SaveCAMFT brings democracy to MFTs

Laura C. Strom

Dear Colleagues:

Greg Rowe has posted an email on SF CAMFT's list serve. There are some inaccuracies and misconceptions in this email I would like to clear up point by point. The text in italics and quotes are Mr. Rowe's original post which I have quoted in its entirety and in the same order in which it originally appeared.

"Dear colleagues,

I just want to draw your attention to the fact that the Save CAMFT folks are asking you to elect all seven of them in order to have a majority on the 12 member state board."

There are only five Board seats open, not seven. Even if 5 of the 7 SaveCAMFT endorsed candidates are elected, SaveCAMFT will not have a majority on the Board.

"They are also asking you to sign a petition allowing them to circumvent the Nomination Committee process - an approach that is allowed in the bylaws but is unusual."

Yes, it is unusual to use the option of nominating by petition, which is allowed in our bylaws. We feel using this option is necessary to insure we have the opportunity to vote for candidates we know are committed to transparency and collaborative leadership.
 
In May 2013 our CAMFT Board presented us with the new 2013 bylaws. For the two years prior to May the Board held every bylaws discussion in closed session and the membership was not told any details about their discussions or the content of the 2013 bylaws.

Our Board decided to turn CAMFT into a generic mental health organization, complete with a new name/website planned: CAMHP (CA Association of Mental Health Professionals). The current CAMFT Board did not involve the membership in any discussion about our wishes for the future of our MFT advocacy trade group before mailing us a ballot in May of this year. There were no articles in The Therapist, town hall discussions, eblasts, surveys, nothing to let us know their intention to give up our MFT advocacy group in favor of a generic mental health organization.

"I don't know if there is historical precedence for this in our organizing, but nowhere in our bylaws does it discuss electing a slate of candidates on a single issue."

SaveCAMFT endorsed candidates are running on two principals: collaborative leadership and transparency. Each candidate is committed to bottom up, rather than top down leadership. SaveCAMFT candidates are committed to involving the membership in major decisions, especially one as large as terminating our 49 year MFT advocacy organization in favor of inviting every masters level and above mental health license to be a voting clinical member.

"On the contrary our bylaws insist on the essential importance of diversity of age, gender, region etc - in short basic tenet of any democratic organization where people who don't necessarily think along the same lines must learn to work and find compromise."

The SaveCAMFT endorsed candidates are from various regions throughout California, are varying ages/genders, have their own points-of-view, etc. Members are encouraged to contact each candidate and find out more about their views. In an effort to be fully transparent, we have included statements, phone numbers and email addresses for each person, and those have been available since October on our website: SaveCAMFT.info. CAMFT will not be putting candidate statements up until February 2014.

"A slate of candidates violates the very idea of enhancing diversity on the board - a notion I find intellectually impoverishing particularly coming from a group of folks who say they want to bring new dynamism to the organization."

Here is the wording from the CAMFT website on the purpose/tasks of the Nominating Committee, italics mine:
- Review and select nominees for a slate of candidates
- Obtain applications or petitions to run from each candidate
- Select each candidate with due consideration of geographic representation, experience in the profession, gender and ethnic representation
- Send a slate and a "nominating ballot" to all voting members

In other words, the Nominating Committee determines the "slate" for which we will vote. In all past CAMFT elections in recent memory there is most often only one person on the ballot for each officer position. The Nominating Committee has given us ONE choice for President-Elect, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer. That is not a democratic vote, but rather a confirmation of the Nominating Committee’s choices for our officers.

We believe the members deserve real choice. This is being done through the legal and valid petition process which requires 2% of our members sign a petition in order for that candidate to be placed on the ballot. This option is outlined in both sets of bylaws, 2009 and 2013.

"Also to me it indicates they are still operating along the lines of “Everything in San Diego is bad” - a strange stance since there have been several Come to Jesus Moments where each side was able to sit down and listen to the other and come to compromise. Perhaps I misunderstood."

On the contrary, we have worked closely with CAMFT on this petition and we look forward to working on the Board and with staff to help make CAMFT an effective trade organization for MFTs. One of our SaveCAMFT endorsed candidates is from San Diego.

"It's ironic they are not saying that their goal is a controlling majority on the board. In essence they are orchestrating what might be seen as a powergrab as a form of protestation against what they saw as a powergrab. Tit for tat."

Our goal is to provide members with a choice on the ballot for the election of 5 of the 12 Board seats. It is up to the members to decide whom they would like to represent them on the Board.

"I encourage my fellow members to elect or sign petitions to support candidates based on what those candidates hold as a vision for CAMFT, on their competencies, their concrete ideas and not on some jingoistic notion that they somehow need to all be elected en masse in order  "Save CAMFT." (from whom? from what? to what end?).

Sincerely,
Greg Rowe"

Signing this petition does not mean you are voting for these candidates. It simply insures you will be given the opportunity to vote for them, should the Nominating Committee choose to not approve SaveCAMFT candidates, all of whom are submitting applications to go through the standard Nominating Committee process/interview. As mentioned above, we encourage all members to gather as much information about all Board candidates as possible, ask questions of them, and then make the decision for which candidates they will cast a vote. This year it will be on a ballot that offers real choice. H. Dan Smith is on the Nominating Committee this year, so I am hopeful he will see that candidates are evaluated fairly. Dr. Smith wrote a notable letter, dated July 5, 2013, to the CAMFT Board imploring them to change course from converting CAMFT into a generic mental health organization.

To specifically answer Mr. Rowe's closing questions:
SaveCAMFT from whom? From a Board that decided on its own to end the 49 year history of CAMFT as a trade organization representing the interests of MFTs without informing or seeking input from the membership. From leadership that felt CAMFT's Of Counsel, Mr. Richard Leslie, didn't need to be shown these new bylaws before sending them out to the membership for a vote even though that's exactly the sort of thing for which he was being paid - and then fired him when he called them out on their actions.

from what? From being transformed into a generic mental health organization with Board members including psychologists, social workers, professional counselors, psychiatrists and educational psychologists. Many of these groups have lobbied very effectively against MFTs for decades. When people bring up AAMFT for comparison, I want to point out that every one of AAMFT's board members also has training, supervision and education to practice the art/science of marriage and family therapy.

to what end? To work hard to make sure MFTs can be reimbursed by Medicare, hired by the VA, etc. To make sure yet another 170+ MFTs don't get laid off by a major hospital like Sutter did last year - and replaced with LCSWs.

Lastly, Mary Riemersma, former 20 year CAMFT Executive Director posted this message to me on the open Save_CAMFT Yahoo discussion group.

"You are off to a great start Laura and definitely making history. I am sure you will achieve the requisite signatures -- and very well deserved for the whole slate. I will do what I can. Mary"

I invite people to visit the website to learn more: SaveCAMFT.info. Or to write/call me. LCStrom at gmail dot com or 707-889-9168.

Thank you,
Laura Strom

Original post on Save_CAMFT Yahoo Discussion Group, Nov. 26, 2013.

A Couples Counseling Perspective on the CAMFT Bylaws Fiasco by Laura Strom

Laura C. Strom, LMFT

I thought it might be useful to explain the feelings of what has happened during Summer 2013 between us (the CAMFT membership body) and you (the CAMFT Board of Directors/Leadership) from a couples counseling perspective so you (the Board) could better understand the feelings I (the membership) am having about you and our relationship.

We are a couple. We've always had a monogamous relationship. We have children (MFTIs), and have been married for 49 years, own a house and other assets, and though from time to time we argue, I've always been able to trust you and know you had my back.

In May you handed me a stack of papers to sign, and told me they were some minor legal documents. Because I trust you, I signed most of them, and finally I got down to the bottom of the stack and started reading one of them. You had already headed out the door to take the documents to the bank. I didn't like what I was reading, but you weren't there to reassure me or answer my questions. You aren't answering your cell phone when I call you. I emailed you and sent texts, but you didn't respond.

Finally you send, ED (our household manager), over to tell me that what I am reading is true - you have just taken my name off all our assets. Those weren't minor legal documents like you said! They were major. And ED just told me that now after 49 years of marriage, because I am old and may not last another 20 years, you have decided to have an open relationship with other people (See May 22, 2013 announcement by Jill Epstein, CAMFT Exec. Dir. and Sandra Wolf, CAMFT Board President).

I'm reeling from this information. I cannot believe what I am hearing. Surely, there's been a mistake! You wouldn't do this to me, would you? I've trusted you for all these years. Sure, we've had our fights, but I always knew you were loyal to me. At least that's what I thought.

