Another counselor at the Bureau wrote in an e-mail that the “rank and file” of the Bureau’s staff considered the issues noted in the letter of great importance.

“This remarkable grassroots demonstration of unanimity bespeaks the depth of conviction that we individually and collectively feel about the issues we articulated,” wrote the counselor, who asked not to be named.

A source close to the task force said that much of the difference of opinion between members of the task force and Bureau staff was “very much a semantic issue.”

“Their thing is that what they provide is counseling for people that are not mentally ill,” the source said. “They are really resistant to being painted as a place where people who are mentally ill go, because they feel that no one will use the services if they are seen like a place that treats mentally ill people.”

The source said that the task force recognized that people receiving clinical treatment are not necessarily mentally ill.

“There’s no way to not say that if you’re counseling someone about something, then they have a problem about something—whether you call it mental illness or not, it’s just words,” the source said. “People who go [to the Bureau] have some sort of issue that they need help with. They are receiving help from people who can be called clinicians—there’s no way you can’t call that clinical care.”

—Staff writer Katharine A. Kaplan can be reached at kkaplan@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Stephen M. Marks can be reached at marks@fas.harvard.edu.