PCE EUROPE

Network of the European Associations for Person-Centred and Experiential Psychotherapy and Counselling

Find a certified practitioner or institute

  THE 12th GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2009 in SZEGED, HUNGARY

July 6, 2009

 

Minutes

 This years General Assembly (GA) took place prior to the Carl Rogers Cross-Cultural Communication Workshop held in Szeged, Hungary, July 6th-12th 2009.

 AGENDA:

  1. Minutes 2008
  2. Agenda of the current GA
  3. Report from the Board
  4. Financial report
  5. EAP + EAC report
  6. European Certificate for Person-Centred and Experiential Psychotherapy and Counselling
  7. Topics proposed by AFPC Belgium
  8. AOB
  9. Next General Assembly

List of members and delegates present at the meeting:

AFP-ACP, France, Willi Roes

APG Forum, Austria, Gerhard Stumm

APG/IPS, Austria, Peter Schmid

BAPCA, Great Britain, Andrea Uphoff

GwG, Germany, Sylvia Rasch-Owald and Michael Halhuber-Ahlmann

HAPCPMH, Hungary, Magda Draskόczy

PCA-ACP, Switzerland, Anne Wunderle

PCT Scotland, Clair Higgon

ICPS, Greece, Constantinos Pappas

VCgP, Netherlands, Angelique Timmerman, Renate Geuzinge

 

Further present: Jef Cornelius-White (Chairperson WAPCEPC)

 Apologies: Kurt Renders (VVCEPC Belgium), Anna Karali (Hellenic Focusing Centre), Cécile Joris (AFPC Belgium), Polly Iossifides (ICPS Greece)

 

1.     Agenda for the present meeting accepted with additions.
It was noted that with delegates from 10 of 21 member organisations present and 2 pre-advised proxy votes (AFPC and Hellenic Focusing Centre) a quorum was achieved for voting purposes.

2. Minutes 2008 were accepted having been previously distributed via e-mail

3. Report of the board

Chapter: The Board reported receipt of a letter from WAPCEPC that it has accepted NEAPCEPC ‘s application to become a regional Chapter from 01.07.2009. There are some details to be clarified regarding finance and co-operation but the Board proposed a ratification of general acceptance at this GA. This was voted upon and we are officially a Chapter of WAPCEPC as of 05.07.2009.

Delegates were asked whether they could see any area where the network can co-operate with WAPCEPC. It was thought that we could possibly co-operate on the website and possibly later find financial/administration advantages. A question arose as to NEAPCEPC’s relationship to individual European members. If they are a member of the WAPCEPC, this may seem to imply that they are directly part of the European Chapter, but this is not so. The only method of including an individual, who is European and is a WA individual member, is through some existing or newly joining European PCE organisation. If there were an individual in a country where no national organisation exists and wants to be involved in the European chapter, they could make an application to the Board to be considered and helped in some way.

Events Diary: A diary of conferences, events and activities throughout Europe has been established on the NEAPCEPC website. The WAPCEPC electronic newsletter also publishes these events for its members.  There was clarification as to how the newsletter can be received via the organisations. Gerhard Stumm will continue to contact the member organisations in March and September of each year for compilation of the diary.

Membership Points System: The original membership system was based on distribution of points for students and fully qualified members and determined the number of votes per organisation in elections. This needs updating and simplifying. It was agreed that a proposal be put to the GA that the points system be changed in the Statutes and Bylaws.

 

    4. Financial Report

Andrea Uphoff presented a forecast budget for the current year. NEAPCEPC is now no longer covering its expenses. EAC and EAP representation are considered one of the most important remits of NEAPCEPC, but they are also the most expensive. The PCE Certificate has been conceived to pay for itself but is unlikely to create a profit. A raise in membership fees was then discussed.

Membership Fees: There has been no raise in fees since 2000.  A suggestion was made that fees be raised by 50 Euros.

A further suggestion was made that fees could be linked to income of the organisations or to countries’ economies or World Bank categories following WAPCEPC example. The reduction for B countries is approx. 20% less than the more affluent A countries. NEAPCEPC has no members of a lower than B category and only 3-4 would be in B category. It was considered difficult to ask members to have double membership and then increase fees.

It was generally considered that most organisations would manage the increase but that it must be made clear to the organisations that the increase is not associated with becoming a Chapter.

A proposal was put forward to raise membership fees at a minimum 50 Euros in each membership category except the first which are the organisations with least members. Any other B category country should be offered a 20% reduction but that NEAPCEPC suggests to and requests that the larger organisations pay a larger amount than required. Any other organisation in financial difficulties may make an application to the NE Board. Also a suggestion was made for donations of an extra 20%.

Membership fees are not an issue that affects Statutes or Bylaws and therefore the matter was taken directly to the vote. The vote for an increase in fees as described above was accepted unanimously. (The 2 delegates from the German organisation were not unified in their vote and therefore the vote of the German organisation was not counted - Statutes V.3.)

Membership fees in the Network

 old (till 2009)

  new (starting 2010)

less than   100 points         € 150,-    less than 50 members        € 100,-
less than 1000 points         € 300,-    51 – 200 members              € 200,-
more than 1000 points       € 450,-  201 – 500 members            € 250,-
  501 – 1000 members          € 350,-
  more than 1000 members    € 500,-

Jef Cornelius-White reported that the WAPCEPC Board had had similar discussions and will probably try to change the fee system. How it will be changed is not yet clear but the Board hopes to come up with a solution which is helpful to smaller organisations.
Jef Cornelius-White was questioned about WAPCEPC financial resources in general and said that these have been healthy for a number of years mainly due to the profit made at the PCE conferences. However, a prior agreement to a potential increase is always on the agenda at each WAPCEPC GA. This year WAPCEPC is making a large financial investment into its website.

Membership fees in the WA (2009) 

members fee
less than 25 
€  75,-
26 – 50   
€ 150,-
51 – 100 € 250,-
101 – 500 
€ 400,-
501 – 1000
€ 500,-
more than 1000 € 600,-

 

5.  European Association for Psychotherapy (EAP)

Michael Halhuber-Ahlmann reported on EAP issues. It was noted that PCE is represented as a modality in the Journal of the European Association for Psychotherapy (July 2009) with a comparative study of approaches.

NEAPCEPC has been re-accredited to EAP as a European Wide Accrediting Organisation for the PCA. EAP is no longer demanding that NEAPCEPC change its name to exclude ‘counselling’ in it. The separation of a psychotherapy and counselling section has been accepted in principle as long as a clear structure for acceptance and accreditation of psychotherapists is defined. NEAPCEPC has been invited to the EAP meeting in 2010 to report on its progress.

EAP’s concern is that the psychotherapy section can be seen to be clearly only for psychotherapists. Michael Halhuber-Ahlmann is to send the 2008 revised Statutes to EAP and highlight the provision of sections for their attention. Michael Halhuber-Ahlman asked Peter Schmid for assistance in formulation of modification of the Statutes and Bylaws into separate sections that these be in line with EAP expectations.

NEAPCEPC members are organisations which have individual members, both counsellors and psychotherapists. EAP require that only psychotherapists make decisions for psychotherapists. The EAP fears that otherwise they will not achieve an EU platform. The EU Platform for psychotherapy is still an ongoing project whereas other professions have given up the struggle (i.e. psychologists/psychiatrists). The EAP conference will be in Vienna next year with governments involved. The EU is not regulating anything but is interested in the issue of migration and will only become involved if that is the issue. If the platform is accepted by the EU Commission this will at least mean that mobility across Europe for psychotherapists becomes a political issue.

The delegates from the Netherlands noted that psychotherapy in the Netherlands is a regulated profession and the European Certificate of Psychotherapy is not currently recognised since the ECP is not even equivalent to the Help Psychologists (2yr training) and it is illegal to name oneself Psychotherapist by virtue of the ECP.

European Association for Counselling (EAC)

Polly Iossifides is NEAPCEPC’s representative at EAC. Her representative at the GA, Constantinos Pappas, spoke of the difficulty in contacting EAC. However, connections have been made to the vice president of EAC and that connection would appear to be developing. 

Ethical Standards: NEAPCEPC adheres to the ethical codes of EAP and EAC. 


6. PCE  Certificate

A decision was made last year to introduce a PCE Certificate and a committee was set up to prepare the certificate, wording, layout, invitation to individuals to be sent out to organisations etc., as well as a procedure for the certificate committee, all to be published on the website. A letter of application has also been prepared but can be modified by organisations to their requirements.

The NEAPCEPC Board must decide how to handle the money issue and send out letters to members with the account where the fee can be paid. All materials and information must be available on the NEAPCEPC website by September.

Peter Schmid is to send all paperwork to all delegates but it needs to be additionally transmitted via the Board to all the member organisations. Peter will make a list of actions to be taken and who is responsible for those actions and send it to the Board. He will also prepare and send out a small powerpoint presentation to be made available to training institutes.

A Certificate Committee of 3 people from different organisations is needed to check that the criteria for certification are fulfilled. Applications from the committee member’s own country would be sent to and checked by committee members from another country.

It is hoped that the more influential people within the person-centred world can be encouraged to apply for the certificate and contribute to its dissemination.

Promotion of the certificate will take place via NEAPCEPC and WAPCEPC websites, member organisations websites, newsletters etc. There will also be space kept in the WAPCEPC newsletter for the Chapter’s use.

Organisations should promote the certificate and make sure there is someone in their organisation that is prepared to check the certificates. The preparation committee will help implement this. Nominations for people to serve on the certification committee should be psychotherapists within their own organisations and the organisation needs to make a commitment of one year. This will also be on the agenda at the next GA.

At present Anne Wunderle of PCA-ACP has agreed to serve. Sylvia Rasch-Owald will look within the GwG for someone to take on these duties. Marine Iossifides (ICPS) will be asked by Constantinos Pappas to serve.

 

7. Topics proposed by AFPC Belgium

Cécile Joris of AFPC, Belgium, had sent an email to the Board with a number of questions and requests. In regard to voting procedures and the number of votes required to validate a decision, the Bylaws II.6 give the quorum as 50% of the members present at the GA or via proxy votes. It was noted that proxy votes are not routinely used by absentees and that they should be mentioned in the notification and invitation to GA.

It was the general opinion of the Board that elections for the Board should be via an anonymous vote and that this be added to the Bylaws after the GA. After a plenary discussion took place on issues of transparency versus personal feedback to nominees, a vote was taken with a unanimous acceptance of the proposal for anonymity.

8. AOB

Decisions on procedural issues can only be made at a GA after prior consultation with member organisations. Therefore notification of the issues and agenda must be given to organisations by the Board 4 months prior to the GA with clear information as to which issues will come to vote at the GA.

The GA can vote on all other issues as well as those presented on the day when matters may be added to the agenda at the beginning of the GA. The agenda is then closed and issues can be voted on.

PCE 2010: Promotional material for PCE 2010 is now available and will be sent out by Jef Cornelius-White on request.

WAPCEPC: A request was made for nominations to the WAPCEPC Board. The next WAPCEPC GA takes place on July 3rd  2010

9.     Next General Assembly: Wednesday, 30th June 2010, at PCE 2010. 

 

Topics for discussion by the member organisations and decision or confirmation at the next GA:

 Name change: A suggestion was made to change the name of NEAPCEPC.

It was proposed that NEAPCEPC keep the full name in its English version but replace the abbreviation currently in use to ‘PCE Europe’. This must be changed in the Statutes and on the website. It was suggested that the GA make the decision but ratify it in the next GA. In the meantime PCE Europe can be officially used. This was accepted unanimously.

Frequency of General Assemblies: It was noted that less delegates attend in a non-conference year than when the GA takes place as an adjunct to the PCE conference. Traditionally, on the alternative year there has been a symposium hosted by the national organisation. It was suggested that pros and cons of having yearly or biennial meetings can be discussed in the member organisations and decision made in 2010.

Membership structure: It was put to the GA that the current points structure is outdated. In order simplify the structure and to determine the fee category to which an organisation belongs, the formula of one point per member could be used rather than the distinction of status between qualified and trainee members. It was agreed that this would be taken back to the organisations for discussion.

WAPCEPC representation at GA’s: The delegates were asked whether they would  welcome a WA delegate routinely taking part in a GA. This was well accepted and will be added to NEAPCEPC’s Statutes and Bylaws making the relationship between PCE Europe and the WA closer and more formal.