Maybe My Shortest Post: One More Chance……….

Dear Friends,

This is intended for anyone who hasn’t voted and especially to those
who may not even want to.

We have all been affected by the divisiveness and disunity within our
association. And while you personally may attend meetings, join your
favorite discussion groups or committees, and gather with friends and
colleagues, you steer clear of our politics, perhaps in the
understandable belief that APsaA is stuck and immune to any truly
reasonable and progressive change.

Then this slightly bearded fellow Mark Smaller comes along and claims
he can make a difference. And why should you believe him, or even
imagine for one second, that he can lead us past a resistant status
quo into a more vibrant and engaging future?

Worse, you may even believe the rather disheartening letter that
arrived in your mail recently (assuming you even opened it), a letter
advocating change, progress and unity, a letter favoring my opponent,
but a letter signed by some of the most vocal supporters of the status
quo and the staunchest opponents of even modest changes that repeated
majorities of our membership voted for in recent years.

The implication that only the ‘experienced’ leadership of my opponent
can save our organization is questionable, may even be irresponsible
because in my view (and certainly I am biased), it seems the
antithesis of good leadership. Following the strong endorsement by
our President and President-elect for REAL change, my opponent seems
finally to be ‘advocating’ reforms (like removing certification as a
TA requirement) that he has either hedged his bets on previously or
actually denied his support time and time again. Is this ‘experienced
leadership’?

I began this campaign with the same hopes, beliefs, and positions that
I remain solidly committed to in these last days of voting, including
a Two-Track way forward, among other serious and long-needed reforms.
(Please read my postings or go to my website if you need assurance:
www.markdsmaller.com)

I have publicly supported the efforts toward reform for many years.
Thoughtful, democratic change is essential; change for political gain
is destructive. Leadership is about reasoned consistency, not
political expediency. It’s about transparent processes, not back room
promises and deals.

As I said in my position statement four months ago, I believe healthy,
open and passionate debate is the foundation of creative change. But,
if elected your President, I will make sure we ALL move forward,
welcoming ALL ideas and arguments, and finally healing divisions in
our association. Reform is not about arbitrary change but about
vision, serious listening, AND finally, humility.

To those of you who feel disaffected and disengaged, and to all who
have yet to vote, please give our organization, your organization, ONE
MORE CHANCE to move forward in healthy and productive ways. I really
believe we can do this together and we will be significantly better
for it.

Best regards, Mark

A Historic Way to Begin a New Year………

For many who have openly and publicly stood for serious change for
many years, attempted to be the voice of reform addressing our
internal strife regarding education, and for some who unfortunately
were sometimes portrayed as marginal, a minority, or a “faction,” the
TAP Joint Presidential Column written by Prudy Gourguechon and Warren
Procci is a significant and gratifying validation of those and many
efforts. Prudy’s and Warren’s outline of change clearly mirrors many
aspects of the Major Revision group’s work, while offering respect for
a traditional view of educational standards.

It is also important to note that when Prudy ran for office, she made
clear her discontent with the whole TA system, while Warren
consistently supported more local autonomy for institutes and
de-linking certification from TA requirements. In their column they
remain consistent in their respective and joint vision, and clearly
differentiate between gate keeping and finally, expanded and improved
educational standards. Prudy and Warren have offered an important
lesson in leadership: remaining consistent but flexible, while not
being swayed for political gain.

Here is the final challenge. Members of the Major and Minor Groups
need to be contacted and informed of your views, your ideas, and how
you see us moving forward. The leadership of the BOPS must hear from
all of us. Right, first we ask you to go through this election and
reading endless emails. And, now I am asking that you consider these
issues and “write Congress,” so to speak, about what you think.

In the other column in TAP, Cal Narcisi and Myrna Weiss, our BOPS
co-chairs, describe the Task Force and the structure of change. They
point out that it was decided in Chicago that 1/3 of the institutes
must sign on to a contemporary track. The Major Revision group has
already asked that this be figure be rescinded. I would hope all
members would support this and not allow that to be a sticking point
interfering with the two track way forward.

I believe that Cal and Myrna and the whole of the BOPS, along with
Prudy and Warren and the Council, genuinely and sincerely want what is
best for our whole organization to move forward and thrive, and all
will support serious effort in January, to make this happen.

Wouldn’t it be incredible if we look back years from now, and
remember that the year 2010, under Prudy, Warren, Cal and Myrna, was the
year things not only changed, but did so with reform that made standards of
education and the association reach seriously new heights? And, we
move toward the 100th Anniversary of APsaA in 2011 with a diverse
perspectives, but a solid and unified commitment to psychoanalytic
practice, education, advocacy and research. How about that for a way
to begin the new year?

This election, in my mind, has been all about this kind of change.

Please vote….Everyone, vote today.

Best regards, Mark

Neutrality, the Status Quo and Depleted Souls

My opponent has written that he is “pleased” with the reports of the both the Major and Minor Revisions groups but appears neutral, at least to me, about which he favors. He is well versed on the IPA rules, yet some from the Major Revisions Group point out how subjective his interpretations of rules can be.

One could argue that neutrality is what APsaA needs, and that neutrality is leadership. In this election I disagree on both counts. Understanding both sides of the issue–essential. Neutrality? Doesn’t it maintain the status quo?

From the beginning of may campaign and for years long before I was nominated, with over half of the membership, I saw the need for serious change, voted for that, and wrote about it on the OPLN.

My opponent writes, “…to me the exciting element is we have finally begun to have a dialogue about what are our core beliefs about education. Even better, we have for the first time established a process by which we can consider these beliefs. Interestingly, the IPA is going through a similar soul-searching discussion about education, but more about that later.”

More dialog and soul searching? Prospective candidates, as I write, are applying to independent institutes. Morale in our association continues to deteriorate, and some of our oldest and largest institutes are portrayed as rebellious or in violation of rules, as they attempt creative methods of education to move forward. Was there anything in the Major Revisions report that didn’t sound like an absolute commitment to the highest educational standards?

If not mistaken, I thought we have been having that dialog over the last twenty years at least since I have been an APsaA member. I, like many of you, have heard these things debated repeatedly and many are giving up. Many of our “souls” are sadly depleted.

We are already at the point with the proposal, put forth by President Prudy Gourguechon in Chicago, sitting on the table. It is the outcome of years of dialog and debate. FINALLY, we have two tracks allowing the serious change over half the membership voted for twice, while the minority maintain a traditional track if that is what their local groups decide. Local groups decide what fits with their institute, their culture, vote on either track, create real data and experience for their own and other institutes. But most importantly WE TRY SOMETHING NEW.

Regarding the IPA, I would see us as leading with innovation and creative methods of education as the IPA develops and explores their new standards, rather remain obsequious to outdated policies of education.

Where does my opponent stand? He writes, “My suggestion is that we use this opportunity to start from the ground up, and really consider what an ideal education system, or systems ought to consist of.”

I can’ imagine how many of you experience such a view. You are not a “faction” as some want to portray me as being a part of. More discussion, more soul searching, “considering an ideal education system?” Isn’t this the position that most of my opponents’ endorsers have argued for years? Every president until the current one since I have been a member has tried to lead in this way. We finally have a president who put forth a serious, workable proposal for change. Our current President-elect has supported the past two by-law reforms. I want to follow in their footsteps. Does that make me a member of a “faction,” or radical in my view?

As one of my opponent’s endorsers describes, Bob Pyles has been a leader in APsaA in Washington D.C. I could not agree more about his contributions for advocacy regarding privacy in health care. His accomplishments are admirable. He is a pro at politics. His past presidency 12 years ago, and committee work has succeeded.

But politics and neutrality are the last thing we need to move APsaA forward in today’s psychoanalytic world and the world outside. Worse than losing prospective candidates and members we are losing RESPECT from those outside our association–analysts, mental health professionals and the public. I am not making this up (see the Strategic Marketing Report).

I am committed to compromise, but I am against playing both sides of a issue. That’s not leadership. That’s politics, maintaining the status quo, and therefore unresponsive to our membership.

If you have not voted, please take 5 minutes and do so. This is really important and the choice is very clear.

Finally, I apologize to those of you who have voted and are tired of the election. Some have not, but we are almost there.

Best regards, Mark

Lessons of Leadership: Sigmund Freud, Heinz Kohut, and Nelson Mandela

Three of the photographs in my office are of Sigmund Freud, Heinz Kohut, and Nelson Mandela. Each of them not only made significant contributions to humankind, but brought forward a very particular kind of leadership, not without flaws, that moved their respective “missions,” forward.

