Meeting notes for 25 January 2024 on Teams

Present: Phil James with Lisa Morrison-Coulthard, from BACP 

and Stacey Goldman with Turiya Gough, from Senior Accredited members’ protest group

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________
 

Turiya introduced the concerns of the senior accredited members facing the removal of their hard-earned status, emphasising the anger, disrespect and demeaning responses that have been so widely expressed.

The three interrelated aspects of primary concern being:

Firstly, our concern regarding the context in which this scandalous issue has arisen, which was illustrated by the frequent use of the terminology in BACP correspondence, “While BACP and our Board of Governors remain committed to SCoPEd and firmly believe it represents the long-term interests of the profession, ….”, asking the question whether or not the “BACP” is the members or the admin staff at Head Office?

Highlighting countless members’ experience as being a them-and-us scenario where membership opinion is too often ignored or dismissed by ‘Head Office’.

Secondly, and the focus of the meeting, being the resultant and scandalous proposal to rescind senior accreditation status from some of the most skilled and experienced members, with all the ethical, moral, legal, and insensitivity implications.

Our members have made it clear that the only acceptable solution will be based upon continuing our status while things are resolved! Demotion, temporary or otherwise, is not an acceptable option!

We have proposed a true ‘grandparenting’ scheme where ALL senior accredited members will see their status safeguarded throughout with absolutely no requirement to ‘re-qualify’ and this would recognise the study, skills, experience, continued CPD, continuous supervision and commitment that each and every senior accredited member has demonstrated.

We also suggested that an alternative, which leaves open the application of new assessment criteria for future senior accreditation, all current senior accredited members could be granted Fellowship status (FBACP) in recognition of, not only their enormous contribution to the reputation of the counselling profession, but also their continued commitment to the most excellent provision of services in the field.

In essence, the academically orientated framework of SCoPEd fails to recognise years of committed practice and experience and instead values scholastic study over experience. This whole approach currently fails to recognise the true skill and experience needed to deliver an empathic and healing counselling experience and of all people the governance of our association should appreciate that. At present they are demonstrating incredible ignorance regarding the very essence of the healing work that we do with our clients.

Thirdly, that Head Office has totally rebuffed all complaints and criticisms from senior accredited members, leaving us feeling discarded. [Highlighted by the BACP online event in September which has been described as watching a surreal split screen movie, with on the left-hand side the prepared BACP scripts being parroted and on the right-hand side the Senior Accred members going apoplectic in the chat”]. The proposal to strip senior accredited members of their titles not only demonstrates an absolute absence of empathy but could not have been handled in a more insensitive manner.

Stacey then expounded on the need to stop the demotion of senior accredited members and the subsequent intimation that suddenly our practice is inferior to practitioners in column C. The SCoPEd framework takes a hierarchical stance that says, one way of practicing is better than another – and this is wrong. It is not born out by the evidence that confirms there is an equivalence of effectiveness between bone fide modalities. She suggested BACP are giving priority, incorrectly, to an unproven assumption. We are not less competent – we work in different ways.

Stacey pointed out the need for a rethink of the framework because there are problems within the categories. Her counselling supervisee students are already working on some of the supposed category C competencies – to work with the impact of the technologically mediated environment, to critically appraise the history of psychological ideas, to utilise audit and evaluation methodologies to name a few.

There is also confusion in the categories where for instance point 3.10.B covers the ability to work with issues of power and authority experienced in the ‘unconscious’ or ‘out of awareness’ processes of the client or patient as part of the therapeutic process and is in both B&C categories – but 4.9.C covers ability to understand the nature and purpose of therapy to evaluate and use theory to conceptualise how ‘unconscious’ or ‘out of awareness’ processes in both client or patient and therapist, may shape perceptions and experiences and influence the therapeutic process -and this is only a category C point. On what basis are they in different categories?

Further, she touched on the framework being elitist in the suggestion 4.16.C that to be a category C practitioner you have to successfully complete a substantial empirical research project, systematic review, or systematic case study. However, unless you are a member of a university team or have considerable funds and time – this is not possible for many practitioners. It is a barrier to progression that has no place in a profession that works to mitigate power imbalances.

She also queried the need for 160 hours of personal therapy and suggested this came from the UKCP and BPC schools of practice. Other modalities see this differently – some have no personal therapy requirement at all - and there is no evidence to suggest that more personal therapy equates to a more competent practitioner.

She suggested BACP are playing category games with people’s livelihoods and this must be changed.

Stacey also conveyed her frustration that BACP have permitted a situation where a newly qualified psychoanalytic graduate is deemed more competent than a senior accredited BACP member with years of practice behind them. She stressed we are the highest-ranking practitioners in the membership therefore BACP should be absolutely bellowing out their support for us. Instead, they have capitulated and allowed us to be dismissed in the forming of the SCoPEd framework. She emphasized that BACP should promote us - not throw us under the bus.

Phil and Lisa acknowledged the depth of feeling being expressed by us on behalf of more than 1,000 senior members and regarding our protest. They also acknowledged the more general dissatisfaction among the wider membership with not-being-heard when raising issues with management.

They are both new to their roles at the BACP but have clearly taken time to familiarise themselves with the current unrest, and they very much agreed with the principle of bringing about greater harmony between members and management.

Phil did make it clear that the SCoPEd project has invested a lot of BACP resources over the past few years and was unlikely to be halted in its tracks, but at the same time he was listening to our proposals for slowing it down while further research, including much greater member input, could be invited. In response to Phil saying he will model a new way of listening to the membership, Stacey stated clearly that on behalf of all the outraged Senior Accredited Practitioners – it was vital that things must change. There must be no demotion.

Turiya made the point that although resources have been poured in over the past few years it was extraordinary that the SCoPEd programme could be rolled out when the transition details were on hold for the next two years! Surely it is not fit for purpose when implementation details remain unresolved.

Turiya agreed to circulate notes of the meeting for agreement.