Hello all,
Before we get too involved in the issues raised by Paul below, as far as I am aware the only specific proposal to the list regarding the ECPA is with respect to the request of Thomas Sais of the French Community Psychology Association (Assoc. Française de Psychologie Communautaire)' which I relayed:
"In order to be legitimated to the eyes of the potential financers, could you please tell me if your national CP associations (or psychologists' association) would like to be mentioned as "partners" of the congress, without necessarily financing it? That would be very helpful right now (I'm asking for sponsorships everywhere)" (Thomas Sais is a new member (this year) of ECPA trying to get backing to mount a congress in central Paris for people interested in community psychology throughout Europe, whether or not they have a psychology credential, to come together for a congress in 2009.)
So far posts on the list by 8 people (Jacqui (Akhurst), Mark (Burton), Elaine (Douglas), Rachael (Fox), Wendy (Franks), Annie (Mitchell), Rebekah (Pratt) and Lisa (Thorne)) have supported the idea of the network being partners of the congress. One person has argued against (David (Fryer)).
I don't think anyone has suggested we collectively (as a Network) join the ECPA or vote on such a proposal.
I did try to make a case at Edinburgh for individual people to consider joining ECPA during a short session in which Jacqui also made the case for establishing a community psychology section of the BPS but that is a different issue.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul@home
Sent: 02 October 2008 16:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] European community psychology conference, Paris 2009
Dear all,
If we are going to go to the polls on joining the European Association of COmmunity Psychology (EACP), I just wanted to flesh out some details on what that organisation is (in my view) and see if we can have a bit of a debate and stimulate some interest before we have a vote. Here is my contribution Sorry it is a bit long, because EACP is a bit complex and I think we need to get a fuller picture of what the EACP is (my view, will of course, be partial). If you haven't time to read all of my email, all I am saying is that teh EACP is organisationally weak, potentially corruptible and maybe, even, acting a little bit illegally (but not in a good way!!)
I think the EACP gives the spectre of being organised, but actually may be even more of a disorganised rabble than our network and may contain some risks for our network if we chose to join either as individuals or as a collective.
The spectre of organisation that surrounds the EACP is mostly related to the fact that it has a written constitution (which means it is legally recognised as an association under Belgian law) and the fact that is has the semblance of a "democratic" process to vote on the membership of the Board.
I say "semblance" because so far the role of president has been occupied solely by members of the old boys club known as the European Network of Community Psychology (the professor's friendship group who used to 'run/represent' CP in Europe) and because the election is decided by a majority decision of the association's general membership irrespective of the number of members present or represented at the vote - i.e.., you can win the vote to become president, treasurer or board member by only one vote, even if only one person votes!).
The 'Board' (aka the 'executive'), which is made up of a President, a Treasurer and three other board members, has been organised. However, as far as I can tell, the 'general assembly' (the members at large) largely remains un/disorganised - certainly I have not seen much attention given to how the general assembly are structured (other than the establishment of special interest groups). Indeed, attention given to their organisation looks rather impoverished compared to the attention paid to creating and filling the offices of the executive (the Board). EACP looks quite exciting because the Board are answerable to the general assembly and have to follow the will of the general assembly. The problem is with the general assembly having little discernable structure or little sense of themselves as a constituted group who have power over the executive (this is my impression as a member of the general assembly), they presently seem to function at the will of the executive and act as little more than the executive members' proxy voters.