Freud, in creating a new field against almost insurmountable odds, including dismissive and hostiles response from the scientific, cultural, religious, and political communities of his time, never lost sight of keeping his endeavor moving forward. When attacked for theories and treatment methods, he forged ahead with more scientific data based on clinical work with detailed writing used as evidence. His application of these ideas beyond the consulting room, remain as significant today as they did during his life.

As a leader, he welcomed colleagues, often younger, who would take his new field beyond him and to new communities, both scientific and otherwise, around the world. Many succeeded. Others went in new and diverging paths which could be met with a dismissive response by Freud. Personal relationships sometimes ended quickly and painfully. His response in historical context was understandable–a young field, if not solid and fully developed, could gradually disappear.

I believe psychoanalysis sits on solid ground today. As one friend of mine has always suggests–he never worries about the survival of psychoanalysis, but always about the the survival of psychoanalysts. We no longer have to operate out of old fear, be it about theories, or standards of education.

Lessons of Freud’s leadership are about keeping one’s eye on the bigger picture, expanding an “inner circle,” both in new ideas and pragmatic development, while maintaining critical foundations of theory and treatment. Lessons from the limitations of his leadership “style,” are sharing and delegating responsibility with other and newer colleagues, to move ideas forward. Something like–their ideas and actions may not be exactly like mine, or the way I might do it, but I can trust they will add their own mark and creativity, and through our common commitment to the whole field and association, both will grows by their actions. As a leader, that becomes primary organizing principle–the growth of our field.

In the photograph of Kohut he is sitting in a chair at his home feeding his dog (I believe the dog’s name was Tovi). It was given to me by his sister-in-law as a Christmas present years ago through a mutual friend. That picture is a complex symbol. I remember literally sneaking in the back door on a cold Tuesday evening of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Society 34 years ago. It was not a particularly welcoming place to outsiders.

A well respected faculty member was presenting a paper critical of Kohut’s ideas, and in the most personal and attacking way. When someone asked a question disagreeing with the presenter, his question was was dismissed as a “resistance,” to a more traditional way of thinking. Kohut’s back was to me and I couldn’t see his face but he sat completely still. Later, I would hear stories of Kohut, a former president of APsaA, walking though the halls of the Waldorf being completely shunned by old freinds and colleagues, merely for offering new ideas.

Whether you agreed or not with Kohut’s ideas, the clarity of thinking, like during an hour long lecture without a note, was impressive. I heard him later on two occasions. But it was because of Kohut, nicknamed “Mr. Psychoanalysis,” that I was determined to learn and study closely traditional psychoanalytic theory. Only then could I hope to make any real sense of more contemporary theories and ideas. Some of his collaborators became my mentors, and as I previously said, their generativity, had the great influence. He himself at times could be dismissive like Freud, and maybe for similar reasons. Yet, his ideas have remained and grown. As he wrote, leadership requires great empathy with those one hopes to lead.

And finally, in 1997, I traveled with one of my daughters, Leah, then 13, to Cape Town both to present a paper, and visit a woman in (that woman Kim Richardson later became my wife). One of the first things we did was to take a boat to Robben Island, where Nelson Mandela spent 18 of his 27 years in prison. Our guide was Patrick, a former fellow inmate with Mandela. We were taken to the 8×8 ft cell (“classroom is what he called it) where Mandela lived, the quarry where he worked each day, the shower room where most of the political lessons of change and freedom were whispered to younger inmates, and the mail room where officials would censor mail, or blatantly change content, for example: write to a spouse on the mainland that the inmate no longer wanted to married; or writing the inmate falsely about a relative dying. This on top of daily physical abuse.

At the conclusion of the tour, Patrick asked Leah to come forward in front of the group. He took both her hands and said, “My new young friend, when you return to America, you must not forget that the most important lesson we learned from Mr. Mandela: “You can never right a wrong with another wrong.”

Such a principle guided not only his will to survive impossible conditions, but also impacted Manlela’s decisions to begin work with his oppressors years before his actual release. How do we avoid civil war and more bloodshed, end apartheid but save our country. It is hard to imagine siting down with his captors, who had taken him away from his family and his life for 27 years, and work toward compromise and change. Though there have been many problems and missteps since, Mr. Mandela saved a nation.

