(At intervals in the past two years, the Newsletter has printed a series of feature articles designed to inform the membership about the work of the Committees which conduct the Association's affairs. Herewith we present an essay on the Executive Council, written by the immediate Past President of the APsaA. An article on the Board on Professional Standards will appear in a forthcoming issue.)
The Editor's decision to publish a brief review of the nature, structure, and responsibilities of the Executive Council is a timely one, for the decade of the sixties recorded a number of knotty issues in these connections, by no means all of them as yet resolved; and the Annual Meeting in San Francisco was the stage for a unique action on the part of Council that six members of the Association found sufficiently disturbing and regrettable to prompt their letters of criticism. Perhaps these matters may be taken up in detail at a later date.
Our Association had its beginnings in an organization established in May 1911, under the leadership of Ernest Jones, who was practicing in Toronto. Persons who appeared to be seriously interested in psychoanalysis were admitted to membership as individuals — an arrangement which continued until 1932, at which point the “Old American” was succeeded by a federation of the three existing Societies as constituents: in order of seniority, New York, Boston, and Chicago; with Baltimore-Washington very soon after. Each Society had its institute, either in being or nascent, so together the four formed a Council on Professional Training, and by 1938, at Paris, the restive Americans declared themselves independent of the European-based International Training Commission.
However, the federation labored ponderously, for the opinion or ratification of each Society was required in regard to its actions. The additions of Topeka (1938), Philadelphia (1939), and San Francisco (1941) made the conduct of business even slower and more complex. A move toward a better format resulted in the adoption of new By-Laws in 1946. In the main, these provided for the present organization, incorporated under the laws of the State of New York.
An Executive Council became the Board of Directors of the American Psychoanalytic Association, an individual membership organization with which Psychoanalytic Societies might become affiliated (no longer constituents) upon recognition by the Council. Educational responsibilities were delegated to a Board on Professional Standards (successor to the Council on Professional Training), which was also charged with the evaluation of persons applying for membership, whom it might or might not recommend to the membership for election.
Before going further, certain anomalies should be noted. First, although the Executive Council is in law the Board of Directors of the Association — and perhaps this is a holdover from the days of the confederation of constituent Societies — the large majority of its members, who are termed “Representative Councilors,” are elected, one each, by voting members of the Affiliate Societies who are active members of the Association. These presently number 29, and their membership ranges from Florida's dozen or so to New York's 300 plus. It may be noted also that by no means all of the voting members of Societies are members of the Association. Thus, each Society, from the smallest to the largest, elects an Executive Councilor.
Second, it is unlikely that most Societies consider that they are electing members of a Board of Directors of a national Association. Rather, they look upon the Councilor as a Representative Councilor of theirs, more related to the local group and its opinions than to the overall concerns of the Association. For such reasons, Councilors have in recent times openly expressed their personal opinions for or against a given position, adding, however, that for lack of direction from their “constituents,” they are unable to vote — or must vote against — a motion made at a meeting of Council.
Before looking further into the issues raised by that anomaly, it should be stated that hitherto four Councilors-at-Large have been elected by the membership, and that as of the present this number is being increased (by membership action) to eight. It must also be considered that the four Officers (President, President - Elect, Secretary, and Treasurer), who are elected by the membership, are ex-officio members also of Executive Council, as is the Chairman of the Board on Professional Standards (who is elected by the Board). In addition, past-Presidents remain members of Council for five years.
In brief, within the very near future, the Executive Council will continue to be a Board of Directors (its nature) consisting of persons elected by each Affiliate Society (29), plus eight Councilors-at-Large, plus four Officers and the Chairman of the Board, plus five past-Presidents — 47 men and women (its structure). These are the persons who in law conduct the affairs of this individual
membership Association (its responsibilities). (Between the semiannual meetings of the Executive Council, its responsibilities devolve upon the Executive Committee — the four Officers and the Chairman of the Board.)
As can be seen immediately, although 17 Councilors are elected by the membership of the Association (the eight Councilors-at-Large, the four Officers, and the five past-Presidents), 29 other Society Representative Councilors owe their presence to the decisions of Societies, and one to election by the Board. Thus, a large majority of the Executive Councilors (30 out of 47) are in a position where there is a threat of divided loyalty. (The term “Representative Councilor” emphasizes the problem.) Does the Councilor, duly elected by the affiliated Butte, Montana Society, come as a representative of Butte, or as a member of the Board of Directors of the national Association? Should he feel obliged to consult with the Butte Society before speaking or voting, or should he speak and vote as a thoughtful person in whom Butte has reposed its confidence — perhaps, however, risking serious criticism by his Butte colleagues?
In relation to this kind of troublesome question, I can write a response: All the past-Presidents of the Association with whom I have reviewed this matter, and the current Officers as well, are in agreement that Executive Councilors, when elected by Societies, should be immediately regarded at home and nationally as persons who have been accorded membership on the Board of Directors of the Association (the Executive Council), and that — while not ignoring the view of the local membership — their primary concern should be the forwarding of the aims and goals of the American Psychoanalytic Association.