I am rather late to these discussions but I would like to add that we should aim to meet to discuss the details about organising a Community Psychology Collective and the BPS Section in October and to progress plans to set up the Collective as soon as possible.

If moving on with the BPS Section necessitates a fee then we should set this for employed people only and I would think that Ł10 would enable us to get sufficient funding to organise the meetings necessary to make this an inclusive process. We have already agreed that we wish to form the Section as part of the BPS, we have defined objectives, and described the rationale so people know what they are supporting or not supporting. I think that these defining features are likely to be an ongoing source of debate and critical discussion and that is part of our purpose. We need to accept that we have made some decisions already too and keep an action focus while trying to minimise compromising on participation, inclusiveness and community psychology values.

I noticed a post from David F which described a promising structure to consider for a Community Psychology Collective and BPS section like the American Psychological Association (APA) and SCRA (Society for Community Research and Action). It would be good to consider the pros and cons of such an arrangement or other strucutres at a meeting such as Sally suggests (although 2 hours would not be sufficient so we would need to discuss beforehand.)

Thanks Sally for keeping communications going and for suggesting the voting system. I think that is a constructive idea.

I am sorry that I cannot be more involved in establishing the Collective and Section but I certainly support the continuation of this process and am keen we get more organised.

All good wishes

Jan Bostock

--- On Tue, 17/8/10, Annie Mitchell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Annie Mitchell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Objectives achieved (Forwarded from Paul Duckett)
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, 17 August, 2010, 10:04

Dear all,

Although Paul and David may feel ( rightly or wrongly) that is the wrong decision, or not the decision they would have reached, at least it IS a decision, and we have been dragging our heels on this for years. Disagreement between ourselves will not go away, of course: we need critical debate and we need strong principles and action based on social justice and participation, but, like many left learning groupings we are liable to tear ourselves apart unless we can find a way to blend strong values/ principles with compromise and good will.

I like Sally's ideas of starting on the 8th October with a participatory meeting to get the ball rolling for a co-operative FIRST ; this could then inform and direct the BPS section process and decision making, which has so far been deliberately kept as unfixed as possible so far so as to maximise collective influence over it. . This balance of power ie a collective to which the section is accountable has been the vision all along - why have we not been able to get our act together to get the collective going until this point, I wonder? Now is the time to do it if we can - I would very much support those who have the capacity to take action about the collective - for myself I am very sorry that I am so weary with my day jobs at present I don't have additional capacity to be pro-active around this . But I;d join both the collective and the section,; and I'd hope the section, and the BPS, would be made better because of the existence and influence of a radical and participatory UK community psychology collective.

Good wishes,

Annie

-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fryer, David
Sent: 16 August 2010 22:29
To: [log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Objectives achieved (Forwarded from Paul Duckett)

Forwarded from Paul Duckett

From: Paul Duckett [[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 17 August 2010 03:22
To: Paul Duckett
Cc: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
Subject: Re: Objectives achieved

I think this is the wrong decision.

I can't understand the rush. As David and others have said, the section
has no substance as of yet (no constitution, no organisational
structure, no membership rules [other than you have to be a BPS member],
no statutes, no mission statement, no agreed purpose etc). It is quite
extraordinary for people to pay to join an orgnanisation that has yet to
decide what it stands for and which may (and this is likely) turn out to
stand for something those people may not be qutie so keen on. Why do
people want to join something that has no substance? Does this suggest
that the symbolic power of having a section is what matters most to
people? If so, for whom does this symbolic power work? I presume from
the way some are horrified by a slight delay (a year is not long) that
people see an immediate benefit from joining the CP section. But, what
is this immediate benefit? I do not hear too many community groups
berating us to please start up the section urgently and that next year
migth be too late for them. If the CP section has been established to
first and foremost protect the interests of professional psychologists
then start the section up immediately. If the CP section has been
establish to first and foremost protect the interests of those
marginalised by oppressive social forces then let's delay and make sure
we get it right. Also, by setting a fee before we decide what the
Section is about will inevitably make it much harder to open the
participatory decision making on how the Section should run as you
immediately have two classes of stakeholder. You will have the BPS
members who have paid their fee and you will have everyone else (those
who can't pay, won't pay and those who have ideological objections to
joining the BPS). It might not take long before some BPS, fee paying
members feel they have more of a right to decide what the Section should
be about than the non-fee paying non members and the BPS may well be
asked to step in to protect the interests of the former. Of course, that
has already happened.....
Paul (Duckett)
________________________________________
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sally Zlotowitz [[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 17 August 2010 00:18
To: [log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Objectives achieved

Hello again everyone,

As Carl has said, this decision has been a great catalyst for debate, thanks to everyone for their contributions and I can also see the powerful arguments on each side. As the BPS go-between, I am certainly not any less concerned about the issues and feel ambivalent in much the same way.

We discussed at the Plymouth conference that the section's go-ahead is likely to lead to further debate about Community Psychologist's approval of the section and its role... and that will keep us all on track.

In the spirit of democracy, albeit with a limited group, I have counted:
10 people in favour of setting a fee now (initials of people: RP (off list), EB, AM, ED, CH, NS, JL, JC, JB, SZ)
3 against (PD, DF, MH)
and taken 5 as approximating abstentions (GA, AM, MG, WF, FC)

Please do check I am representing you correctly. Apologies if I do get anything wrong, I am doing this at work!

Thus without wanting to give any one list member's argument priority, the vote would suggest we set the fee.

However, I am now waiting for a telephone call from BPS senior management. I am trying to find out whether we can wait to make this decision until after the inaugural meeting/surveying of members - i.e. if we can have our fee approved by the Board of Trustees in an 'extraordinary' meeting at a later date. I have explained that we want to make decisions in a participatory way and that the current BPS structure is not allowing us to do this. Maybe at least this will set the precedence of showing that we plan to do things differently! I'm not sure if it will come to anything.

Friday October 8th is set for the inaugural meeting of the section if it does go ahead. This will be advertised to the section supporters and in The Psychologist. However, the section business is only expected to take up to 2 hours.
Can I therefore suggest those interested in creating the non-BPS co-operative also attend the meeting and this is what we do as a group first? Maybe this will start the ball rolling? We can initiate discussions about what this would look like on the discussion forum, as previously suggested.

I also thought we could perhaps adopt a collective decision-making tool - for use online and at the meetings. My suggestion would be something like 'Crowd-wise' created by the New Economics Foundation (NEF), it is a tool for allowing everyone's voices to be heard, but coming up with the decision that best represents the majority opinions, but helpfully moves away from 'black & white' poloarised decisions.

I don't think I can attach documents but please see here for the report on this tool: http://www.neweconomics.org/projects/crowd-wise

If people are interested I could ask NEF if they'd be willing to come along on Friday 8th and teach us how to use the tool.

I'll be in touch with regards my talk with senior management.

Best wishes,
Sally

___________________________________
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]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[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]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[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]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[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