One lesson is obvious. One can be openly and clearly on the side of significant change and still negotiate serious compromise with those with whom one disagrees to save a country, to save the mission, and certainly to bring a professional association forward.

Kohut wrote that it is not what a parent does that has the most impact on a child’s development. It is about who a parent is. Hopefully throughout this campaign I have conveyed to you all something about who I am, how I have led, and how I will lead.

But, this election is not about me, nor Bob. It’s about you and about our common psychoanalytic “mission” and association and how we finally move forward by way of real change.

If you have voted…thank you. If not, do so today.

Best regards, Mark P.S. Kim and I are going to see the movie, Invictus, this evening.

Two Tracks Forward; The Challenge Ahead: What Is Best For Our Association

Dear Friends,

I am sure in your “spare time” you have had a chance to read both summaries of the two groups, Major Revisions Group, and Minor Revisions Group of the BOPS Task Force on Education. But if you have not please do so as soon as you are able.

As promised, I read through the Minors Revisions Group and it is also a serious effort in revising our current Educational Standards to make them more responsive to the current needs of our local institutes to educate. We certainly owe special thanks to the members of that committee as well: Lee Ascherman, Stephen Bernstein, Joanne Callan, Colleen Carney, Robert Glick, Richard Lightbody, Dwarakanath Rao, and Stephanie Smith.

The volunteer time and effort by members is quite incredible, and something for which we never give enough acknowledgement. So a huge “thank you” to all those working on this task force.

The goal as stated by the group was to make revisions that would be not only more responsive, but also to make the whole document more user friendly. Clearly the group went through the entire document and there is a definite change in tone and content, especially with serious improvement in describing curriculum. I still wish that something would be stated about psychoanalysis out in our communities, though I may have missed that. But that’s a detail that can easily be amended. I can’t imagine anyone would oppose candidates in today’s world taking psychoanalytic ideas out into their community and have some class in the curriculum to help them .

These revisions reaffirm that certification be a part of the TA requirement, but offers a more educational approach that would begin locally during the candidates training and that hopefully would result not only in the graduate applying for certification, but doing so with greater skill and as an outgrowth of the whole education process. However, as was stated, the changes were minor.

Again, mine was a quick read for both documents and I will reread both over the couple of weeks and comment to both groups.

But more important than the details is the upcoming process. As was stated in Chicago, the goal was a two track alternative to our current system. Each local institute would be given a choice to be voted on by the local group as to which track most fits with their institute, and remains in compliance with IPA standards of education–a “traditional track” or a “contemporary track.” That was the way the proposal was outlined by Lynne and Prudy.

The beauty of the two track proposal is that more of the membership locally has a voice in whether they want a major revision at their institute or center, or a minor one and they vote on it. Also, as it was originally proposed, though this seems to have changed, no bylaw amendment would have be needed in this new system. That remains in question. The Minor Revisions document recommends no bylaw change which could create greater divisiveness. I believe this will all be up for discussion at the retreat a week before the meetings.

It is a huge step, regardless of which document makes more sense to you, me or your institute. I have been very clear over the last four months that serious reform and change is needed, and obviously the work of the Major Revisions Group makes more sense to me locally. But I aware that other institutes have a very different culture than Chicago, and a more traditional track would fit better with those institutes.

Again that is the beauty the two track system. All members through their local groups have a greater voice in how we move forward. Here is the challenge ahead: Can the BOPS leadership work through various differences in these documents and make decisions not based upon their own ideas about education and standards, but based upon the well being of our membership and our association?

Leadership is about responding to our membership, not responding to what is politically convenient for an election. Leadership is about consistent clarity of position and transparency, not about back room promises and deals. That reflects old ways of leading in APsaA. Leadership is about leading with a vision of change while in office, not in presentations at the conclusion of one’s term. Leadership is not about scaring members with implied threats of splitting because of differing points of view, or threatening the loss of advocacy in government or public endeavors.

Leadership is about raising morale of APsaA, finally, and uniting members in an association with leaders that will want to do the best for that organization and our profession.

Best regards, Mark
–

In Absolute Awe: The Major Revisions Committee, Well Done!

Dear Friends,

I am already late for our monthly child analysis dinner here in
Chicago, but I could not not tear myself away from reading quickly the
Major Revisions Group of the Task Force on Educational Standards
Revision of our Board of Professional Standards. I will be reviewing
later on this evening the Minor Revisions report and comment by
tomorrow.