Then I find out you're going to bring your other relationships home to our table! In fact, my presence isn't even required at the table we've shared for 49 years (see Note 1). ED tells me to get over it, what's done is done and there's no going back (2). 

"This will be better" says ED. "There will be more assets for the household this way. You'll get used to it. You can learn to share your house with your partner's other relationships. In fact, we can expand the house and make it bigger and fancier."

I think about this. How do I feel? I realize I'm still so pissed and hurt that you tricked me into signing away my assets, and decided we'd have an open marriage without even asking me, that I start to protest loudly. I've had enough, and I make an appointment with our family attorney to discuss divorce proceedings. He tells me he told you while I was signing the documents initially, unaware of what I was signing, that your actions were unethical and I would be furious when I found out, but you ignored him, too!

Finally, when you see I am initiating the paperwork to end our marriage (the petition), you respond to me.

"Baby, it's not like that! You'll always be my number one!" you say. "Look, I'll only have five other relationships at our table (3) besides you. And you'll be my priority, just like always. I'll always love you the most. The others don't matter as much to me, it's just a financial arrangement, all part of my big plan. I'll never really love them like I love you. But with their money and assets I can build a much nicer, fancier house that we can all live in together!"

I think about that. We've always entertained friends of all sorts whom I love and respect. Am I being selfish, wanting you all to myself? Maybe I would like an open relationship once I got used to the idea. And how will your other relationships feel when they find out they are only being courted for their money? Can I believe anything you say at this point?

I put my hands on my heart and realize I've got a pain there that just won't quit. I can't believe you tricked me into this nightmare. I hoped initially it was all a big mistake. I hoped that ED was wrong, that you didn't really do this to me knowingly and on purpose.

"Baby, I'm sorry I forgot to tell you about all this - the paperwork you signed, having an open marriage, but what's done is done. We'll just have to move forward from here" you say.

Up until now I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But now I know you did this on purpose. I realize you've decided our child, MFTI, doesn't necessarily have a seat at our table any more either. You've declared any child can fill that seat, even step children from your other relationships like ASW and Psych Intern. We actually have four children, and only one has ever been allowed to sit at the table (interns are 1/3 of CAMFT's 30K members, therefore if the twelve board seats were proportional, interns should occupy four seats).

So now this couple presents in couples counseling. What are the issues?

One partner has tricked the other into signing away all the assets, has decided to have an open marriage, and that their children are no longer a priority without getting their spouse's agreement on any of it. The other partner feels hurt, betrayed, deceived, grief-stricken, enraged, humiliated, ugly/old, unimportant, and defensive of the children who are being ignored.

The caring counselor can see what is needed is a sincere apology from the offending partner to the family. The counselor insists that in order to restore trust, the offending partner must also agree to make it right by returning the assets taken from the unsuspecting, innocent spouse. Only then can the issue of having an open marriage be discussed. Do both partners want that? Is having a bigger, fancier house a priority? How will the children be treated?

I am hoping that this analogy will help readers understand how I, the membership body, am feeling. I know I don't speak for the entire membership body, but I do speak for 2200 of us. Although I realize we are talking about corporations, lobbying, payroll, finances, long-term goal projections, etc. at the core of CAMFT we are ALL marriage and family therapists (except ED). And as marriage and family therapists we understand that having healthy relationships with open, honest, transparent communication are key to success in any endeavor in life.

----------------
Notes 

(1) There was NO requirement for LMFTs on the CAMFT Board with the June 2013 bylaws passage.

(2) See Jill Epstein, CAMFT ED's messages June 2013. The CAMFT website was changed in June 2013 to eliminate the term "marriage and family therapist" throughout, replacing it with "mental health professional"). 


(3) New bylaws allowed social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, professional counselors and educational psychologists to sit on the CAMFT Board in addition to LMFTs. Five board seats were restored to exclusive MFT control on 7/11/13 by the CAMFT Board after mounting pressure by the SaveCAMFT movement. In their haste, they neglected the Intern Chair which could be filled by an ASW, Psych Intern, PCCI, or MFTI. 

