Hi Flora,

Thanks for your helpful message. You wrote "I personally would be happy to accept the recommendation of the original organising group, if they can come to a consensus, on whether or not to send a fee structure to the BPS at this point". In case some do not know the membership of "the original organising group", I will try to clarify. 

The group which worked from the collective decision at the Exeter conference 6 years ago  to the point at which the BPS Trustees agreed to the setting up of a community psychology Section of the BPS on 25th June 2010 fluctuated to some extent over time but consisted mainly of:

Jacqui Akhurst
Jan Bostock
David Fryer 
Annie Mitchell
Jim Orford
Lisa Thorne

On 1st July 2010 at the Plymouth UK CP Conference a larger group welcomed the news and offered support to the following additional people who agreed to try to take matters forward: 

Elaine Douglas
Wendy Franks
Sally Zlotowitz

A composite amalgam of the 2 groups 

Jacqui Akhurst
Jan Bostock
Elaine Douglas
Wendy Franks
David Fryer 
Annie Mitchell
Jim Orford
Lisa Thorne
Sally Zlotowitz

had some subsequent email discussion between themselves but decided it would be problematic to make significant decisions without the participation and involvement of the wider group. The list seemed the best way to do that. 

Apolgies if I have left anyone out

Regarding communication with the BPS

I, David, was the main email communicating link between the BPS officer dealing with this (Susan Eppel) and the first group. 

Sally and I both communicated with Susan in the cross over period bridging the groups. 

Susan has been the main email communicating link between the BPS officer dealing with this (Susan Eppel) and the second group.

I hope this at least clarifies who some of the people involved have been and who you are proposing as the 'original organising group' even if it does not resolve the participation and power issues

David 
________________________________________
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Flora Cornish [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 August 2010 08:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Direct approach to BPS Committee

I am a bit worried that we have collectively put the original organisers of the CP section proposal, and now especially Sally, as the person in the role of being in contact with the BPS on behalf of the emerging section, in a very difficult position. By Monday pm, Sally has to either give a fee structure to the BPS or not. There is no consensus on this list as to whether Sally ought to propose a fee structure, or delay the decision for a year. Paul rightly points out that nobody has a mandate, yet the organisers and Sally do seem to have some sort of responsibility inherited from their role in initiating the Section.

This situation highlights the need for decision-making procedures suitable to a CP Section - which as Paul and David suggest, could be discussed and established by a co-operative - or which could perhaps be established by the Section as its first activity. For instance, from this small example of discussion about fee structures, I'm not sure how we would make a decision through the medium of the list. In relation to the fees issue, what situation would have given Sally / others a sense of 'the right decision is....' ? Apart from unanimity, I don't know what would have given that sense of 'a good enough consensus'. We need some means of taking collective decisions. I think this highlights the need for preliminary work before taking substantive decisions.

However, while I personally tend towards delaying the decision, I admit that I do not fully understand the consequences of each option. As Abdullah I think said, there is a certain instrumental interest in having a formally established BPS CP Section, and as Erica said, many people have already expressed their interest and commitment to a section, and perhaps that momentum is best maintained by moving forward with the formal establishment of the section quickly. I think I could live with the idea of making some compromises, recognising that these compromises are due to the contradictory structures within which we exist, and refusing to forget that we had made compromises, or to reify any decision (i.e. if we put forward a fee structure now, we should return to the issue later, and not feel at all constrained by the first fee structure).

For my part, and for my short-term concern about the response (or no response which is itself a decision) to the BPS tomorrow, I personally would be happy to accept the recommendation of the original organising group, if they can come to a consensus, on whether or not to send a fee structure to the BPS at this point.

I am not going to protest whichever way it goes, as I recognise arguments and voices on each side. I share Paul's view that individual action seems counter-productive in this instance.

Flora.






--- On Sun, 15/8/10, Paul Duckett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Paul Duckett <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Direct approach to BPS Committee
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, 15 August, 2010, 20:46
> Paul Duckett wrote:
> > I would advise that no one should contact the BPS and
> ask them to set a fee for the CP Section and no one should
> take it upon themselves to decide to act on behalf of the
> list/network in this matter (or any other matter) without
> the list agreeing.
> >
> > At present nobody has got a mandate (as far as I am
> aware) to speak on behalf of anyone else. So, no one can
> either speak for the list/network or speak for BPS members
> who signed up in support of establishing a CP section.
> This is the whole point about delaying things and seeking to
> set up a cooperative first to give our network some
> structure and accountability (we can't demand anyone be held
> to account for why a fee structure for the section hasn't
> been decided upon earlier because there is no organisation
> to our network and so nobody is in an organisational role
> that can hold them to account to members of the list).
> >
> > Once a cooperative is established list members and BPS
> members can join and use the cooperative to start a full
> discussion about how the CP section might work and to reach
> a decision that is accountable to all members of the
> cooperative (setting up the BPS section does not only affect
> BPS members, it affects those not in the BPS as it affects
> the nature of the social ties between people in our network
> and changes the face of CP in the UK) If we establish a
> cooperative for ourselves we have the opportunity to create
> a space where we can seek to flatten out social hierachies
> and seek to prevent anyone pulling rank on others based on
> academic creditentials, professional identity or membership
> of groups external to the cooperative.(I'm not only
> referring to the BPS here but more broader group membership
> such as gender, class, sexuality, race and so on). Becoming
> a cooperative can also make our decision making processes
> fair, transparent and accountable and we can seek to ensure
> nobody dominates cooperative proceedings without being
> invited to do so.
> >
> > I think it would be a dreadful for the section to
> start by either jumping to a rushed, arbitary decision on
> fees or to permit (or worse, ask) the BPS to decide the
> sections fees for us. The BPS CP section will be viewed
> quite sceptically by some CP network members (and future
> members) who might accuse the section of being a servant to
> the whims and wishes of the BPS. If we allow ourselves to
> rush into a decision on fees and cowtow to the BPS so soon
> and so dramatically, it could severely stymie the section as
> it could not defend itself against critique.
> >
> > I also find the accusations being made against some
> list members of being immature and incompetent to be
> ill-tempered, inconsiderate and unhelpful and likely to be
> unpersuasive on a list such as this.
> >
> > p
> >
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
> http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
> There is a threaded discussion forum:
> http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
> There is a twitter feed:
> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
> To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact
> Grant or David at the email addresses below.
> David Fryer ([log in to unmask])
> or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
>




___________________________________
The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
There is a threaded discussion forum:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
There is a twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below.
David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________
The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
There is a threaded discussion forum:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
There is a twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below.
David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK