agenda156

American Psychological Association Division 40 (Clinical Neuropsychology) Records

(Mss. 4745)

Text of document:

Clinical Neuropsychology Synarchy (CNS)

Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting
Held on 9 February 1995 at the Sheraton Hotel in Seattle, Washington

PRESENT:
Drs. Carl Dodrill (APA, Division 40), H. Julia Hannay (Doctoral Programs in Clinical Neuropsychology), J. D. Eubanks (APA, Division 40), Sandra Koffler (National Academy of Neuropsychology), Byron Rourke (American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology), Thomas Hammeke (Association of Postdoctoral Programs in Clinical Neuropsychology), Gordon Chelune (National Academy of Neuropsychology), Kerry Hamsher (CNS Master of Ceremonies and APPCN Representative to the IOC).

OBSERVER:
Dr. Gerald Goldstein (International Neuropsychological Society)

1. On 9 February 1995 a luncheon was held at the Sheraton Seattle Hotel and Towers in conjunction with the North American Meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society.The formation of a meta-organization was proposed by the host, bringing together the scientific and professional interest groups, doctoral, postdoctoral, and continuing education organizations, and the board certifying agency in clinical neuropsychology. It was envisioned that, in addition, representatives from these organizations to other superordinate legislative and policy making bodies in Psychology (e.g., the American Board of Professional Psychology, the Inter-organizational Council for Accreditation of Postdoctoral Programs in Psychology, the APA Council of Representatives, et al.) might also participate in the future to create a comprehensive nexus. The suggested title for this meta-organization is the Clinical Neuropsychology Synarchy (CNS).It was submitted that developments in the components of the science and profession of clinical neuropsychology over the past 20 years had reached that point of mature differentiation where a new integration at a higher level of organization was warranted and appropriate.

2. In order to justify participation in the CNS, it was suggested that the constituent organizations would have to see some function or purpose being served from which they would derive benefit in return for their participatory investment.

3. In response it was suggested that the purposes of the CNS as a meta-organization of clinical neuropsychology organizations would have to be determined and approved by its

[Page 2]

Clinical Neuropsychology Synarchy (CNS) 9 February 1995

constituents. These purposes would be expected to change over time and in response to independent events that might bear on the profession of clinical neuropsychology. Nevertheless, it could be foreseen that the CNS could serve as a central point of contact for these several organizations. It could provide a forum for the discussion of issues germane to the profession and particularly interactions amongst its components. In addition to the airing of ideas and the exchange of information, the CNS could be used to promote the coordination of professional activities and the sharing of resources. As a small but practical example, the scheduling of board and executive meetings of the coordinated so as to avoid scheduled conflicts.

4. It was agreed that the represented organizations shared many more similarities than differences. It was noted that where common ground could be found, it would be beneficial for the profession if one message could be spoken by several organizations. It was noted that with consensus the profession gains authority in the eye of the public, including the legislative and judicial branches of government.

5. It was clarified that one consideration for determining the propitiousness of a constituent organization's participation in the CNS would be the identified limits of the scope of the CNS.

6. Three levels of cohesion were proposed as a framework for conceptualizing how the CNS might function.

Level one could be construed as little more than a forum for information exchange and discussion, the content and sentiments of which might be taken back to each of the constituent organizations for deliberation. There would be no binding agreements or decisions made by the CNS save those in making arrangements for meetings.

Level three could be conceptualized as was one where the CNS would be empowered by its constituent members (if they deemed it appropriate, useful or necessary) to legislate, form policy, and make binding agreements on matters for the profession as a whole (something akin to the European Parliament). [Editorial note. As in the U.S. Constitution, the Level Three model could encompass the idea of certain, limited enumerated powers belonging to the meta-organization, with all other powers residing with and belonging to the constituent organizations.]

Level two represents an intermediate zone of organizational interaction and empowerment. This could take many different forms with different degrees of authorization for policy development and legislation. For example, the constituent organizations might authorize the CNS to either develop policy or draft legislation

[Page 3]

Clinical Neuropsychology Synarchy (CNS) 9 February 1995

on select matters of common interest (e.g., developing a profession-wide definition of a clinical neuropsychologist, or detailing educational and training standards). The legislative or policy making authority of the CNS would be restricted to select areas, or perhaps restricted to the development of draft documents that ultimately would need to be taken back to constituent organizations for approval. In other words, whatever authority was permitted to the CNS would be for prescribed ad hoc purposes as opposed to existing on a continuing basis.

[Editorial note. These levels of cohesion might also be perceived as milestones in the development (ontogeny) of the CNS, wherein the successful completion of one milestone may be required before progression to the next in sequence.]

7. It was understood that, at this point, each organization needed to consult with its executive board to determine the will of their parties regarding their future participation in the CNS.

8. It was agreed that each organization would designate one representative to attend a dinner meeting on Friday, August 11, 1995 to be held in conjunction with the annual convention of the American Psychological Association in New York.The dinner will be self-financed by each participant.Dr. Goldstein accepted the assignment of reserving a restaurant venue in which the next meeting will be held.One purpose of this next meeting will be to share with each other the intention of the involved parties.

9. Dr. Hamsher accepted the assignment of organizing an agenda for this next meeting.The chief officers of the organizations will be contacted in June of 1995 to submit to him items for the agenda by a to-be-specified date in July, 1995. A list will be compiled and redistributed to the participants.

Respectfully submitted,

Kerry Hamsher, Ph.D., CNS Master of Ceremonies, Pro Tempore, and APPCN Representative to the Inter-organizational Council for Accreditation of Postdoctoral Programs in Psychology (IOC)

(End of text)

[an error occurred while processing this directive]