current centrally mandated link between certification and TA status. I have consistently stated that we need to solve this dilemma so we can finally move on to deal with the kinds of crucial problems facing psychoanalysis as described in the NY Times article and the responses to it.
Since this will be one of the last times I will get to write to you prior to the mailing of ballots next Monday I’d like to reiterate my position on this issue. I believe that certification in its current form, at least as an absolute prerequisite for TA appointment, must be laid to rest. Period! It has caused too many hurt feelings, raised too many questions about reliability and validity, and has simply been the source of far too much organizational ill feeling and stasis to continue in this form. Attempts to rehabilitate or resurrect mandatory certification for TA appointment in some externalized facsimile or by means of “alternative” requirements which reproduce all the same problems under a new guise will only perpetuate our problems and lead to way too much additional organization demoralization, thus setting us back ever so much more.
Here are a few recent facts which support this. First, two years ago, in a record turnout, a strong majority of 57% of the members of APsaA voted against maintaining BOPS’s ability to require certification for TA appointments. Let me repeat this for emphasis, 57% voted against our current system. While this wasn’t a sufficient vote to enable the proposed bylaw amendment to pass anyone can see the organizational peril of attempting to maintain a very key procedure which is opposed by a robust majority of the membership.
Second, in a survey concerning certification conducted by the Association about five years ago there was already strong opposition expressed to any external certification process, and a mere 50%, consisting predominantly of those already certified, supported having any kind of a certification process within APsaA. Any of you who are interested can request a copy of the results of this survey. I recommend you do so.
Third, the current process must be considered a “market failure”. Our recent graduates are voting “with their feet” on the issue of certification and their feet are indicating a very decided “no” vote. It appears that only about 15-20% of these colleagues are choosing to pursue this process at all.
Should we continue to put so much organizational support behind a process that such a paltry fraction of our graduates now finds sufficiently meaningful to take seriously? I think not.
I have made clear my stance on this issue throughout this campaign and I have reiterated it here for all of you as we prepare to receive our ballots.
Warren Procci, Candidate for President-Elect of APsaA
Sunday’s very pertinent article about psychoanalysis in the New York Times
Week in Review section has led to several notes on our member’s list. All of these postings strongly suggest the need for us to be far more actively involved in very real world issues such as: demonstrating the validity of our ideas, validating the utility of our treatment, and working together with other colleagues in the academic, psychoanalytic and mental health communities. I completely agree with those sentiments and I have expressed that view any number of times in the past and during this campaign.
Unfortunately there has for many years now been a major impediment to our ability to turn our eyes towards these outside communities, namely the continuing divisiveness of our struggles over the current centrally mandated link between certification and TA status. I have consistently stated that we need to solve this dilemma so we can finally move on to deal with the kinds of crucial problems facing psychoanalysis as described in the NY Times article and the responses to it.
Since this will be one of the last times I will get to write to you prior to the mailing of ballots next Monday I’d like to reiterate my position on this issue. I believe that certification in its current form, at least as an absolute prerequisite for TA appointment, must be laid to rest. Period! It has caused too many hurt feelings, raised too many questions about reliability and validity, and has simply been the source of far too much organizational ill feeling and stasis to continue in this form. Attempts to rehabilitate or resurrect mandatory certification for TA appointment in some externalized facsimile or by means of “alternative” requirements which reproduce all the same problems under a new guise will only perpetuate our problems and lead to way too much additional organization demoralization, thus setting us back ever so much more.
Here are a few recent facts which support this. First, two years ago, in a record turnout, a strong majority of 57% of the members of APsaA voted against maintaining BOPS’s ability to require certification for TA appointments. Let me repeat this for emphasis, 57% voted against our current system. While this wasn’t a sufficient vote to enable the proposed bylaw amendment to pass anyone can see the organizational peril of attempting to maintain a very key procedure which is opposed by a robust majority of the membership.
Second, in a survey concerning certification conducted by the Association about five years ago there was already strong opposition expressed to any external certification process, and a mere 50%, consisting predominantly of those already certified, supported having any kind of a certification process within APsaA. Any of you who are interested can request a copy of the results of this survey. I recommend you do so.
Third, the current process must be considered a “market failure”. Our recent graduates are voting “with their feet” on the issue of certification and their feet are indicating a very decided “no” vote. It appears that only about 15-20% of these colleagues are choosing to pursue this process at all.
Should we continue to put so much organizational support behind a process that such a paltry fraction of our graduates now finds sufficiently meaningful to take seriously? I think not.
I have made clear my stance on this issue throughout this campaign and I have reiterated it here for all of you as we prepare to receive our ballots.
Warren Procci, Candidate for President-Elect of APsaA
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Our New Ecumenism and the "Medical Model"
Dear Colleagues,
A new ecumenism has swept into our field, not quite while we were sleeping, and in a way that presses inexorably for change. Yes, we are all psychoanalysts but our diversity is also our strength. The training of psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists is each very different and distinguished, and these differences are contributing in bold and subtle ways to the energy of our enterprise together. However, our medical legacy, both for good and ill, cannot be ignored.
Because our organization was founded by physicians, and for many years refused Freud’s call to educate “lay” analysts, our Association has always been a “medical” organization. I can well remember the early days of our new inclusivity when we still used the term “non-medical applicants” to refer generically to our newly eligible colleagues (even by the 80s in America, the descriptor ‘non-white’ had become a pejorative).
We are still struggling , very diligently, to accommodate the diversity of professions which now constitute our organization, and not just in terms of such things as equal voting or equal opportunity to hold office. We still have miles to go to become the fully ecumenical umbrella for psychoanalysts of all backgrounds that we aspire to be.
Here is just one of many areas where there are very serious differences among our distinctive disciplines. When the number of analytic patients diminishes, psychiatrists are often still able to pull in much more substantial fees by prescribing medications, or admitting patients into hospitals, or performing expert evaluations in Worker’s Compensation cases to name but a few. Of course many psychoanalysts do not engage in such activities, but they could. Psychologists and social workers have fewer remunerative alternatives so the survival of their practices is more vulnerable.
If we are all to be helpful to each other in coping with less verdant practice environments, we will need to develop new strategies, new ways of thinking. Insurance, for example, with its ever more stringent limitations on providing services cannot be relied upon as a central source of income, yet insurance is also a pathway for so many people who need our help. There’s no easy solution to these problems, but in establishing broader partnerships with our allies in the psychiatric APA, the psychological APA, particularly Division 39, and the social work NMCOP, we will have the opportunity for creative thinking beyond the so-called ‘medical model.’
More importantly for us all, we need to look thoughtfully at the differences within our organization: differences in training, differences in worldview, and differences in opportunity. We must look, but not as a means for erecting arbitrary distinctions or perpetuating ongoing splits. We must look because the creativity and experience that lies within our differences is also a source of strength and a guidepost for our evolution.
Of course, differences in training and opportunity are among many significant issues that our organization must recognize and appreciate. But we have not been swift to do so. Nor have we thoroughly grappled with the impact of our exclusionary legacy and its impact on our many other mental health colleagues.
In this context, I hope only to raise the issues and offer some general ideas about meaningful change. But, as always, I would be very happy to hear your own thinking and work together to make our organization as robust, creative, inclusive, and thriving as possible (call me at 626-793-7957, email me at wrprocci@sbcglobal.net or visit my webpage at www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com)
Best regards, and Happy Thanksgiving,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
A new ecumenism has swept into our field, not quite while we were sleeping, and in a way that presses inexorably for change. Yes, we are all psychoanalysts but our diversity is also our strength. The training of psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists is each very different and distinguished, and these differences are contributing in bold and subtle ways to the energy of our enterprise together. However, our medical legacy, both for good and ill, cannot be ignored.
Because our organization was founded by physicians, and for many years refused Freud’s call to educate “lay” analysts, our Association has always been a “medical” organization. I can well remember the early days of our new inclusivity when we still used the term “non-medical applicants” to refer generically to our newly eligible colleagues (even by the 80s in America, the descriptor ‘non-white’ had become a pejorative).
We are still struggling , very diligently, to accommodate the diversity of professions which now constitute our organization, and not just in terms of such things as equal voting or equal opportunity to hold office. We still have miles to go to become the fully ecumenical umbrella for psychoanalysts of all backgrounds that we aspire to be.
Here is just one of many areas where there are very serious differences among our distinctive disciplines. When the number of analytic patients diminishes, psychiatrists are often still able to pull in much more substantial fees by prescribing medications, or admitting patients into hospitals, or performing expert evaluations in Worker’s Compensation cases to name but a few. Of course many psychoanalysts do not engage in such activities, but they could. Psychologists and social workers have fewer remunerative alternatives so the survival of their practices is more vulnerable.
If we are all to be helpful to each other in coping with less verdant practice environments, we will need to develop new strategies, new ways of thinking. Insurance, for example, with its ever more stringent limitations on providing services cannot be relied upon as a central source of income, yet insurance is also a pathway for so many people who need our help. There’s no easy solution to these problems, but in establishing broader partnerships with our allies in the psychiatric APA, the psychological APA, particularly Division 39, and the social work NMCOP, we will have the opportunity for creative thinking beyond the so-called ‘medical model.’
More importantly for us all, we need to look thoughtfully at the differences within our organization: differences in training, differences in worldview, and differences in opportunity. We must look, but not as a means for erecting arbitrary distinctions or perpetuating ongoing splits. We must look because the creativity and experience that lies within our differences is also a source of strength and a guidepost for our evolution.
Of course, differences in training and opportunity are among many significant issues that our organization must recognize and appreciate. But we have not been swift to do so. Nor have we thoroughly grappled with the impact of our exclusionary legacy and its impact on our many other mental health colleagues.
In this context, I hope only to raise the issues and offer some general ideas about meaningful change. But, as always, I would be very happy to hear your own thinking and work together to make our organization as robust, creative, inclusive, and thriving as possible (call me at 626-793-7957, email me at wrprocci@sbcglobal.net or visit my webpage at www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com)
Best regards, and Happy Thanksgiving,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Monday, November 19, 2007
Our Politics of Old Are Inadequate for the 21st Century
Why APsaA should be an incubator for psychoanalysis, not a museum.
Dear Colleagues (known and not-known-yet):
Even if by now many of you are sick and tired of lengthy campaign mailings and emails; and especially if you are tired of politics (as usual or otherwise), please do me two favors: 1) cast your vote in the current election, if only out of civic virtue, and 2) read the next few paragraphs to see if any of this might actually matter to you. I hope it does. I promise to be as brief as I can.
It might not be easy for most of you to distinguish between the positions of the candidates running for the presidency of APsaA. BUT before you say “tweedledum or tweedledee”, here’s why I think this election is so important:
Our organization once confined itself to psychiatrists only; and for decades we have often confined ourselves largely to American ego psychology; and today we are still confining ourselves: via outdated processes of certification, via an exclusionary link between this procedure and TA status, and via outmoded institute “rules” that are frankly driving many excellent candidates to independent institutes.
In this environment it shouldn’t be radical to suggest that our certification process needs to garner the faith of both the public and the much broadened mental health community by being national and independent; nor is it radical to suggest that our local institutes need to have more autonomy in how they want to determine and qualify who is capable of training and analyzing candidates. On at least these two basic issues, my stance is longstanding, unequivocal, and distinctive.
As your Treasurer for the past five years, and as someone deeply involved in this organization, I have seen how we continue to hurt ourselves with endless debates that have too often been mere excuses for excluding very qualified people, and ideas, from our organization. Without losing our reputation for quality and depth, our organization should and must become a greater umbrella for the diversity of practice, theory, candidates and analysts that everywhere are part of the renewed vibrancy of psychoanalysis in America.
I apologize if these seem like niggling issues to some. But if indeed you want our organization to proceed thoughtfully in the direction of greater transparency, diversity, and democracy, without any diminution in its quality and value, then I humbly ask that you at least take the minimum step towards involvement and send in your ballot. I will do everything I can to be worthy of your vote. I am passionate about making our organization the best it can be, for all of us and that means embracing meaningful change rather than standing in place.
Warren
Dear Colleagues (known and not-known-yet):
Even if by now many of you are sick and tired of lengthy campaign mailings and emails; and especially if you are tired of politics (as usual or otherwise), please do me two favors: 1) cast your vote in the current election, if only out of civic virtue, and 2) read the next few paragraphs to see if any of this might actually matter to you. I hope it does. I promise to be as brief as I can.
It might not be easy for most of you to distinguish between the positions of the candidates running for the presidency of APsaA. BUT before you say “tweedledum or tweedledee”, here’s why I think this election is so important:
Our organization once confined itself to psychiatrists only; and for decades we have often confined ourselves largely to American ego psychology; and today we are still confining ourselves: via outdated processes of certification, via an exclusionary link between this procedure and TA status, and via outmoded institute “rules” that are frankly driving many excellent candidates to independent institutes.
In this environment it shouldn’t be radical to suggest that our certification process needs to garner the faith of both the public and the much broadened mental health community by being national and independent; nor is it radical to suggest that our local institutes need to have more autonomy in how they want to determine and qualify who is capable of training and analyzing candidates. On at least these two basic issues, my stance is longstanding, unequivocal, and distinctive.
As your Treasurer for the past five years, and as someone deeply involved in this organization, I have seen how we continue to hurt ourselves with endless debates that have too often been mere excuses for excluding very qualified people, and ideas, from our organization. Without losing our reputation for quality and depth, our organization should and must become a greater umbrella for the diversity of practice, theory, candidates and analysts that everywhere are part of the renewed vibrancy of psychoanalysis in America.
I apologize if these seem like niggling issues to some. But if indeed you want our organization to proceed thoughtfully in the direction of greater transparency, diversity, and democracy, without any diminution in its quality and value, then I humbly ask that you at least take the minimum step towards involvement and send in your ballot. I will do everything I can to be worthy of your vote. I am passionate about making our organization the best it can be, for all of us and that means embracing meaningful change rather than standing in place.
Warren
2nd Letter to Our Members
Dear Fellow APsaA Member,
“We will transmit the City not only not less, but better and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.”
This is the oath that Athenian citizens took on behalf of their city-state. It is guiding me in my candidacy for President-Elect of APsaA.
The preeminent issue in our upcoming election is the future of our Association. At the moment we are strong and stable, but there are some warning clouds that we must not neglect. The decline in our overall numbers has been very slow so far, but the decline among our active dues-paying members is more rapid, and our senior constituency is growing even larger. We are aging and graying, and it is time to address this.
On my web page (www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com) I have outlined a set of goals I will pursue as President, if you elect me. I will review them briefly here. All are intended to prepare our Association for a future that is better than the present.
1. Relaxation of the exclusionary linkage of certification and TA/SA eligibility. This requirement is a direct contributor to our membership problems. In the evolving psychoanalytic world of today, prospective candidates want to choose their TA’s freely. And in today’s world they can. The more narrowly we restrict our own offerings, therefore, the more likely they are to elect to train not with us, but at any one of the many competitive non-APsaA institiutes. Furthermore, it appears that many of our recent graduates have decided against seeking certification. Only about 15-20% of these colleagues are applying to be certified, and this will narrow TA possibilities for new candidates even further. Add to these practical considerations the contribution that the delinkage issue makes to our current plaguing dissension, and it is easy to see how vital it is for us to resolve this question. In fact, I would make it the number one priority of my presidency.
Efforts to address it in the past have failed, because task forces and pilot groups have been weighted far too heavily in favor of the current balance of power. I would call immediately for a balanced task force to address the issue, and to explore once more a local option proposal that would allow individual institutes to set their own requirements for their own TA’s and SA’s.
2. Pluralistic and democratic government. Hierarchal decision-making has ruled the day in our Association for a long time. Why is this a problem? Because hierarchies are loath to relinquish their power, even when they no longer serve the best interests of the organizations that house them. Like the delinkage struggles, past efforts to deal with membership, education, and appointment issues have often been unbalanced in favor of the very hierarchies they were supposed to democratize. As President I would ensure that our task forces and exploratory committees fairly reflect all components of our membership. I would also move to shift decision-making away from centralized structures and towards our local organizations, where individual voices are more easily heard.
3. A stronger Executive Council. Lately we have become aware that our by-laws do not support a bi-cameral organization. They designate our Executive Council as our Board of Directors. If we are to plan effectively for the future, we will need a strong Board of Directors to set and realize organizational priorities. Too often in the past our Presidents have set our priorities. Presidents may certainly offer individual initiatives; however laudable these may be, however, they are generally abandoned when that President leaves office. The Board of Directors is the structure to which enduring initiatives must be entrusted, as it is only the Board that can safeguard them over the years of changing administrations. I strongly support a much greater role for our board in setting priorities and carrying them out. The way to do this is to add several directors to the Executive Committee, give the Committee on Council a greater role in setting our organizational agenda, and establish an expanded presence and role for Board Committee Chairs at our quarterly governance meetings. These steps haven’t been taken before because the need to empower the Executive Council has not been sufficiently recognized. It is obvious now, however, that the Executive Council must be our policy planning and setting body.