Not only does the organisation of the general assembly appear to have been neglected , their power has been demonstrably undermined. The general assembly is constitutionally required to meet twice a year (as is the Board) so that Board can be regularly held to account by the general assembly. The executive decided that it would be sufficient for the general assembly to meet once a year (at the EACP annual conference) and that to satisfy the requirements of the constitution that one meeting would be split into two (by a short break in proceedings). So, rather than meeting twice a year (as most people would understand the term 'twice yearly'), it would effectively meet only once a year (with the one meeting split into two) resulting in the executive only being held to account to the general assembly on an annual rather than a biannual basis. Now, there were good logistical reasons for this (difficult to get everyone from across Europe together twice a year - though not impossible [ie., when mediated through ICT]. Both the lack of organisation of the general assembly and the restriction imposed upon the opportunities it has to meet considerably restricts the power of the association's members at large. This puts the association (both politically and legally) on fragile ground and thus considerable weakened (and vulnerable to attack from anyone with a grudge against it). For example, in the latest EACP newsletter (included in the Edinburgh conference packs) , the 'two general assembly meetings' held at the Lisbon conference (which was not actually an EACP conference) are actually described as part one and part two (rather than meeting one and meeting two). Unless the EACP corrects this, the association's activities last year could be deemed unconstitutional. I missed the general assembly meeting this year so have no idea whether things have changed since I was last present at an assembly meeting (in 2007) - but I have not detected any seismic shifts in how the general assembly are organised or in how and when the general assembly meets
So, unfortunately important parts of the EACP constitution are being ignored. However, it is fortunate that other parts of the EACP's constitution are being ignored (so far) such as the Board's power to appoint honoury members, protective members, supporting members and advisory members and paid staff (creating the risk of the privileged (the exec) giving jobs to their pals) - the general assembly do not have these powers. The Board also has the power to decide who is to be a member of the association as you can only become a member once the Board recommends you to the general assembly and if you want to become a member of EACP you must write a letter to the board. So, the membership is not (according to its constitution) as open as it is described - there is a small group who have license to act as gatekeepers of the association. Though you do not have to be a psychologist to join, you do (according to the EACP's constitution) have to win the favour of (ie., be recommended by) the EACP's executive. The general assembly does have the power to re-write the constitution and the association's aims, but unlike the lack of a quorate imposed on electing (and indeed firing) the Board, here quorates of two thirds and three quarters of all members being present is required).
Now, I don't think we should worry that EACP will take a fascist turn and it should be noted that the constitution adopted by the EACP was one plagiarised/adapted from elsewhere rather than homegrown and is seen by some of the exec. as a piece of paperwork that can be filed away and forgotten (even though they are actually legally obliged to honour it). Though what has happened with EACP in regards to the organisation of the Board and disorganisation of the general assembly provides a perfect recipe as to how to establish autocracy under the camouflage of a democracy (through giving the general assembly power on paper but ensuring they are sufficiently disorganised which prevents them actually using it ), I don't think EACP intended this (though that is not to say they are not enjoying the benefits of this). The old boys club (ENCP) and the new boys club (EACP) might best be described as mostly a bunch of mild mannered philanthropists and I do feel a little pained for criticising them. However, my criticism is not about the individuals involved but about the organisational structure that has beenc created for them in the form of the EACP which is is far from perfect, indeed, I would say it is somewhat problematic. So, if our 'network' joined EACP, we could become part of a disorganised largely invisible general assembly that has had it's power denuded though neglect and disorganisation and a touch of vandalism of the association's constitution by the association's Board (past and present) and vulnerable to legal challenge. We might also find ourselves subjected to an association whose rules allow for the very hierarchical 'boys-club' membership that we want to avoid and EACP had hoped to avoid.
What we (our 'network') have at present actually resembles what EACP has.
Where they have a largely invisible, mostly silent general assembly we have an largely invisible, mostly silent (list) membership. While they have an executive whose names are stamped all over the association's activities, we have a self-appointed executive (made up of those who shout loudest and longest on the list and at conferences - I include myself in this group).
So, when you think of it, UKCP and EACP are perfectly compatible at the moment as they are mutually, imperfectly formed. So, my question is, can UKCP do better than the EACP?
p
Paul Duckett
Department of Psychology and Social Change Manchester Metropolitan University England Phone +44 161 247 2552 Fax +44 161 247 6364
email: [log in to unmask]
___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderators: Rebekah Pratt ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
--
Academic Excellence at the Heart of Scotland.
The University of Stirling is a charity registered in Scotland,
number SC 011159.
___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderators: Rebekah Pratt ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
|