The work of the Major Revisions group is an incredible document, a
must read about what it means to educate in 2009 and beyond.

I would ask Erik Gann (Chair), Ralph Fishkin, Richard Fritsch, Robert
Galatzter-Levy, William Glover, Robert Gordon, Michael Kowitt, Jay
Kwawer, Barbara Shapiro, and David Terman, to imagine that I am sort
of giving you all a high five, a huge thank you to all of you.

For me, and I hope for many members, this might be one of the most
progressive, thoughtful, creative, innovative and forward looking
documents produced in our association in recent past. I applaud this
committee’s incredible hard work and work in such a short period of
time. A discussion of various ideas, perspectives, and concerns, but
ultimately a consensus. It allows for real flexibility. It speaks to
all with which we have been struggling for so long. It represents a
new way forward for institutes trying to educate in the most effective
ways, moving forward, while absolutely insuring the highest quality
standards of psychoanalytic education. And I want to underscore that
real standards of education are outlined in this document, no longer
tied to outdated gate keeping ways. Those days might finally be
over.

I, like many will have question, suggestions, concerns and amendments
about various details, but as a whole the document points not only
toward the future of how we educate and train, keeping candidates and
their personal analyses central, but will facilitate recruitment,
research on education and what works, what doesn’t, create more
educators and supervisors, and insure the future of our association.
Local institutes will have the autonomy they need to educate.

Some will suggest more discussion, more committees, etc. The time to
move forward on this is now. Our future is now. We can do this.

The work in Chicago and San Francisco is outlined and so useful to study.

In the meantime, I would encourage all members to go to our website,
log in the members section and take a look at both models of revision.
This is about the future of all of us, and about field and
association.

We owe Past President Lynne Mortiz and President Prudy Gourguechon a
big “thank you” for first suggesting and outlining a “two track” way
of moving forward.

After reviewing the Minor Revisions document, I will comment with
hopes about how both documents can be integrated into new two track
way standard of education.

To this committee, I say, bravo. Well done! Most importantly, we are
all in your debt.

Best regards, Mark

Convictions, Passion, Generativity: Essential for APsaA’s Success

Dear Friends,

I will no longer write, “and Colleagues” in my addressing you, since I
currently divide most time between family, practice, and all of you!
I have started telling my wife before getting on the computer, “Just
going to spend some time with friends.”…..I no longer see my friends
outside. Like it or not, I have adopted ALL of you as friends.

OK…. from here on out, could people not hold back and really share
how they feel about Bob and me. Way too quiet out there…..no
passion, no strong convictions……:)

We are a passionate group, hey? Think about it. If we could
transform people’s feelings into electricity we could light up Chicago
for weeks during the holidays. Better yet, if we transform all this
passion into the hard work that needs to be done for the well being of
our field, we will succeed big time.

I must say that being the “young” guy at 58 is great, especially when
considering the aching longer after long runs, or having more frequent
back spasms from carrying sleeping 4 1/2 year old twins from the car
and up the stairs. Don Rosenblitt even said it would be like I was
“cutting teeth” as a president. I’m getting seriously “younger” as
this campaign goes on!

Thanks to everyone for posting. I hope, whether you support me or not,
that you know I read or “listen,” to ALL of you and your ideas, your
visions about how to move forward. It has an impact. Really. I want
to respond to directly to Drew, Don, Steven, and some others, not to
single you out, rather, because I know if you are thinking certain
ways about me, others probably are as well. This might be a way to
“speak to the larger group.”

Drew and Don, I am a psychoanalyst, just like both of you. That is
what we all have, always will have in common. We both want what is
best for APsaA, for our profession, and for our colleagues. We have
different ideas about how to accomplish those things. I am NOT the
voice or representative of any “faction.” That’s a bit dismissive.

The majority of members voted for bylaw reform and I don’t believe you
both really think over the half the membership is a “faction.” That
misrepresents me and the majority of members. And please note that my
endorsements represent many colleagues with very different points of
view, experience, history, etc. Many contribute to my own voice and
ideas just as they do to yours. But it remains my voice and the voice
of many other members.