4. Financial Development. Five years as treasurer have made clear to me that we do not possess the resources to do the things we have to do to advance our field. Our current income sources enable us to carry out our basic functions, and we carry them out well. But there is little left over for creative, bold, or innovative efforts. One solution is certainly to bring in more income by encouraging the growth of our membership – yet another reason to resolve the delinkage issue. But I would also encourage the establishment of an endowment fund sufficient to fund the efforts we must make to deal more effectively with the outside world. During my eight years on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee at Wagner College, my alma mater, I was actively involved in just such a major fundraising process. Wagner’s most recent capital campaign has expanded their endowment by $50M.
5. Advocacy. I have a long history in support of APsaA’s advocacy efforts in Washington, D.C. As Treasurer, I worked hard to assure that our Committee on Government Relations and Insurance (CGRI) would have the funding it needed to do its work. Before that, I myself served as Chairman of CGRI. Under my leadership, CGRI made its voice heard on the essential issue of protection of patient privacy. I was part of the team that discovered our current government representative in Washington, Jim Pyles, who has greatly helped us advance the cause of patient confidentiality. During my tenure as CGRI chair, we organized a meeting in Washington where CGRI members had the opportunity to meet with legislators, regulators and policymakers. We also organized (in conjunction with a spring meeting in Washington, D.C.) a “Meet your Legislator” program. We were able to introduce individual members to their legislators, and teach them effective ways to deliver talking points to lawmakers. As President, I would re-establish the tradition of periodic CGRI meetings in Washington.
There are two other areas that interest me greatly and which I would support as President: psychoanalytic research, especially outcome research as in the new research proposal advanced by our current President, and public information and communication efforts. But the five priorities listed above are the ones we must address first if we are to ensure for our Association a future in which these will be relevant – and in which we will have the morale, the structure, and the infrastructure to face that future in a rational and effective manner.
I am absolutely committed to maintaining and enhancing our Association so that we can pass it on to the next generation of psychoanalysts in better condition than we received it.
Best regards,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
“We will transmit the City not only not less, but better and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.”
This is the oath that Athenian citizens took on behalf of their city-state. It is guiding me in my candidacy for President-Elect of APsaA.
The preeminent issue in our upcoming election is the future of our Association. At the moment we are strong and stable, but there are some warning clouds that we must not neglect. The decline in our overall numbers has been very slow so far, but the decline among our active dues-paying members is more rapid, and our senior constituency is growing even larger. We are aging and graying, and it is time to address this.
On my web page (www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com) I have outlined a set of goals I will pursue as President, if you elect me. I will review them briefly here. All are intended to prepare our Association for a future that is better than the present.
1. Relaxation of the exclusionary linkage of certification and TA/SA eligibility. This requirement is a direct contributor to our membership problems. In the evolving psychoanalytic world of today, prospective candidates want to choose their TA’s freely. And in today’s world they can. The more narrowly we restrict our own offerings, therefore, the more likely they are to elect to train not with us, but at any one of the many competitive non-APsaA institiutes. Furthermore, it appears that many of our recent graduates have decided against seeking certification. Only about 15-20% of these colleagues are applying to be certified, and this will narrow TA possibilities for new candidates even further. Add to these practical considerations the contribution that the delinkage issue makes to our current plaguing dissension, and it is easy to see how vital it is for us to resolve this question. In fact, I would make it the number one priority of my presidency.
Efforts to address it in the past have failed, because task forces and pilot groups have been weighted far too heavily in favor of the current balance of power. I would call immediately for a balanced task force to address the issue, and to explore once more a local option proposal that would allow individual institutes to set their own requirements for their own TA’s and SA’s.
2. Pluralistic and democratic government. Hierarchal decision-making has ruled the day in our Association for a long time. Why is this a problem? Because hierarchies are loath to relinquish their power, even when they no longer serve the best interests of the organizations that house them. Like the delinkage struggles, past efforts to deal with membership, education, and appointment issues have often been unbalanced in favor of the very hierarchies they were supposed to democratize. As President I would ensure that our task forces and exploratory committees fairly reflect all components of our membership. I would also move to shift decision-making away from centralized structures and towards our local organizations, where individual voices are more easily heard.
3. A stronger Executive Council. Lately we have become aware that our by-laws do not support a bi-cameral organization. They designate our Executive Council as our Board of Directors. If we are to plan effectively for the future, we will need a strong Board of Directors to set and realize organizational priorities. Too often in the past our Presidents have set our priorities. Presidents may certainly offer individual initiatives; however laudable these may be, however, they are generally abandoned when that President leaves office. The Board of Directors is the structure to which enduring initiatives must be entrusted, as it is only the Board that can safeguard them over the years of changing administrations. I strongly support a much greater role for our board in setting priorities and carrying them out. The way to do this is to add several directors to the Executive Committee, give the Committee on Council a greater role in setting our organizational agenda, and establish an expanded presence and role for Board Committee Chairs at our quarterly governance meetings. These steps haven’t been taken before because the need to empower the Executive Council has not been sufficiently recognized. It is obvious now, however, that the Executive Council must be our policy planning and setting body.
4. Financial Development. Five years as treasurer have made clear to me that we do not possess the resources to do the things we have to do to advance our field. Our current income sources enable us to carry out our basic functions, and we carry them out well. But there is little left over for creative, bold, or innovative efforts. One solution is certainly to bring in more income by encouraging the growth of our membership – yet another reason to resolve the delinkage issue. But I would also encourage the establishment of an endowment fund sufficient to fund the efforts we must make to deal more effectively with the outside world. During my eight years on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee at Wagner College, my alma mater, I was actively involved in just such a major fundraising process. Wagner’s most recent capital campaign has expanded their endowment by $50M.
5. Advocacy. I have a long history in support of APsaA’s advocacy efforts in Washington, D.C. As Treasurer, I worked hard to assure that our Committee on Government Relations and Insurance (CGRI) would have the funding it needed to do its work. Before that, I myself served as Chairman of CGRI. Under my leadership, CGRI made its voice heard on the essential issue of protection of patient privacy. I was part of the team that discovered our current government representative in Washington, Jim Pyles, who has greatly helped us advance the cause of patient confidentiality. During my tenure as CGRI chair, we organized a meeting in Washington where CGRI members had the opportunity to meet with legislators, regulators and policymakers. We also organized (in conjunction with a spring meeting in Washington, D.C.) a “Meet your Legislator” program. We were able to introduce individual members to their legislators, and teach them effective ways to deliver talking points to lawmakers. As President, I would re-establish the tradition of periodic CGRI meetings in Washington.
There are two other areas that interest me greatly and which I would support as President: psychoanalytic research, especially outcome research as in the new research proposal advanced by our current President, and public information and communication efforts. But the five priorities listed above are the ones we must address first if we are to ensure for our Association a future in which these will be relevant – and in which we will have the morale, the structure, and the infrastructure to face that future in a rational and effective manner.
I am absolutely committed to maintaining and enhancing our Association so that we can pass it on to the next generation of psychoanalysts in better condition than we received it.
Best regards,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Two Modest Proposals for Our Future
Dear Colleagues,
Well, the home stretch is beckoning so I’d like to return to focus on the crucial issues of this election. To me the future of our venerable organization is priority number one.
Here in Pasadena the presence of prestigious Cal Tech has helped spawn an entire industry of biotechnology “incubators”, small companies/labs working on state of the art ideas and then contributing the results of these ideas to the academic, intellectual, health care and yes, even the business world(s). While the analogy is far from perfect I envision an APsaA of the future where our national and local organizations are similarly fertile.
Here are two ideas which I think can help us accomplish this, perhaps even more quickly than at our historic geological pace.
First: After five year’s experience as your Treasurer, combined with a prior four years as an elected Councilor-at–Large, I can tell you that while our resources are sufficient for our basic functioning, they are insufficient to carry out the innovative and forward-looking initiatives which our role and responsibility as a pre-eminent psychoanalytic organization require.
We need to involve ourselves in contemporary processes of resource development. In my nine years of service (and counting) as Trustee of a small liberal arts college, we have undertaken a major capital campaign that has added $50 million dollars to an endowment which had been almost non-existent. I have also had the experience of overseeing the growth of our own reserves over the past five years, through some difficult market periods. In short, capital development and appropriate investment are essential for our successful future.
