SI Faculty Meeting (cont'd)

discussions of whether it was best to get out of the massage therapy camp (answers ranging from "YES" to "I think we're swimming against the current on this"); do we want our own licensing, the pros and cons of that ("if we don't set our own boundaries someone will do it for us, ie put out of business" and "do we want to box ourselves into a scope of practice?"). This group wants to see a supported proliferation of SI schools provided they are doing well, and definitely not in support of the "weekend wonders". A high standard of training will set the tone for legislation. They were both inclusionary but also committed to raising the bar – creating a high standard of inclusiveness.

On Saturday morning the group was introduced to Dr. Gerald Rosen, the Psychometrist hired by IASI to see us through the development of the SI Certification Exam. We are lucky to have Dr. Rosen with us on this as he is the expert on creating exams for small organizations like ours and creating practicum exams. He has worked with the Nurse Midwifery Certification, National Exercise Trainers Assoc., and the World Institute of Pain, among many others. The group had a lot of questions about how SI could be fairly adjudicated in a written exam. After explaining the testing development process in detail, Dr. Rosen was able to assure everyone that the process itself eventually gets organizations where they need to go.

He will help us evaluate whether a practicum will be necessary. One of the main disadvantages of a practicum is the cost both to develop it (it'll double the price), and for the candidates, making it a very expensive exam to take. The problem of training examiners to ensure objectivity is also difficult, a major expense, and creates administrative continuity problems. All of these considerations will feed into decisions about whether a practicum is advisable.

Our last afternoon was spent looking forward, recreating vision for Structural Integration, now that our founder has left us and the 'school wars' can be declared over. Ed Maupin wanted to see us move on to discuss the differences in our theories and techniques and find ways to discover what really works best – to learn to disagree well is the hallmark of a mature profession. Karen Bolesky summed up the feelings of many of us: "In 20 years I just want to BE here. And I'd like to see this organization be the strength and connection for the profession. In this world of polarities, it's so good for us to come together for these two days for unity, and moving forward, and that IASI has been the seed in the ground that's allowed us to bloom. I'd like to see that seed of unity continue forward contextually – a group of schools that are touching each other, that's the forward thrust I see, with all the details and logistics coming together under that one heading of unity, cohesion, collaboration and togetherness that we don't see in this world."

When IASI began in January, 2002, we had no members, no money, and relied on donations from a few good souls to get the organization through the legal challenges and our first mailing. The membership dues from our first four years have given us the money to put Structural Integration on the road to a stable identity in the professional marketplace, brought the "school wars" to an end, and generated the funds to develop the SI Certification Exam,  our most important bulwark against losing our profession. Dr. Rosen, the professional we have retained to help us write the exam, made it clear to us at the SI Faculty meeting that without a certification exam we did not have a leg to stand on as regards legislation, licensing, or maintaining a distinct identity. It wouldn't automatically solve all of these problems, but without it we could not even begin. You, our members, have funded this major project for the whole profession of Structural Integration – you will probably never get thanked for it, but you certainly deserve to be!

Michelle Voigt, our Finance Chair, has been scrutinizing our expenses and income for the last few years and has developed a budget for 2007. As you can see, this is not a huge budget, and the projected expenses are slightly higher than the projected income. Expenses go up every year, especially with postage, printing and telecommunications. To help close the gap between income and these higher expenses the Board has decided to raise the dues for US members from $150/year to $165/year starting on April 1, 2007.

International members will have their dues raised from $100/year to $165/year in 2008. Extra money in the budget will be put into marketing Structural Integration, funding a Brazilian Regional Meeting in Sau Paulo next June, and a regional meeting on the West Coast of the US in 2008.

Here are the projected (conservative) income and expenses:

Income from memberships:			$90,000
Expenses:			$91,268
	Bank charges & credit card fees:		$4,100
	Dues & Subscriptions:		$275
	Licenses:		$50
	BOD Meetings/travel:		$6,000
	SI Meetings (faculty, regional):		$2,500
	Accounting/consulting:		$2,300
	Website maintenance:		$3,000
	Printing (Yearbook, newsletters):		$10,000
	Graphic Services:		$5,000
	Office Supplies:		$5,200
	Telephone:		$4,700
	Postage/shipping:		$8,000
	Library:		$150
	Repairs:		$700
	Insurance:		$1,193
	Payroll expenses/taxes:		$38,100