Although you may not have a big interest in the governance of the APA, you should. In particular, you should know about some things that are going on with your Board of Trustees. The Board is now considering how to limit the influence of past APA presidents who currently can remain on the Board, all expenses paid, for life. A change will alter level of impact that newer board members can have, including the impact of the new ECP board member. It’s simple math. One voice (and vote) out of twenty has much more impact than one voice (and vote) out of thirty.

The APA has conducted surveys of ECP members and non-members to find out what they like and don’t like about the APA. The data show that ECPs don’t like the high cost of dues and the unwelcoming structure of the organization. This is especially true for non-members. The Board is not immune to this perception. The Board is in the process of taking some steps to change this.

First, the Board has created an ECP position. During the January 2000 election the first designated ECP board member will be elected. The position lasts for 3 years and requires that the person elected meet ECP criteria (under age 40 years or within the first 5 years of practice) for the duration of their tenure on the Board.

Second, the Board recently agreed to put a question on the January 2000 ballot, which, if approved by the membership, would limit Board tenure of past APA Presidents to 3 years after their presidency ends. After their tenure expires, Past Presidents could still be invited by the Board to attend meetings or they could attend as regular, dues-paying members just like the rest of us and pay their own way. They would not have a vote after their tenure expires. An added benefit of reducing the size of the Board is that it saves money, and increased fiscally responsible for the organization is another goal of Early Career Psychiatrists committee. Saving money will prevent dues increases, and may allow for a decrease in dues if more of these cost-saving initiatives come to fruition.

Unfortunately, one of the options the Board currently is considering would only be a half step toward real reform. Why? A grandfather clause would allow all current past Presidents to keep doing what they have been doing for as long as they choose, so their continued participation could go on for years, a costly delay of the reform process. Beyond issues of finances and perception, there is a more compelling reason why this grandfather clause should not be allowed. The current Board, simply by its very composition, consists of leadership that is rooted in the past. If past Presidents remain on the Board for years to come, they will maintain their positions of power and authority that could intimidate or limit the contributions of newer members leaning toward more or faster change.

Fortunately the membership will ultimately decide. The ballot question for January, 2000 will have two parts. The first dealing with whether staying on the Board should be a lifetime benefit for past Presidents or limited to 3 years; and second, whether this change in policy should apply to existing past Presidents.