Dear All,
I have sent an e-mail to the Manager of the BPS London office
requesting that he look into overflow facilities into a second room,
as a general issue, and mentioned the Community Psychology meeting on
October 8th, in case there are more people wishing to attend than
could be accommodated at present. And so that in future it might be
possible to have joint meetings with those who are, and those who are
not BPS members. As I mentioned in an earlier post, meetings in the
BPS offices are normally oversubscribed at present and the maximum
accommodation is 80. As it happens, I also live, rather than work,
near the BPS offices, and have requested a ticket, as a BPS member.
However, David's suggestion that "the collective should hold the BPS
membership to account" seems to me unrealistic, either at this
meeting or in future. David is a BPS member of long standing I
believe, and probably is aware that the idea of a collective
alongside a BPS Section is likely to be a novel one. Apparently
2,700 approx. BPS members voted for this Section, and
any major issues regarding the Section are likely to be voted upon by
those who become members of the Community Section, who are also BPS
members.
"A dialogue between BPS members and non-members" is a realistic
option, but to start out thinking that the collective (not yet
formed) can hold the BPS Section to account is starting on a path to
possible confrontation which the Community list could not win. This
would be arising out of style rather than substance, and I do think
that the language in which such a dialogue is proposed is crucial, as
are the expectations. Sensible BPS members who are interested in
setting up a BPS Community Psychology Section will want to learn from
others working in the field but they will not be bound by their views
collectively or otherwise. So, I think it would be sensible for
people to start posting on this list what they would like the BPS
Section to achieve,
so that the meeting on October 8th is a productive one and not
confrontational. These would surely be in the form of
recommendations, keeping in mind that the collective will not "own"
the Section, nor, indeed, the other way around.
For one thing, to come back to fees, which are essential to be set
if anyone is actually to join the Section, I know now that the BPS
Board officials have set a fee which is the average of other
Sections, and I expect that they will be entitled to insist upon
this, in the absence of a vote from ALL the people who wish to join
who are BPS members,. This would not occur until about a year hence
or longer. It would not be proper or normal for non-BPS members to
set the fee for BPS members, if you think about it, in relation to
any other section. I am just as interested in a harmonious outcome
as anyone else, but you might as well start trying to dictate to the
Department of Health, in my view, as assume you can do so to the BPS,
unless you are a member, and then it would be through proposals and
voting of all members and it would be a request or a recommendation
only.
How about proposing some mechanism whereby one non-BPS member could
have an advisory seat on the BPS Committee, by co-option, who would
represent the views of the collective, and see whether the BPS would
accept this idea. In this case it might be a reasonable proposal,
since there might be benefits in both directions.
Erica
___________________________________
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
|