Second: We must give high priority to our public information efforts. In my tenure on the Executive Committee, we have gotten invaluable help through the addition of a full-time staff member. However, we need to do more. I would make the Committee on Public Information a major player in our organization and support them in developing new ideas to raise our profile further. The use of public relations resources has been controversial to some members, but the time has come to put such efforts front and center, in creative, nuanced, and effective ways.
I am excited about the opportunity to undertake these new steps, and hope we can all engage in a process that can further the development of our organization as a place of creativity, depth, and resourcefulness.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Well, the home stretch is beckoning so I’d like to return to focus on the crucial issues of this election. To me the future of our venerable organization is priority number one.
Here in Pasadena the presence of prestigious Cal Tech has helped spawn an entire industry of biotechnology “incubators”, small companies/labs working on state of the art ideas and then contributing the results of these ideas to the academic, intellectual, health care and yes, even the business world(s). While the analogy is far from perfect I envision an APsaA of the future where our national and local organizations are similarly fertile.
Here are two ideas which I think can help us accomplish this, perhaps even more quickly than at our historic geological pace.
First: After five year’s experience as your Treasurer, combined with a prior four years as an elected Councilor-at–Large, I can tell you that while our resources are sufficient for our basic functioning, they are insufficient to carry out the innovative and forward-looking initiatives which our role and responsibility as a pre-eminent psychoanalytic organization require.
We need to involve ourselves in contemporary processes of resource development. In my nine years of service (and counting) as Trustee of a small liberal arts college, we have undertaken a major capital campaign that has added $50 million dollars to an endowment which had been almost non-existent. I have also had the experience of overseeing the growth of our own reserves over the past five years, through some difficult market periods. In short, capital development and appropriate investment are essential for our successful future.
Second: We must give high priority to our public information efforts. In my tenure on the Executive Committee, we have gotten invaluable help through the addition of a full-time staff member. However, we need to do more. I would make the Committee on Public Information a major player in our organization and support them in developing new ideas to raise our profile further. The use of public relations resources has been controversial to some members, but the time has come to put such efforts front and center, in creative, nuanced, and effective ways.
I am excited about the opportunity to undertake these new steps, and hope we can all engage in a process that can further the development of our organization as a place of creativity, depth, and resourcefulness.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Yes, the Politics of Old Are Inadequate
Dear Colleagues,
I am reluctant to respond directly to Drew’s recent posting to this list, but it astonished and puzzled me in ways that can’t simply be ignored. I think the last time someone referred to me as “the other” anything was when I was on the wrong side of a romantic triangle in college. Here’s the section of his post that I’d like to respond to:
“The other candidate has staked his campaign on the certification issue. While I think that issue is important, I firmly believe that there are more serious challenges to psychoanalysis today than certification and TA appointments. I believe you need a president who has the larger view and is not beholden to a vocal group that has fastened on the certification issue.”
While I consider the certification/TA link one of the prominent causes of our organization’s long-standing divisiveness, and it must be solved, I have addressed a broad range of issues affecting APsaA both on this list and my website (www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com). Indeed, I have staked my campaign and my differences with Drew on such significant issues as our need for diversity, for transparency, and for appropriate succession, all ways of ensuring that we hand off a robust organization to the current and subsequent generations of analysts. That is what matters most.
Yes, I am in favor of a certification process that is national and independently administered, and I believe that institutes should have autonomy in determining who will best supervise and analyze candidates. All indications are that this is a majority view (a substantial majority of 57% voted in this direction a mere two years ago), as well as a sensible, pragmatic, and progressive one. On my website, I have a section entitled ‘Goals’ in which I enumerate five overriding priorities of my presidency, if elected. Four have nothing to do with certification. In fact, even if you disagree with me about the problems of our current certification/TA link, you should consider the real significance of these other goals, before casting your vote.
In any event, the idea that I am “beholden” to a “vocal group” is not only untrue, it is way off the mark. Such stereotyped campaigning makes no sense. There are differences between the candidates for presidency, and I believe it is up to our members to decide who may or may not be “beholden” to whom.
For those of you who continue to be put off by politics as usual, I suggest that we candidates all stick to facts and issues, in this way we can all best determine the kind of leadership we need for our future.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
I am reluctant to respond directly to Drew’s recent posting to this list, but it astonished and puzzled me in ways that can’t simply be ignored. I think the last time someone referred to me as “the other” anything was when I was on the wrong side of a romantic triangle in college. Here’s the section of his post that I’d like to respond to:
“The other candidate has staked his campaign on the certification issue. While I think that issue is important, I firmly believe that there are more serious challenges to psychoanalysis today than certification and TA appointments. I believe you need a president who has the larger view and is not beholden to a vocal group that has fastened on the certification issue.”
While I consider the certification/TA link one of the prominent causes of our organization’s long-standing divisiveness, and it must be solved, I have addressed a broad range of issues affecting APsaA both on this list and my website (www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com). Indeed, I have staked my campaign and my differences with Drew on such significant issues as our need for diversity, for transparency, and for appropriate succession, all ways of ensuring that we hand off a robust organization to the current and subsequent generations of analysts. That is what matters most.
Yes, I am in favor of a certification process that is national and independently administered, and I believe that institutes should have autonomy in determining who will best supervise and analyze candidates. All indications are that this is a majority view (a substantial majority of 57% voted in this direction a mere two years ago), as well as a sensible, pragmatic, and progressive one. On my website, I have a section entitled ‘Goals’ in which I enumerate five overriding priorities of my presidency, if elected. Four have nothing to do with certification. In fact, even if you disagree with me about the problems of our current certification/TA link, you should consider the real significance of these other goals, before casting your vote.
In any event, the idea that I am “beholden” to a “vocal group” is not only untrue, it is way off the mark. Such stereotyped campaigning makes no sense. There are differences between the candidates for presidency, and I believe it is up to our members to decide who may or may not be “beholden” to whom.
For those of you who continue to be put off by politics as usual, I suggest that we candidates all stick to facts and issues, in this way we can all best determine the kind of leadership we need for our future.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
The Journey to Our Future
Dear Colleagues:
This is my final letter of the campaign (perhaps one or two too many for some of you, but please plow ahead at least a sentence or two).
I recently had occasion to attend an event at Ellis Island. As I walked through the Great Hall there, I thought of my grandparents and the millions of other uneducated and unsophisticated immigrants who traveled here in steerage at the start of the 20th century. What a transformation America wrought in them and their descendants, many of whom are now well established as managers, professionals, and leaders.
I found myself thinking about risks, journeys, and the power of time. Here we are a hundred years later, many of us children and grandchildren of those bold travelers. And now our venerable organization is moving into its second century too. But do we current travelers have any ideas where our psychoanalytic descendents will be three generations from now? Have we the courage our forebears had, to strike out towards a new world that can support a rich future? Can we even imagine that new world?
We all want an APsaA that is not just managing to keep afloat, but actively growing, with a membership that represents the full creativity, diversity, and ambition of the mental health and academic worlds: an APsaA that embraces, incubates, and generates ideas that enhance the vitality of psychoanalytic theory and practice; psychoanalytic institutes that are educational resources not only for analysts and (by extension) their patients, but also for the mental health community, the academy, and anyone else who is interested in self-knowledge and emotional development; thoughtful institutes whose forms of teaching build on and expand from our traditional models, exposing candidates and students of psychology everywhere to vigorous ideas and rigorous thinking; lively institutes that foster exciting and meaningful research in collaboration with other important disciplines. In short, we want future institutes that are truly centers of psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic research, with arms stretched into the communities who desperately need our ideas and practices. Great universities do this, and so do progressive governments. But, of course, by definition, there are risks.
Forgive me if this sounds self-serving, but what I think distinguishes my candidacy for president is that I do not know what forms the future will take, whereas the conservative agenda in our organization concentrates on self-preservation and self-reproduction. I do not think that will work. Nurturing a future that has value and meaning requires that we create right now the conditions under which our organization can grow and thrive. This means a wider expansion of our democratic ideals, a fuller embrace of diversity (of race, culture, theory, profession), and a greater openness of communication and exchange, all of which together provide the kind of evolutionary catalyst that keeps organizations and ideas from marginalization, fossilization and, ultimately, extinction.
I am no pollyanna here, but we are at a juncture in our history where we need some fresh air, some renewed boldness, and some hope and humility. Like any human being I don’t always rise to the expectation of my own ideals and, of course, I’ve made mistakes. But with your help and my leadership, we can all rise together and fulfill this achievable ideal of a thriving and enlightened future for our organization.
This is my final letter of the campaign (perhaps one or two too many for some of you, but please plow ahead at least a sentence or two).
I recently had occasion to attend an event at Ellis Island. As I walked through the Great Hall there, I thought of my grandparents and the millions of other uneducated and unsophisticated immigrants who traveled here in steerage at the start of the 20th century. What a transformation America wrought in them and their descendants, many of whom are now well established as managers, professionals, and leaders.
I found myself thinking about risks, journeys, and the power of time. Here we are a hundred years later, many of us children and grandchildren of those bold travelers. And now our venerable organization is moving into its second century too. But do we current travelers have any ideas where our psychoanalytic descendents will be three generations from now? Have we the courage our forebears had, to strike out towards a new world that can support a rich future? Can we even imagine that new world?
We all want an APsaA that is not just managing to keep afloat, but actively growing, with a membership that represents the full creativity, diversity, and ambition of the mental health and academic worlds: an APsaA that embraces, incubates, and generates ideas that enhance the vitality of psychoanalytic theory and practice; psychoanalytic institutes that are educational resources not only for analysts and (by extension) their patients, but also for the mental health community, the academy, and anyone else who is interested in self-knowledge and emotional development; thoughtful institutes whose forms of teaching build on and expand from our traditional models, exposing candidates and students of psychology everywhere to vigorous ideas and rigorous thinking; lively institutes that foster exciting and meaningful research in collaboration with other important disciplines. In short, we want future institutes that are truly centers of psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic research, with arms stretched into the communities who desperately need our ideas and practices. Great universities do this, and so do progressive governments. But, of course, by definition, there are risks.
Forgive me if this sounds self-serving, but what I think distinguishes my candidacy for president is that I do not know what forms the future will take, whereas the conservative agenda in our organization concentrates on self-preservation and self-reproduction. I do not think that will work. Nurturing a future that has value and meaning requires that we create right now the conditions under which our organization can grow and thrive. This means a wider expansion of our democratic ideals, a fuller embrace of diversity (of race, culture, theory, profession), and a greater openness of communication and exchange, all of which together provide the kind of evolutionary catalyst that keeps organizations and ideas from marginalization, fossilization and, ultimately, extinction.
I am no pollyanna here, but we are at a juncture in our history where we need some fresh air, some renewed boldness, and some hope and humility. Like any human being I don’t always rise to the expectation of my own ideals and, of course, I’ve made mistakes. But with your help and my leadership, we can all rise together and fulfill this achievable ideal of a thriving and enlightened future for our organization.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Transparency, Openness and Trust
Dear Colleagues,
In recent weeks I have discussed on this list some of my ideas about the values which need greater emphasis and which are essential to the future of our organization. These include an attention to and an embrace of all forms of diversity (cultural, theoretical, racial, political, etc.) and an attunement to the needs of the next generations of analysts. Let me add another important value, one which garners much lip-service but too little action: transparency. Ours has not been a particularly transparent organization historically and the consequence, to members and non-members alike, has been a legacy of hurt and mistrust.
In the business and political worlds transparency has become an essential antidote to corruption and cronyism. To my mind, it correlates with openness, communication, and accountability, especially of leaders. Democracy by itself does not necessarily protect against plutocracy or the occurrence of abuses. This is why one of my leadership goals for APsaA is maximal transparency. Open meetings, public financial statements and budgetary review, and just a general ethic of freedom of information, are essential facets of a thriving and participatory democracy, and critical to our future success as an organization.
As Treasurer these past five years, I have been consistently committed to transparency, including the establishment of a viable and ongoing Audit Committee. Overall, our organization has made good strides towards greater openness of late, but I think we can, and must, move even further. For both practical and creative reasons, we need our members to play a larger role in the workings and evolution of all aspects of our organization, from financial decisions to membership criteria and beyond. The corollary of such an effort will not only be a more vibrant and meaningful organization, but it will also foster a greater sense of confidence and genuine trust in our Association.
As always, I would be delighted to spell out in greater detail my vision for our future and to hear your thoughts on these directions and ideas (you may visit my website at either www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com ). Please feel free to contact me at any time (626-793-7957, wrprocci@sbcglobal.net ) and please don’t forget to vote.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
In recent weeks I have discussed on this list some of my ideas about the values which need greater emphasis and which are essential to the future of our organization. These include an attention to and an embrace of all forms of diversity (cultural, theoretical, racial, political, etc.) and an attunement to the needs of the next generations of analysts. Let me add another important value, one which garners much lip-service but too little action: transparency. Ours has not been a particularly transparent organization historically and the consequence, to members and non-members alike, has been a legacy of hurt and mistrust.
In the business and political worlds transparency has become an essential antidote to corruption and cronyism. To my mind, it correlates with openness, communication, and accountability, especially of leaders. Democracy by itself does not necessarily protect against plutocracy or the occurrence of abuses. This is why one of my leadership goals for APsaA is maximal transparency. Open meetings, public financial statements and budgetary review, and just a general ethic of freedom of information, are essential facets of a thriving and participatory democracy, and critical to our future success as an organization.
As Treasurer these past five years, I have been consistently committed to transparency, including the establishment of a viable and ongoing Audit Committee. Overall, our organization has made good strides towards greater openness of late, but I think we can, and must, move even further. For both practical and creative reasons, we need our members to play a larger role in the workings and evolution of all aspects of our organization, from financial decisions to membership criteria and beyond. The corollary of such an effort will not only be a more vibrant and meaningful organization, but it will also foster a greater sense of confidence and genuine trust in our Association.
As always, I would be delighted to spell out in greater detail my vision for our future and to hear your thoughts on these directions and ideas (you may visit my website at either www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com ). Please feel free to contact me at any time (626-793-7957, wrprocci@sbcglobal.net ) and please don’t forget to vote.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Succession in APsaA- Do We Become an Incubator or a Museum?
We are in danger of becoming a museum rather than an incubator of creative ideas!
Dear Colleagues,
What does this current generation of analysts owe to our next generation?
The Athenian oath was a promise by older leaders to hand over their great city in better condition than they received it. And I believe that those of us who have drawn so much value from our national organization have a similar and irrevocable obligation to our younger colleagues.
In that regard, I propose two avenues towards a richer future for our organization and for all of us within it.
1) As treasurer for the past five years I’ve been substantially involved in strengthening the fiscal bricks and mortars of our organization. It is on this foundation that we need to build an association that is truly representative of our diverse and changing membership. We need to foster the involvement at all levels of committee and community life, including leadership, of our newer and younger members, with all their disciplinary, cultural, and theoretical diversity. As president I will lead and support such efforts, because only in this way can we assure that our organization can remain an incubator for new ideas rather than just a container for old ones.
2) My second point has to do with our Association’s direction: theoretically, clinically and administratively. We need to construct an Association open to the new perspectives arising in the face of current practice realities and to the myriad of newer developments in psychoanalytic theory. We run the risk of being left standing at the station as the best of our rival organizations readily embrace the value and seriousness of new ideas. It may sound obvious, but many in our organization have difficulty grasping the fact that our newer candidates and members, all drawn from varied backgrounds and experience, are essential contributors to developing a modern face and soul for APsaA.
Of course there is more to say about these significant themes, but brevity in this context is undoubtedly appreciated. However, I welcome discussion with any and all of you who are interested, concerned, or enticed by these themes. Feel free to contact me by email (wrprocci@sbcglobal.net) or by telephone (626-793-7957). Please feel free to visit my webpage as well (www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com)
Very truly yours,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Dear Colleagues,
What does this current generation of analysts owe to our next generation?
The Athenian oath was a promise by older leaders to hand over their great city in better condition than they received it. And I believe that those of us who have drawn so much value from our national organization have a similar and irrevocable obligation to our younger colleagues.
In that regard, I propose two avenues towards a richer future for our organization and for all of us within it.
1) As treasurer for the past five years I’ve been substantially involved in strengthening the fiscal bricks and mortars of our organization. It is on this foundation that we need to build an association that is truly representative of our diverse and changing membership. We need to foster the involvement at all levels of committee and community life, including leadership, of our newer and younger members, with all their disciplinary, cultural, and theoretical diversity. As president I will lead and support such efforts, because only in this way can we assure that our organization can remain an incubator for new ideas rather than just a container for old ones.