But Drew, much more importantly—remember what you and your colleagues
in Cleveland, with Richard Lightbody, taught me, and the Committee on
Foundations years ago? One of our best COF meetings. Dick Settel
(sp), I believe was his name, the retired G.E. executive, former
Marine, who was on your foundation board, insisted that Cleveland must
reorganize and he almost locked all of you up in his house for a
couple of weekends until you battled, discussed, and compromised a way
through a reorganization plan to become a center. We were in awe, not
because you came up with a “perfect” plan and I know there have been
problems since. But you seriously tried something new, innovative,
fresh, a new way forward, holding on to what was working and letting
go of what was not working. I have never forgotten that lesson or
weekend. Please read my positions statement (www.markdsmaller.com).
It’s in there. What I learned in Cleveland years ago helped me to
transform the Neuropsychoanalysis Foundation 6 years ago to what it
has become—a vibrant foundation supporting an exciting and relatively
young new field and new area of psychoanalysis.

Don, you are right. We don’t know each other well. However, what I
do know is that we share a common passionate commitment to analysis,
to child analysis in and outside our outside our offices. I would
love for you to come to Chicago and visit my school, sit in on one of
my groups and see what we are doing. And I would love to come down to
North Carolina and visit your school, the Lucy Daniels Center for
Early Childhood Center, and see what I could learn from you and your
staff as I am learning from Allen Creek in Ann Arbor, or our whole
consortium of psychoanalytic schools. Lucy Daniels was always an
important contributor to COF.

Leadership, it seems to me, is built on considering and sorting out
many different points of view, without ever forgetting, not for one
second, what binds us together, what is important beyond political
view–psychoanalysis and the future of our field. I am committed to
that.

I don’t know Steve Bernstein personally. But I wanted to respond
directly to you as well. Although I very much appreciated Paul
Mosher’s support, what I wrote him after reading his thoughtful
posting was to share that my best psychoanalytic teachers, those who
had the most influence my career were those who seemed to sort of glow
with generativity. One who remains on my mind because we lost her
last year was Marian Tolpin. Whether you agreed or disagreed with her
psychoanalytic point of view, she never forgot your name, she never
failed to ask about what YOU were working on in the field, and always,
with great enthusiasm emphasized the importance of going forward with
new ideas, working on them whether they agreed with yours or not. She
loved new ideas. It was no coincidence that one of her most important
contributions was her paper on, “The Forward Edge,” which emphaszied
the forward edge of development and treatment. It is the foundation
of what we do in my ASAP Program in Chicago.

But Steve, without Marian and her wisdom about all kinds of things, I
would not be where I am in my work. I miss her terribly. And there
have been many others, Marvin Margolis being central for me in APsaA,
which is why when I began this campaign early in the fall I drove to
Detroit to have breakfast with him, and later to the Benefit in his
honor. I would not be running were it not for Marvin. He provided so
much opportunity for me and many of us.

But Paul’s mentioning of age hit a hot spot, and raises an incredibly
important point more about APsaA than the election itself. Being
generative is something essential to an ever growing association or
field. New ideas, new organizational structure, new and innovative
ways of educating, new committee chairs, etc. I smiled about the
whole issue because I have already begun, almost without thinking
about it in APsaA, and my foundation. It was completely an outgrowth
of what others have done for me.

I already have a younger colleague, Will Braun, 35 years old (can you
believe it….35! younger than one of my kids), who as the co-chair of
the Committee on Public Information, practices, and consults at George
Jackson Academy, and has more energy, more ideas, more enthusiasm than
me. And Maggie Zellner, who some of you in New York know from our
monthly Neuropsychoanalysis lectures has now taken over many of my
responsibilities over in the foundation. Maggie, a graduate of NPAP
and is not a member of APsaA, though I am working on that, is a 42
year old analyst and neuropsychologist and has that same energy and
enthusiasm as well. And there are others.

I want to emphasize that this is not about age per se, its about being
generative as an organization, absolutely in the sense of Erikson. If
we want candidates to be more involved in APsaA, newer members to be
more active, we must enthusiastically invite them, as many of us were,
not just to meetings but to specific committees andTgive them
leadership opportunities as quickly as we can. With our newer members
being older than years before, most are already accomplished in other
fields and we need their talents. Many of us already do this, but we
need more of this kind of attitude and atmosphere. It can only
increase morale.

