Developments to the Eitingon Model: Virginia Ungar
Further Communications on the Development of the Eitingon Model
I wrote to you in August about the decision taken by the previous Board to "in principle permit a frequency of 3 to 5 sessions per week in the IPA’s Eitingon Model".
I previously wrote to you that, at that moment, absolutely nothing had changed about the minimum standards acceptable under the IPA’s rules. I also promised that we would move forward in a spirit of sensitivity and transparency, seeking a solution which would seek to blend the differing needs and realities.
I am now writing to share the progress made at the Board Meeting held from 13 to 15 January in Costa Rica.
After several very open and frank conversations we have reached a decision which I am pleased to say was unanimously endorsed by the whole Board. The key elements are :
- The Task Force recommendations for the amendment of the Procedural Code were accepted.
This means that any Component Society which uses the Eitingon training model and wishes to vary their training model in line with the new frequency requirements may now do so without reference to anyone else, obviously in line with their own democratic processes.
- A timeline was agreed for implementation of an assessment process to be used for when new groups apply to the IPA.
- An implementation task force will be established, to report their recommendations to the Board by January 2019. Our International New Groups Committee ("ING") will then have 12 months to develop detailed processes for the Board to consider in January 2020.
It was recognised that, assuming Board approval in January 2020, ING would then normally require between 3 and 5 years to complete the full assessment of any new group under those new procedures. It was also noted that ING does not have unlimited resources: if many groups apply the timeline may be even longer. At a subsequent Executive Committee meeting, it was agreed to recommend to the Board that this Task Force should also take responsibility for reviewing and making recommendations on Equivalence Procedures.
Two further Task Forces were agreed: a Task Force on Collegial Quality Assessment (CQA) and a Task Force on Representation.
The remit of the Collegial Quality Assessment Task Force will be "to develop proposals for a collegiate system of quality assessment (the name for this to be subject to recommendation by the Task Force) which should provide a means for sharing best practice between societies including inter-regionally, which should engage with all the training models, and which should reassure the Board (and Candidates) of the quality standard being achieved". The Board believed that it was vital for the IPA to have a single, unified system of quality assessment operating across all training models and in all regions.
The remit of the Task Force on Representation will be to "take recommendations from interested parties and to make recommendations to the Board as to what might be a fairer system of democratic representation than is currently in place, taking account of democratic changes in the IPA since the current system was put in place, looking at trends for the immediate future considering the aspiration to create a fourth IPA region for Asia-Pacific, considering the appropriate balance between Candidates, Members, and retired Members, and societies".
These two Task Forces will both produce initial reports by June 2018 and final reports (CQA) by January 2019 and (Representation) July 2019.
It was agreed that in January 2019 the Board would decide whether it wishes to form a final new Task Force to review the Three Training Models, with a view "to consider whether (and how) more qualitative measures should be put in place and what other changes, if any, might be desirable".
Further information on planned scope and membership of these Task Forces can be found in this PowerPoint.
I would particularly like to thank the Board Task Force and all the members of the Board of Representatives for their commitment to producing an outcome which reflects both the diversity and the shared values of the IPA.
I want to take the opportunity to share with you all directly an important decision taken by the previous Board in Buenos Aires on 23 July 2017.
This was an “in-principle decision to permit a frequency of ‘3 to 5 sessions per week’ in the IPA’s Eitingon Training Model, and to delegate to the Executive Committee the authority to review and approve any amendments to the Procedural Code that are required to reflect this change.”
At my first Board meeting as President of the IPA on 31 July there was a discussion on how to give reality to this decision.
The Board noted that the IPA’s current training procedures would remain in effect until the Board agreed specific concretisations of the previous Board’s in-principle decision.
It was agreed to create a Task Force that would take forward the Board decision, with a view to having the group report at the Board’s January 2018 meeting.
The Executive Committee then met on 1 August and agreed to constitute Task Forces in two separate stages:
i) initially, four Board members (a Chair, plus one rep from each region) would be appointed and tasked with presenting proposals for Procedural Code amendments by the time of the January 2018 Board meeting;
ii) after the Procedural Code amendments are agreed, 6 additional non-Board members (2 from each region) will be appointed and this group will be tasked with developing proposals regarding how the IPA can work with its Constituent Organisations in the light of these new minimum standards.
The initial Task Force will be requested to make any recommendations to the Executive Committee by the end of November, in time for review and for any proposals that may require Board approval to be made to the Board meeting scheduled for January 2018.
Further details on the scope and membership of task forces will be proposed and communicated over the coming months.
I was not a voting member of the Board until 30 July. However, past President Stefano Bolognini very generously allowed Sergio Nick and I to be part of the executive and officer meetings over the last 12 months.
I am therefore very aware of the range and depth of discussions and representations which have taken place on this issue.
I know too that this is a matter which colleagues feel very strongly about and which has had the potential to be deeply conflictual.
I am encouraged, however, by our capacity both at the Board and in the wider conversations with Society Presidents to disagree and yet create a container for reflection and constructive debate.
In recommending membership of the two task forces, I am keen to ensure we benefit from diversity and balance in hearing the many perspectives, wisdom and insights that must shape making the decision, for which there was a large majority in favour, a reality.
I want to assure all colleagues
1) that at this moment absolutely nothing has changed about the minimum standards acceptable under the IPA’s rules.
2) that we will move forward in a spirit of sensitivity and transparency seeking a solution which will blend harmoniously the differing needs and realities.