2) My second point has to do with our Association’s direction: theoretically, clinically and administratively. We need to construct an Association open to the new perspectives arising in the face of current practice realities and to the myriad of newer developments in psychoanalytic theory. We run the risk of being left standing at the station as the best of our rival organizations readily embrace the value and seriousness of new ideas. It may sound obvious, but many in our organization have difficulty grasping the fact that our newer candidates and members, all drawn from varied backgrounds and experience, are essential contributors to developing a modern face and soul for APsaA.
Of course there is more to say about these significant themes, but brevity in this context is undoubtedly appreciated. However, I welcome discussion with any and all of you who are interested, concerned, or enticed by these themes. Feel free to contact me by email (wrprocci@sbcglobal.net) or by telephone (626-793-7957). Please feel free to visit my webpage as well (www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com)
Very truly yours,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
My First Campaign Letter to APsaA Members
The most valuable and important asset of any professional organization is its membership. That is why I am writing to you directly, to ask you to support my candidacy for President-Elect of APsaA. I know that a lot of you have been bored or put off by the postings on the listservs. But those members with little patience for politics "as usual" are often the ones who turn out to be most interested in progressive ideas, so I want to tell you who I am and where I stand. Despite its history of stalwart support for psychoanalysis, APsaA must make some major changes if it is to survive the challenges that face psychoanalysis today. Each of us will soon have to decide who we want to have leading our Association and helping to shape these changes. In this letter I'll tell you something about my background, qualifications, and values. In subsequent communications, I will outline the goals I would embrace as President of APsaA and my vision of the future for psychoanalysis and our organization.
It's been a long journey into this world for me, coming as I did from the blue-collar, working class, Italian-American Staten Island of the 1950s. Going off to the University of Wisconsin for medical school and psychiatric residency was an eye-opening developmental step. That was where I met Joe Kepecs, the charismatic Chicago geographic TA, who first aroused my interest in psychoanalysis.
My training analysis in Los Angeles, where my wife and I moved after my residency, was another great stimulus for personal and professional growth -- a life-changing experience. It set me on the road I have followed ever since, seeking out opportunities to learn, to teach, and, eventually, to lead. For 13 years I was a full-time tenured member first of the USC faculty and then at Harbor/UCLA Medical Center. There, as Director of Residency Training, I pushed hard to involve residents -- not only in matters pertaining to their training, but in all the other aspects of department administration as well. Even then, inclusivity, democracy, and pluralism were key ideals for me and integral to my beliefs about how an organization should be run. I moved into full-time psychoanalytic practice in 1988 and have retained a quarter-time faculty appointment as Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harbor/UCLA.
I graduated from the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute in 1984. Between 1992 and 2001 I served as President-elect (1992 to 1994), as President (1994 to 1996), and as Chair of the Education Committee (1996 to 2001). In these positions too I pushed hard for candidate involvement in all aspects of Institute life, as well as for reforms regarding candidate admission, TA appointment, curriculum design, etc.
I first became involved with APsaA at SCPI's request. It was the early '90s, and we were frustrated by what we saw as cumbersome and restrictive policies regarding the admission of “non-medical candidates," as they were called then. I argued for fewer restrictions, including the abandonment of waivers and shifting admissions decisions from the national level to the local institutes. I think I played a role in the eventual development of less restrictive procedures and greater local autonomy.
At APsaA I was a Fellow to BOPS between 1996 and 2001, and nationally elected three times -- once as Councilor at Large (1997 through 2001) and twice as Treasurer (2002 through 2005 and 2005 to the present). I’ve been an officer of APsaA and an Executive Committee member for five years, and a member of our Board of Directors (Executive Council) for nine. Between 1997 and 2000 I also chaired one of our most important committees, the Committee on Government Relations and Insurance (CGRI). During my tenure as CGRI Chair, we made a significant shift to a stricter defense of the privacy of the psychoanalytic setting, and we also hired our current and extremely effective government representative, Jim Pyles.
As officer and Board member I have consistently and vigorously supported such progressive causes as: an expanded membership proposal; a by-law amendment to grant voting rights to candidates; a BOPS-generated proposal to expand the opportunities for TA appointments; a by-law amendment to extend to all members, not just certified ones, the right to hold office; a by-law amendment to remove references to certification from our by-laws; a bylaw amendment to assert Board (Executive Council) oversight; and a by-law amendment to shift authority for TA appointments to individual institutes.
One other significant leadership experience has helped prepare me for the presidency of APsaA. In 1999, I was asked to join the Wagner College Board of Trustees. Soon after I accepted the invitation, I had assumed a leadership position as a member of the Board’s Executive Committee and as Chair of the College’s Committee on Academic Affairs. In these roles I have had opportunity to deal directly with issues pertaining to administrative oversight of academic matters -- a matter clearly and directly relevant to controversies within today’s APsaA. I have participated significantly in the development and implementation of a strategic plan for the college, and in the college’s capital campaign to enlarge its endowment. This is also relevant for APsaA, and one cornerstone of my presidency would be the establishment of a program of development.
I hope I have persuaded you that I am the right person to be APsaA’s president. I don't think it's immodest to assert that few of our prior presidents have been as well prepared, or to point out the advantages of having a chief executive who won't have to learn the administrative ropes on the job. I hope I have also demonstrated a long and consistent history of support for the principles of pluralistic government, inclusive membership, and wide participation, and for local autonomy over central regulation. If you elect me to lead you, there will be no surprises about the positions I take, nor about my willingness to provide effective leadership in dealing with the serious challenges in front of us.
I believe that if we can get beyond our current dissension, a great future once again awaits our field. I would relish the opportunity to lead us toward it. Please feel free to contact me by phone or email and please visit my webpage as noted above.
With best personal regards,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect of APsaA
It's been a long journey into this world for me, coming as I did from the blue-collar, working class, Italian-American Staten Island of the 1950s. Going off to the University of Wisconsin for medical school and psychiatric residency was an eye-opening developmental step. That was where I met Joe Kepecs, the charismatic Chicago geographic TA, who first aroused my interest in psychoanalysis.
My training analysis in Los Angeles, where my wife and I moved after my residency, was another great stimulus for personal and professional growth -- a life-changing experience. It set me on the road I have followed ever since, seeking out opportunities to learn, to teach, and, eventually, to lead. For 13 years I was a full-time tenured member first of the USC faculty and then at Harbor/UCLA Medical Center. There, as Director of Residency Training, I pushed hard to involve residents -- not only in matters pertaining to their training, but in all the other aspects of department administration as well. Even then, inclusivity, democracy, and pluralism were key ideals for me and integral to my beliefs about how an organization should be run. I moved into full-time psychoanalytic practice in 1988 and have retained a quarter-time faculty appointment as Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harbor/UCLA.
I graduated from the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute in 1984. Between 1992 and 2001 I served as President-elect (1992 to 1994), as President (1994 to 1996), and as Chair of the Education Committee (1996 to 2001). In these positions too I pushed hard for candidate involvement in all aspects of Institute life, as well as for reforms regarding candidate admission, TA appointment, curriculum design, etc.
I first became involved with APsaA at SCPI's request. It was the early '90s, and we were frustrated by what we saw as cumbersome and restrictive policies regarding the admission of “non-medical candidates," as they were called then. I argued for fewer restrictions, including the abandonment of waivers and shifting admissions decisions from the national level to the local institutes. I think I played a role in the eventual development of less restrictive procedures and greater local autonomy.
At APsaA I was a Fellow to BOPS between 1996 and 2001, and nationally elected three times -- once as Councilor at Large (1997 through 2001) and twice as Treasurer (2002 through 2005 and 2005 to the present). I’ve been an officer of APsaA and an Executive Committee member for five years, and a member of our Board of Directors (Executive Council) for nine. Between 1997 and 2000 I also chaired one of our most important committees, the Committee on Government Relations and Insurance (CGRI). During my tenure as CGRI Chair, we made a significant shift to a stricter defense of the privacy of the psychoanalytic setting, and we also hired our current and extremely effective government representative, Jim Pyles.
As officer and Board member I have consistently and vigorously supported such progressive causes as: an expanded membership proposal; a by-law amendment to grant voting rights to candidates; a BOPS-generated proposal to expand the opportunities for TA appointments; a by-law amendment to extend to all members, not just certified ones, the right to hold office; a by-law amendment to remove references to certification from our by-laws; a bylaw amendment to assert Board (Executive Council) oversight; and a by-law amendment to shift authority for TA appointments to individual institutes.