I want to thank many of you have written privately, and on the OPLN.
I am extremely grateful, I have written most of you privately and will
continue today. And others who raise concerns about me, keep writing
publicly or privately and I will try to respond to your concerns.

As we say in Chicago, VOTE EARLY, AND OFTEN! Seriously, this is an
incredibly important election.

Ok…..we finally had serious snow here in west Michigan. Sledding a
must………..

Best regards,

Mark

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT YOU, ABOUT REAL CHANGE; VOTE YOUR CHOICE, VOTE TODAY

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I first want to thank the following friends and colleagues who so
generously offered warm, thoughtful and supportive words about me, and
about this election: Paul Mosher, Harvey Rich, Mark Solms, Stuart
Twemlow, Kerry Kelly Novick, Carol Levin, Carla Solomon, Brenda
Solomon, Selma Duckler, and Harvey Rich.

For those of you did not see them on the Openline listserve, merely
click and/or copy and paste the following line into your browser to
review. http://www.markdsmaller.com/refs.html

As I have shared with them, win or lose, it would have been worth
running to have read what these people wrote to me and you. I am
extremely moved and grateful. Thank you.

You should have all received ballots by now. This election is NOT
about me. It is about you and our association. Presidents can lead,
but only you, the membership can determine our course. Presidents
work for you. If elected, I work for you, always.

Therefore, your vote your choice, is critical in determining in which
direction we move. We are a relatively small organization and every
vote counts, every vote matters. Don’t leave that ballot on your
desk. PLEASE VOTE TODAY.

Over the course of the last three months, I have written to you about
my positions, received hundreds of emails from many of you, and tried
to respond to all of those mails to clarify my positions. Again,
thank you for writing and for sharing with me your views, your
experiences, and your ideas about how we move forward. I believe we
can.

The ballot you receive is about regaining our place in psychoanalytic
education, and whether APsaA and our educational structures will
support — or interfere with — institutes’ efforts to recruit
candidates. This ballot is about learning from other fields and
enriching psychoanalysis — the hard and social sciences, business, the
arts — and enriching them in turn with our ideas. All my clinical
experience and work outside my office has been geared to that aim.
With that we will continue to grow and develop—in education, practice,
and research. Things we do well will be even better.

This election is NOT about the same old ways of handling new
challenges. My opponent advocates trying to obtain consensus when we
already have had the majority of members voting for serious change in
three bylaw amendments, two of which he voted openly voted against.
He admits his biggest disappointment while President 12 years ago was
that he could not obtain consensus. While serving on the BOPS for
many years, I don’t recall he ever championed innovation or reform.
It is only recently that he advocates for change.

Not until our current president, Prudy Gourguechon put forth, openly,
in the Council and in the BOPS, the possibility of a workable plan to
help institutes. We have waited far too long for our leadership to
act. And we lose candidates each day. I was just told by the head of
the Affiliates Council, Carmela Perez, that last year we had 101 new
candidates entering training, and this year only 64. 64 across the
country, 31 institutes. We cannot wait for more discussion and more
rationalization of why we can’t change, more warning of “unintended
consequences, and more fear of change.

This election is about serious change, now, and new leadership. Many
friends during this campaign have advised me to be more moderate in my
views, back off from change for political gain, that I would “scare
off” voters. 64 candidates this year. I could not do that. I fear
only of our future if we do not make these changes.

Candidates and new members worry cost about training, and about their
practices. We must help them. As President-elect the first think I
will do is create a Practice Initiative to address this concern, and
offer real solutions.

My good friends and colleagues, our future is now. Your vote matters.
It makes a difference. VOTE YOUR CHOICE OF WHICH DIRECTION WE MOVE.
VOTE TODAY.

Again my thanks to so many of you who have offered support and
incredibly kind words. Let us move forward together.
Best regards, Mark

10 Actions Guaranteed to Increase Recruitment, Development, and Public Information at Your Institute or Center

This election is about so much more than standards of education.
Please consider the following:

10 Actions Guaranteed to Increase Recruitment, Development, and Public
Information at Your Institute or Center

Recruitment:

1. Hold an open house– NOT at your institute or center, but at
someone’s home, either faculty or community board member.

2. Invite new candidates. Have one present 15 minutes of case
material and 5 minutes about how the supervision has helped with the
case. Have another talk about why they chose analytic training, this
particular training center, and how its going. Have another talk about the
effect of psychoanalytic training on their other clinical work.