Collaborative Leadership by Jonathan Flier

Jonathan Flier, LMFT

CAMFT's misguided attempt to drop the founding core value and purpose of our association, which is to represent the relational perspective and practices of Marriage and Family Therapists, caused a reaction of shock and dismay among CAMFT members. By ignoring the importance of educating the membership and by not providing time for debate and deliberation, CAMFT created a furious response from a large group of members who organized and demanded a return of control of our association board to MFTs. The professional leadership immediately amended the bylaws and reinstated the rule that all the officers and key positions on the board be filled by MFTs.

Along with many of the largest chapters of CAMFT, The Board of the Los Angeles Chapter has taken on the task of educating members about the issues raised by the creation of the new bylaws and is in the process of working with the San Fernando and San Gabriel Chapters to create a town hall kind of meeting to review the controversy. The town hall meetings and listservs have thus far primarily focused on the idea of repealing the bylaws or having a new election to return to the previous bylaws with about a one-year process of education and debate on what "new" bylaws should address. The listserv, "SaveCAMFT" is beginning to make a shift, evolving and expanding the examination of why the board and staff acted as they did and I write this message to add to that examination.

We won the short battle of returning  MFTs to important board positions but the current crisis that has been created has uncovered a basic flaw in our association. This flaw was first revealed when a strong core of our membership displayed their discontent with CAMFT distancing itself from protecting the rights of the LGBT community to marry, and later in the battle to protect that community from the ravages of so called Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy. I think those decisions CAMFT made regarding the LGBT community were driven by the risk- averse lawyers who populate our association’s staff along with some of the volunteer board members who share the sentiment of fearing the effects of controversy on our political lobbying efforts.  I believe that there is a cultural norm behind CAMFT’s current efforts to shift our organization, and it is that norm with its notion of "knowing what is best for our professional interests" that orchestrated the recent bylaws vote and ensuing controversy.

In my mind, it is not the new Bylaws or the Board majority who favored these changes that should be the focus of our efforts. I believe what is needed is a shift away from the top down "Modernist" model in the CAMFT leadership, a model that has been the dominant culture, to a more "Post Modern" bottom-up model of collaboration. 

The professional staff of CAMFT has been focused on the role of our association as a lobbying force in Sacramento and Washington DC. That is a vital representation of our trade to the forces that hold the purse strings and decide how mental health services are provided to the public. Unfortunately, our congressional leaders are focused on the forces that control the purse strings in their own vital election process – a process dominated by business corporations seeing to their own interests. 

The CAMFT Board and volunteer professional staff, from their "Modernist - experts" perspective saw our trade association as nearly powerless to pass legislation providing us equity among competing mental health professionals. Their solution was to create an omnibus organization that would welcome newly licensed LPCCs and other mental health professionals, and, by size, compete and win against the other narrowly based mental health trades.

In my opinion, however, there is a good chance that the future nationwide representatives of the Licensed Professional Counselors will guard their territory and compete against our nationwide organization of MFTs known as AAMFT. Rather than joining us, the already powerful associations of Social Workers and Psychologists will likely continue to fight to maintain their strongholds in State and Federal Congresses.   
It is my point of view that the best way for MFTs to strengthen our representation and lobbying clout would be through activating and widening the participation of our membership in the organization. The current practice of CAMFT's top-down style of leadership creates passivity, indifference and apathy among those beneath. The best organizational research has consistently shown that collaborative systems of management increase levels of satisfaction,participation and production. We need to increase the "stake", the experience of ownership, in our association and increase the sense of empowerment that comes with feeling welcomed, valued and heard.

With that increased stake will come increased active participation, and an activated body of potential donors and motivated voters would be seen and responded to by congressional leaders who will want to harness that energy to keep them in office. An activated membership could be sitting in the viewing stands of hearings demanding equal access to Medicare and shouting for protection from the predatory anti-competitive practices of insurance corporations keeping affordable mental health care from those in need. 

An active Association would, in the future, draw Licensed Professional Counselors who would want to be connected to such a vital source of energy. It is even possible that we could become such a strong and consistent voice that it would begin to wake up Social Workers to the fact that "a house divided can not stand" and bring pressure to their association to chose to stop undermining other mental health professionals and unite with them to bring parity to all Master's level therapists.

Uniting our association through collaborative practice would become the new norm for us and provide a model for a stronger connection with AAMFT, our national brethren who have already been moving toward a more progressive, less top-down organizational cultural model. Then we can move forward in strength, toward collaboration and not absorption, with our fellow mental health professionals.