One other significant leadership experience has helped prepare me for the presidency of APsaA. In 1999, I was asked to join the Wagner College Board of Trustees. Soon after I accepted the invitation, I had assumed a leadership position as a member of the Board’s Executive Committee and as Chair of the College’s Committee on Academic Affairs. In these roles I have had opportunity to deal directly with issues pertaining to administrative oversight of academic matters -- a matter clearly and directly relevant to controversies within today’s APsaA. I have participated significantly in the development and implementation of a strategic plan for the college, and in the college’s capital campaign to enlarge its endowment. This is also relevant for APsaA, and one cornerstone of my presidency would be the establishment of a program of development.
I hope I have persuaded you that I am the right person to be APsaA’s president. I don't think it's immodest to assert that few of our prior presidents have been as well prepared, or to point out the advantages of having a chief executive who won't have to learn the administrative ropes on the job. I hope I have also demonstrated a long and consistent history of support for the principles of pluralistic government, inclusive membership, and wide participation, and for local autonomy over central regulation. If you elect me to lead you, there will be no surprises about the positions I take, nor about my willingness to provide effective leadership in dealing with the serious challenges in front of us.
I believe that if we can get beyond our current dissension, a great future once again awaits our field. I would relish the opportunity to lead us toward it. Please feel free to contact me by phone or email and please visit my webpage as noted above.
With best personal regards,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect of APsaA
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Position Statement 1: Diversity
Dear Colleagues,
Once upon a time we psychoanalysts were a pretty homogeneous lot. The hallways and conference rooms of our semiannual meetings were populated mostly by male physicians. That has changed -- changed remarkably. The number of women in our ranks has increased steadily, as has the number of gay colleagues, and we now include Ph.D. psychologists, MSWs, MFTs, and academics. This new diversity has caused us plenty of growing pains, but it is essential to our successful evolution into the future.
The changes did not come about entirely voluntarily; it was the lawsuit against APsaA in the mid 80s that started the deluge. Our organization is still reeling from the aftermath of that lawsuit, and the scars inflicted by decades of exclusion and mistreatment. Few of the APsaA members of those days expected the changes to be as significant as they proved. Whether supporters of the lawsuit or opponents, most of us figured that only a small number of new analysts would join us, and that they would be absorbed into our culture as they integrated themselves into the membership. I doubt that most “old” APsaA members foresaw the influx of new colleagues that actually resulted, nor the profound, creative, and beneficial ways that it would shape the evolution and culture of our organization.
We include many more women now, for example. Their influence has prodded us to develop new ways of clinical thinking and new modes of discourse. And it can continue to help us grow and develop too. But we will realize the fullest potential of this new opportunity only to the extent that we are willing to nurture it. The new perspectives that our female colleagues bring to the Association may well, if we can allow it, help us improve our organizational dialog, and encourage creative solutions to some of the old problems that have dogged us for years.
Similarly, the advent of other disciplines, clinical and nonclinical, into our field has already enriched our organization clinically, theoretically, and administratively. To adduce just one small example, the new cadre of psychologists and academics, whose training includes research, has expanded a vital, and heretofore underdeveloped, aspect of psychoanalytic studies and we have only just begun to take advantage of that new potential.
Our gay colleagues have done much more than enhance and enliven our clinical and theoretical perspectives on gays – they have also raised our collective consciousness about the dangers and pervasiveness of “normative” assumptions. In response we began to take a public stance against discrimination, and we are now reaping the benefits in a far more favorable public perception as being less rigid and conventional and, once again, as empowering and liberating.
My point is that although our newly found diversity was born in strife, it is nonetheless a major asset -- provided that we all learn to embrace it and allow ourselves to be expanded by the variety of worldviews exemplified in our expanded membership.
I myself have always supported a wider opening of our doors. My earliest involvement with APsaA was to push for greater local autonomy over admissions of non-MD candidates. Along with my many “traditional” teaching and administrative roles, I have spent more than a decade teaching in a non-APsaA institute where the candidate and faculty populations are much more similar to our new profile than to the old one. That institute is thriving, with a reliable supply of candidates and a continually evolving curriculum richly informed by the interests of its members, including such real world and academic areas as women’s studies, gay issues, infant research, and so on.
I think that the history of psychoanalysis, and the history of APsaA, have shown that while change is unsettling at first, it is both necessary and desirable. Let’s work to attract new candidates and new members from all backgrounds. More candidates of color should be our next priority. We need the breadth that comes from difference and the depth that comes from courage. Psychoanalysis aspires to universality, but we can’t live up to that aspiration in an exclusionary bubble.
Diversity is essential for evolution.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect of APsaA
Once upon a time we psychoanalysts were a pretty homogeneous lot. The hallways and conference rooms of our semiannual meetings were populated mostly by male physicians. That has changed -- changed remarkably. The number of women in our ranks has increased steadily, as has the number of gay colleagues, and we now include Ph.D. psychologists, MSWs, MFTs, and academics. This new diversity has caused us plenty of growing pains, but it is essential to our successful evolution into the future.
The changes did not come about entirely voluntarily; it was the lawsuit against APsaA in the mid 80s that started the deluge. Our organization is still reeling from the aftermath of that lawsuit, and the scars inflicted by decades of exclusion and mistreatment. Few of the APsaA members of those days expected the changes to be as significant as they proved. Whether supporters of the lawsuit or opponents, most of us figured that only a small number of new analysts would join us, and that they would be absorbed into our culture as they integrated themselves into the membership. I doubt that most “old” APsaA members foresaw the influx of new colleagues that actually resulted, nor the profound, creative, and beneficial ways that it would shape the evolution and culture of our organization.
We include many more women now, for example. Their influence has prodded us to develop new ways of clinical thinking and new modes of discourse. And it can continue to help us grow and develop too. But we will realize the fullest potential of this new opportunity only to the extent that we are willing to nurture it. The new perspectives that our female colleagues bring to the Association may well, if we can allow it, help us improve our organizational dialog, and encourage creative solutions to some of the old problems that have dogged us for years.
Similarly, the advent of other disciplines, clinical and nonclinical, into our field has already enriched our organization clinically, theoretically, and administratively. To adduce just one small example, the new cadre of psychologists and academics, whose training includes research, has expanded a vital, and heretofore underdeveloped, aspect of psychoanalytic studies and we have only just begun to take advantage of that new potential.
Our gay colleagues have done much more than enhance and enliven our clinical and theoretical perspectives on gays – they have also raised our collective consciousness about the dangers and pervasiveness of “normative” assumptions. In response we began to take a public stance against discrimination, and we are now reaping the benefits in a far more favorable public perception as being less rigid and conventional and, once again, as empowering and liberating.
My point is that although our newly found diversity was born in strife, it is nonetheless a major asset -- provided that we all learn to embrace it and allow ourselves to be expanded by the variety of worldviews exemplified in our expanded membership.
I myself have always supported a wider opening of our doors. My earliest involvement with APsaA was to push for greater local autonomy over admissions of non-MD candidates. Along with my many “traditional” teaching and administrative roles, I have spent more than a decade teaching in a non-APsaA institute where the candidate and faculty populations are much more similar to our new profile than to the old one. That institute is thriving, with a reliable supply of candidates and a continually evolving curriculum richly informed by the interests of its members, including such real world and academic areas as women’s studies, gay issues, infant research, and so on.
I think that the history of psychoanalysis, and the history of APsaA, have shown that while change is unsettling at first, it is both necessary and desirable. Let’s work to attract new candidates and new members from all backgrounds. More candidates of color should be our next priority. We need the breadth that comes from difference and the depth that comes from courage. Psychoanalysis aspires to universality, but we can’t live up to that aspiration in an exclusionary bubble.
Diversity is essential for evolution.
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect of APsaA
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Moving Beyond Politics as Usual
Dear Colleagues,
I know that the seemingly endless conflicts of the last several years have left many of our members convinced that APsaA has lost its way. Some of us may even have given up hope that things could ever be different. I am eager to reach these members with this post.
It's true that the rifts in our association are troubling, and that they have bedeviled us for too long. But while no cure is going to make everyone perfectly happy, there are relatively simple and workable solutions to at least some of our problems, and many of us have been working towards them for years. These proposals enjoy the kind of wide support that can eventually lead to a less fragmented, and more hopeful, sense of ourselves and our organization. I hope you will take just a moment to digest them.
1) I think all candidates should have the widest possible choice of analyst AND that each individual institute should have the final decision on what qualifications are required to be a TA at that institute. This was the main purpose of what was called the “local option” bylaw amendment. I do understand why some thoughtful colleagues opposed this proposal but, in my opinion, much (although not all) of the opposition was rooted in older struggles over control and hierarchy.
