Position Statement

I am running for Councilor-at-Large, by petition, because I would like to be able to help to guide the Association through the transitions that will follow this bylaws vote, whether or not the Renew the American proposal wins. I am well qualified to do so, having acquired more than two decades of intensive experience in organizational administration—locally, nationally and internationally. I have been a Councilor-at-Large and the Treasurer of the APsaA, served on both Board and Council, served for many years on the finance and investment advisory committees of the local, American and International associations, and as chair of the IPA New Groups for North America while we brought seven new groups into that organization. I introduced the Omnibus Science Initiative in the APsaA, and served as a Trustee for the Sigourney Foundation.

Renew the American is NOT part of the old struggle. Renew sets aside partisan extremes and seeks a middle ground. Polarization does not work, as the American people have demonstrated by the recent national election: polarization gets the country in trouble. Polarization has gotten this Association in trouble, too.

When I first read the Renew proposal, I thought it offered us a pathway to decreasing polarization. I stepped back, studied the old and Renew bylaws, studied some of the impressively-made counter-Renew arguments, and discussed the situation with a number of colleagues. I still conclude that Renew is a pathway to the middle ground, to positions that have more to do with growth than internecine struggle.

Renew may be the best chance we will ever have to establish a functional organization capable of taking psychoanalysis forward in the modern world. Given our apparent strategy of permanently attacking our own umbilicus, individual members and groups of members are increasingly withdrawing their interest in the Association, increasingly offended by the seemingly endless struggles about “governance”, and asserting with strength that “The APsaA no longer serves our needs”. These struggles have wasted time, money and energy for decades. And may have wasted our future as well.

Renew offers us a set of bylaws that are workable, that will free us from the paralysis caused by our too specific and detailed current bylaws which require a 2/3 majority for any significant change. There are many other, though less restrictive, checks and balances built into Renew.

Renew distributes the necessary sacrifices across the power centers of the Association—Council, BOPS and the Executive Committee. One center is not sacrificed for another. Society, Institute, Affiliate and Science/Scholarship Councils function in a parallel fashion. Each of them carries the burden of representing its own constituency. None of them is burdened with the responsibility of functioning as a board of directors.

Renew takes credentialing functions outside of the Association. The goals of a membership organization are reached by expansion and inclusion. The duty of a standard setting (credentialing) body is to maintain quality by restricting indiscriminate expansion and inclusion. Standards differentiate a professional organization from an interest group. Both membership services and standards maintenance are necessary and valuable. But they do not, and should not, live peacefully under the same roof.

Renew vastly improves parity of representation while recognizing the realities of the Association as it exists. Power will rest largely with directors and officers who are elected by the membership as a whole. Renew also retains the federal structure of representation of societies and extends that feature to parallel representation of institutes. It recognizes that, whatever the current bylaws say, the essential component organizations of the Association are societies and institutes, not the one or the other. The structure of the bylaws should not necessitate that one essential component tries to subdue the other. Renew spares us this structural flaw.

The often asserted “simple step” of bringing the Association into compliance with the New York not-for-profit laws is not simple and not necessitated in the immediate future by moral or legal considerations. The push to comply with state laws is a strategy in the ongoing, unprogressive struggle. Compliance with state laws has only a prudent necessity: as long as we are changing bylaws, we can save money by writing them within the framework of the NY laws now. We can do this is a variety of ways, including Renew.

Voting “No” on Renew and voting to “Abstain”have the same effect: rejection of the new set of bylaws and choosing for us to continue with the same, overly restrictive bylaws that are a causal part of our chronic problems.

In my opinion, the proposed Renew Bylaws will: help to avoid the paralysis we have now; equitably distribute sacrifices of power over all of the several power centers of the Association; vastly increase the parity of representation of members while expanding the federal role of institutes and societies; and take credentialing functions outside of the Association, where they belong.

The Renew proposal is certainly not perfect. It needs a thorough professional clean-up. One section in particular, in my view, will need prompt amendment if Renew wins, the important section on the nomination and election of members of the Board of Directors. I thank Tom Bartlett for calling this and some other important issues to our attention. As Councilor-at-Large I will do my best to rectify any inequities that emerge over time, if Renew wins; and to work with the current bylaws and the proponents of more gradual change if Renew does not prevail.