3. Encourage all Faculty and Candidates to come and bring at least one
prospective candidate (student from graduate school, residency, agency).

4. Also, with a personal call or email, contact the heads of
residency training, graduate school deans, or agency directors about
the open house, and invite that person as well.

5. Finally, serve dinner (not pizza).

Development:

6. At the next faculty meeting ask each faculty (and each candidate)
member to either invite a friend to lunch, or at an already planned
social dinner, have faculty/candidate ask his or her friend for a 10
minute opportunity to tell the friend (friend must NOT be an analyst)
about your institute, various programs out in the community, low fee
clinic, and something about the faculty’s clinical work. 10 minutes.
That’s it. Remember, we tend to often to talk to ourselves. This
exercise helps faculty practice talking about psychoanalysis.
Just sharing information.

7. Follow-up a month or so later with that friend, with another 10
minute conversation. That’s it. The key to development (fundraising)
involves three concepts that we do best: relationship, relationship,
relationship.

Public Information:

8. Pick up the newspaper, listen to NPR, or local or national news
program, and consider a psychoanalytic perspective for every story you
read or listen to: children and families, economy, either war,
politics, health care, religion, leadership, the arts, music, etc….

9. Over the next week, please pick up your local newspaper, or listen
to NPR, or local news program. When you hear a story that interests
you, no matter what it’s about, call or email the reporter, tell the
reporter you are a psychoanalyst, and that you very much liked their
story. Offer one psychoanalytic idea about the story.

10. Call or email your local health section reporter(s) and tell them
about your sliding scale clinic for psychotherapy and psychoanalysis.

And finally, let me know what happens…………

Thanks and best, Mark

BRINGING CHANGE THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR AND NOT THE BACK: IT’S UP TO OUR MEMBERSHIP

My opponent writes: “Waivers are granted, for whatever purpose, because that particular person or group is considered so special or desirable that the ordinary rules or requirements do not have to apply.” BACK

There is an old Woody Allen routine from the 60’s, where, shortly after being kidnapped by the Ku Klux Klan, he fearfully sees his entire life passing before his eyes, and worse, suddenly realizes its the wrong life!

My opponent cannot really be describing our association and history. I would like those members who received waivers for anything in our history to write on the OPLN about having felt “special or desirable,” in their waiver process.

It does not work that way in our organization, never has, never will. One long time and respected member wrote to me to express his concern that another waiver process will make us even more vulnerable to another lawsuit: “Waivers become a back door to policy change, but with the great danger that that those who do not get a waiver and think they should constitute a class who might sue because they are the objects of discrimination.” MEMBERS MUST SAY, “ENOUGH!”

I have received a number of letters expressing the concern that our whole TA system is again one where the market of competition for cases and financial compensation is controlled by one group benefiting from the policy, and creates fertile ground for more resentment locally and worse and lower morale. MEMBERS MUST SAY ENOUGH!

However, I am most troubled by the following. I received many private emails from members, especially in response to my last two postings. In addition to excellent ideas, frequently people write that they don’t want to be quoted by name because they are concerned of repercussions from their local groups, be they candidates or members.

HOW COULD WE HAVE BECOME THAT KIND OF ORGANIZATION WHERE A MEMBER CANNOT BE OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT HIS OR HER VIEWS WITHOUT SUCH FEAR? IF ELECTED I WILL CHANGE THAT ATMOSPHERE ONCE AND FOR ALL.

I have said this before, when asked what a president or president-elect can to finally bring APsaA into the 21st century. A president can lead but you, our members must make the difference, not only in your vote, with your voting for members of Council and the BOPS, but in your openly voicing your concerns on the OPLN.

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT MOVING FORWARD, AS EXPRESSED BY THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS IN SUPPORTING TWO MAJOR BY-LAW VOTES. REAL CHANGE….THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR AND NOT THE BACK……

NO MORE REGRESSION BACK TO OLD METHODS, LIKE WAIVERS, “RE-EXAMINATION,” MORE TASK FORCES, MORE “CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS, ETC.”

NOW IS THE TIME TO VOICE YOUR CONCERNS, TO VOTE YOUR CONCERNS, YOUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS. OUR FUTURE IS NOW.

Thanks and best, Mark

Mark D. Smaller, Ph.D.; Nominee, APsaA President-elect