These conflicts no longer serve our more diverse and democratic organization. All of us wish to ensure that the quality of analytic training and treatment remain high; there is no disagreement about that. But we can’t do that according to the rules that governed the much more homogeneous APsaA of the past. We need to work together in the context of an organizational structure that accurately reflects our more diverse membership. That is what the local option amendment would allow us to do, and for that reason I endorsed and fully supported it.
2) I think that certification does have value. It is hard to argue with the wish that colleagues and potential analysands can rest assured of a practitioner’s competence and expertise. However, our certification process comes from within our organization; it is opaque to outsiders, and sometimes to ourselves, and so it does not have the value, meaning, and credibility that we need to offer the public in this day of multiple therapies. I support the kind of transparent, national, and independent certification process that most other disciplines have relied on for decades.
It isn't true that these changes are “too radical," or that they will somehow split or degrade our great organization. I just don’t believe it. Our association is sometimes slow to adapt to real changes in the psychoanalytic world, but it is robust. Just think of how fearful the APsaA leadership was, not so long ago, about letting in skilled clinicians from other disciplines! But we did let them in, and we are the stronger and the richer for it.
Most of us -- candidates, faculty, and even many of our most renowned training analysts -- know that these changes are essential. They are daunting, yes. But that doesn’t mean they are dangerous if we can move forward in a thoughtful and democratic fashion. The local option amendment and certification reform both acknowledge our past growth and both facilitate growth in the future. If we oppose these relatively simple measures, we will remain tangled in a paralyzing history of old conflictual ruts while the rest of the psychoanalytic world moves ahead towards a more vibrant and productive future.
I do not mean to simplify the issues. But one thing is clear. Now is the time for us to move beyond politics as usual, to get beyond our incessant and unproductive navel-gazing, to take a few straightforward and reasonable steps that lead out of the old quagmires and towards the greater freedom and vitality that our organization, and our community, need and desire.
With your help, we can do this together, thoughtfully and without rancor. Please join me for the best future of our organization (feel free to contact me wrprocci@sbcglobal.net or visit my webpage at www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com ). Thank you.
Warren R. Procci
I know that the seemingly endless conflicts of the last several years have left many of our members convinced that APsaA has lost its way. Some of us may even have given up hope that things could ever be different. I am eager to reach these members with this post.
It's true that the rifts in our association are troubling, and that they have bedeviled us for too long. But while no cure is going to make everyone perfectly happy, there are relatively simple and workable solutions to at least some of our problems, and many of us have been working towards them for years. These proposals enjoy the kind of wide support that can eventually lead to a less fragmented, and more hopeful, sense of ourselves and our organization. I hope you will take just a moment to digest them.
1) I think all candidates should have the widest possible choice of analyst AND that each individual institute should have the final decision on what qualifications are required to be a TA at that institute. This was the main purpose of what was called the “local option” bylaw amendment. I do understand why some thoughtful colleagues opposed this proposal but, in my opinion, much (although not all) of the opposition was rooted in older struggles over control and hierarchy.
These conflicts no longer serve our more diverse and democratic organization. All of us wish to ensure that the quality of analytic training and treatment remain high; there is no disagreement about that. But we can’t do that according to the rules that governed the much more homogeneous APsaA of the past. We need to work together in the context of an organizational structure that accurately reflects our more diverse membership. That is what the local option amendment would allow us to do, and for that reason I endorsed and fully supported it.
2) I think that certification does have value. It is hard to argue with the wish that colleagues and potential analysands can rest assured of a practitioner’s competence and expertise. However, our certification process comes from within our organization; it is opaque to outsiders, and sometimes to ourselves, and so it does not have the value, meaning, and credibility that we need to offer the public in this day of multiple therapies. I support the kind of transparent, national, and independent certification process that most other disciplines have relied on for decades.
It isn't true that these changes are “too radical," or that they will somehow split or degrade our great organization. I just don’t believe it. Our association is sometimes slow to adapt to real changes in the psychoanalytic world, but it is robust. Just think of how fearful the APsaA leadership was, not so long ago, about letting in skilled clinicians from other disciplines! But we did let them in, and we are the stronger and the richer for it.
Most of us -- candidates, faculty, and even many of our most renowned training analysts -- know that these changes are essential. They are daunting, yes. But that doesn’t mean they are dangerous if we can move forward in a thoughtful and democratic fashion. The local option amendment and certification reform both acknowledge our past growth and both facilitate growth in the future. If we oppose these relatively simple measures, we will remain tangled in a paralyzing history of old conflictual ruts while the rest of the psychoanalytic world moves ahead towards a more vibrant and productive future.
I do not mean to simplify the issues. But one thing is clear. Now is the time for us to move beyond politics as usual, to get beyond our incessant and unproductive navel-gazing, to take a few straightforward and reasonable steps that lead out of the old quagmires and towards the greater freedom and vitality that our organization, and our community, need and desire.
With your help, we can do this together, thoughtfully and without rancor. Please join me for the best future of our organization (feel free to contact me wrprocci@sbcglobal.net or visit my webpage at www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com ). Thank you.
Warren R. Procci
Monday, September 24, 2007
Research, Diversity, and Local Control
Dear Colleagues,
There are many things on which all candidates for office and a substantial majority of our membership agree. Research, and in particular research on the efficacy of psychoanalytic treatment, is essential to our vitality as a field and even to our survival in the current healthcare climate.
As your Treasurer for the past five years I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of our research programs. Within the past few weeks I’ve supported, in the Executive and Finance Committees, the very research program which Lynne Moritz, our current President, championed in the recent issue of TAP. During the recent Annual Meeting of our Association in Denver I presented for the consideration of our Board of Directors (Executive Council) a summary of our research funding over the last five years. I emphasized that while we’ve done well supporting research, especially in view of our limited resources, we need to do more. Make no mistake: meaningful, pragmatic research is a high priority of my candidacy.
What may be more important for those of you casting your vote in the coming election is to get a better understanding of the differences among the candidates, especially in areas of ongoing controversy.
I have long been supportive of some form of certification, especially if we can move to a process which is national and independent. However, my position on certification’s role in TA decisions is a distinguishing feature of my candidacy. Yes the certification process and associated research requires appropriate financial support. But whether our current certification process should be a prerequisite for TA appointment should be left to the discretion of each local institute.
The uniqueness of our institutes, the quality of our faculties, and the wonderful diversity of our candidates requires greater flexibility and less centralized control in this very meaningful process.
I welcome further discussion on this issue, both to assist the evolution of my own beliefs and to hear what you have to say on these matters. Feel free to call (626-793-7957) or write me (wrprocci@sbcglobal.net) any time. And, if you can find a moment, please check out my website (www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com)
With my best personal regards,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
There are many things on which all candidates for office and a substantial majority of our membership agree. Research, and in particular research on the efficacy of psychoanalytic treatment, is essential to our vitality as a field and even to our survival in the current healthcare climate.
As your Treasurer for the past five years I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of our research programs. Within the past few weeks I’ve supported, in the Executive and Finance Committees, the very research program which Lynne Moritz, our current President, championed in the recent issue of TAP. During the recent Annual Meeting of our Association in Denver I presented for the consideration of our Board of Directors (Executive Council) a summary of our research funding over the last five years. I emphasized that while we’ve done well supporting research, especially in view of our limited resources, we need to do more. Make no mistake: meaningful, pragmatic research is a high priority of my candidacy.
What may be more important for those of you casting your vote in the coming election is to get a better understanding of the differences among the candidates, especially in areas of ongoing controversy.
I have long been supportive of some form of certification, especially if we can move to a process which is national and independent. However, my position on certification’s role in TA decisions is a distinguishing feature of my candidacy. Yes the certification process and associated research requires appropriate financial support. But whether our current certification process should be a prerequisite for TA appointment should be left to the discretion of each local institute.
The uniqueness of our institutes, the quality of our faculties, and the wonderful diversity of our candidates requires greater flexibility and less centralized control in this very meaningful process.
I welcome further discussion on this issue, both to assist the evolution of my own beliefs and to hear what you have to say on these matters. Feel free to call (626-793-7957) or write me (wrprocci@sbcglobal.net) any time. And, if you can find a moment, please check out my website (www.wrprocci.org or http://warrenprocci.blogspot.com)
With my best personal regards,
Warren R. Procci, Candidate for President-Elect, APsaA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
