[esnr] Re: important query re Byelaws
- From: wzwaag@xxxxxxxxx
- To: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:01:35 +0200 (CEST)
I second Annies reaction
Wytze van der Zwaag
> Dear Annie,
>
> I am just writing a resume of the Board meeting last night which inter alia
> will
> address your concern.
>
> Hope you are having a speedy recovery in the US and all is going well.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Frick, Ann
> Sent: 08 July 2004 07:21
> To: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [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 â??best practiceâ?? 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
> countriesâ?¦," 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 decadeâ??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
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
