[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: