Generally speaking, I found the atmosphere at last year's annual meeting to be very good, despite having in the back of our minds the knowledge that Paul Ornstein was lying in the hospital and Anna wasn't there and many of us had witnessed, on Thursday evening, Joe Lichtenberg's collapse and our subsequent initial fear for his life. With all of this, it was hard to devote oneself fully to the conference.

For me, the conference itself, was as always, not only a place of learning but a place to meet good and close friends and colleagues. I think that some changes will be beneficial for future meetings. What I think needs to be corrected is that with four different panels there is not room enough for audience or smaller group discussions. The conference topic was gender identity but I did not feel that it was not fully addressed in the panels or in the smaller groups.

The first panel had two good case studies by Shelley Doctors and Mal Slavin followed by Estelle Shane's discussion. Although the case studies were excellent, what they specifically had to do with gender identity was not made clear. The audience seemed tired after Shelley's case presentation which made it diffiuclt for Mal to gain the audience's attention. This panel was followed by a coffee break and then Panel II, in which Nancy Van der Heide presented a provacative case, but again, there was no room for audience discussion. People were tired and the Council Members had to go immediately thereafter to the Council Meeting.

Joe Lichtenberg's original idea, that the presenters should not read the discussants replies prior to the meeting should have been followed. It would have provided more spontanaiety. The next day saw Panel III and its discussion. I did not understand why there were two cases with men treating women when the orignial idea was to have four different variations. But there were only three. Both Slavin and Clifford treated women, there was no man treated by a man.

Finally, small discussion groups did follow Panel III, but because this panel was so fresh in the mind of the participants the material of the other cases was lost in the distance created by the time lapse. I beleive that either there should be some form of small group discussions that follows the panels or there should be just one large discussion with audience particpiation where the audience is limited to short questions that do not capitalize the discussion.

I thought the last panel was very good, but since it came at the end there wasn't enough time for Estelle Shane's complete discussion which I think most of us would have liked to have heard.

I would like to make a program suggestion based on Donna Orange's discussion of Judith Gus Teihholz's original paper. Instead of having two discussions, which are usually lectures in themselves, and often tiring for the listener, why not have one or two discussants create 5 questions based on the presentation that they direct to the presenter. The presenters could then go deeper into their own theory, discuss the patient material more deeply, which would provide us with more insight regarding the actual work conducted. This is not an easy task for the presenter but it probably provides the audience with a needed vitality. Thinking about the questions asked and formulating our own answers, as well as other questions, would be an interesting exercise. Why not try this at the next conference?!

The preconference case studies were sadly disappointing for the presenters and discussants who put a great deal of effort into their presentations but unfortunately were often let down by poor attendence. There is no fun in preparing for a long time, in some instances translating papers into English, and then have no one show up. This must be corrected in future conferences. The presenters must know if anyone has registered for their presentations so they won't have to face such a dissapointment again. One reason for poor attendance might have been that there were too many preconference case presentations. This situation needs to be rethought for the Chicago conference.