I only can abet Annies vote! Ute Strehl Address Dr. Ute Strehl; M.Sc. Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology Director: Prof.Dr.Niels Birbaumer University of Tübingen Gartenstr.29 D 72074 Tübingen Tel. ##49 7071 2973244 Fax ##49 7071 295956 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]Im Auftrag von Frick, Ann Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Juli 2004 08:21 An: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Betreff: [esnr] important query re Byelaws I have been unable to check emails for the past week or so. As a result, I was surprised to read the posting by the Board a few hours ago containing the amendments to the byelaws and the rationale for their acceptance. Perhaps I missed a prior reference, but this appears to be new information. Please let me know as I do not believe that it is appropriate for us to be asked to vote on any document that we have not been specifically allowed to discuss first. I am concerned about the procedures in general, but, in addition, I am concerned about one matter in the proposed byelaws. I was previously told by several members of the Board that the section of the originally proposed 13 points relating to SAN as an international organisation would be deleted. Technically that is the case. There is no mention in the byelaws proper of anything international other than II.5 which reads, "Advancement of international integration, cooperation and sharing of knowledge with other societies." However, in the rationale in favour of Amendment 1, it is stated that "This will be an international society and not be restricted to Europe." I think this is a very, very important feature of this new organisation. I think it needs to be specifically voted on by the members of the organisation. While I am ultimately in favour of an international organisation, I believe that it is irresponsible of us to expand to that level before we have worked out the most fundamental issues upon which this organisation will depend. Some of the issues that we have not yet grappled with include: 1.. What will constitute our version of evidence-based applied neuroscience? 2.. What will be the standards of ‘best practice’ to which we will hold our members? 3.. How we will train and certify our clinical practitioners? 4.. How will assess those who have attended our training programs to be as sure as possible that they will not practice in any manner that will cause risk to our organisation? 5.. How we will be sure that those that practice with our sanction do not stray from these standards? These are relatively short questions, but none of them have short or easy answers. Yet, how we resolve these things will affect the field of neurofeedback and its relation to the scientific community for a long time to come. I think that it is crucial that the groundwork be properly constructed in our own region. It will be no small feat and will require extensive debate and participation as well as many, many hours of unpaid, tedious labour from our Board. I think that the challenge is large enough in Europe alone. I would like a procedure where I might suggest we keep 1.3 of the current byelaws and write it as "The area served by the Society covers the following European countries…," As it has in the past, this does not mean that speakers or attendees at our meetings have to be limited to Europeans. Indeed, speaking at or attending meetings does not constitute membership. The BFE has had a decade’s worth of meetings with people from all over the world and it is an organisation without a single member. When we have successfully dealt with the major issues that we face, then the procedures are simple to introduce an amendment to our byelaws and change ourselves to an international organisation in a very straightforward manner. I think that the challenge we face is large enough in Europe alone. If we are spread too thin and are unable to maintain our standards, then I am afraid that this new organisation will join the others before it that have passed out of existence. In the meantime, we may have done some harm to the field of neurofeedback and self-regulation in general. I propose that we delay the vote and allow members of our organisation to discuss this document and to propose alternative language for our new byelaws. Otherwise, the only recourse is to vote NO on these byelaws and try to begin this process again. Respectfully, Ann Frick, Imperial College London