Dr. Morton Shane, Los Angeles, announced to the Board the results of a straw poll conducted by the Los Angeles Society/Institute designed to elicit the sentiments of the membership as a whole in regard to a proposal to make voting membership in the American no longer contingent upon certification by that organization. A petition, authored by Maria Lymberis, Los Angeles, requested that upon graduation from an affiliated institute and membership in an affiliated society, the graduate analyst qualifies to apply for full active membership in the American. The straw poll, conducted and financed by the Los Angeles Society/Institute, attempted to determine how the current membership felt about this proposal. Over 2,000 ballots were mailed to all categories of membership of the American, excepting the affiliate membership. Of the approximately 50 percent returned, 77.5 percent were in favor of the proposal, and 22.5 percent were against. Active and life members were in favor by 67 percent, associate members by 90 percent, and extended associates by 97 percent.
In response to Shane's report, Homer Curtis, President of the Association, advised that the poll was timely, that its results would be forwarded to the newly-formed Ad Hoc Committee on Membership and Organization appointed jointly by himself and Justin Krent, Chairman of the Board on Professional Standards. This new committee, Curtis added, is well balanced, cutting across geographical and political lines. Their charge is to review and discuss a variety of issues regarding membership in the organization arising over the past 20 years.
Others at the Board responded with concern. Shelley Orgel, immediate past-Chairman of the Board, asserted that such a poll, undertaken as it was outside of the usual procedures of the organization, might indicate the membership's mistrust, and some serious questions as to the structure of the American, as if it were felt that one cannot be heard through regular channels, that the organizational structure itself does not allow for change. Richard Fox, of Los Angeles, and appointed to the newly formed Ad Hoc committee, explained that the poll revealed a surprising degree of anger and resentment, and a wide sense of disenfranchisement, especially among the younger members. In contrast, many on the Board expressed the view that the poll was not truly representative of the membership, tapping disproportionately the disaffected, and that, in terms of the issue itself, separating certification from membership would have the effect of weakening the certification process and lowering standards in general. The debate in the Board ended with a suggestion by Joseph Nemeth of Boston, that a vote of thanks be given to Los Angeles for having undertaken the poll, and for having reported its results to the Board, thereby allowing and stimulating a discussion of important issues.
Dr. Maimon Leavitt, Los Angeles, brought the Los Angeles petition to the Council. After some introductory remarks which reviewed the history of membership difficulties within the American, based upon a wish to maintain quality standards, Leavitt noted that from 35 to 50 percent of graduates from affiliated institutes either could not or would not join the American as full voting members, to the detriment of both the American and these graduates themselves. The matter was taken up in 1971, 1979, 1982, and later, the only effort at actual solution being the ineffectual one of the development of an extended associate (non-voting) category of membership. He reminded the Council of organizational difficulties, including the increasingly limited active membership, the growing proportion of life members, our exacerbated fiscal difficulties, and the alienation and loss to the organization of fellow analysts. Leavitt explained that the matter came to a head in his society when several members exercising the right of petition, as specified in the bylaws of the American, initiated a proposal regarding voting rights. A straw ballot was then initiated to assess sentiments nationwide. On the basis of the strongly positive response, Leavitt informed the Council, he had been instructed by his society/institute to present a motion that all graduates of accredited societies be qualified to apply for full active membership in the American. However, the proposal was not formulated adequately to integrate in its present form into the bylaws, because there had not been sufficient time for the necessary legal review, and because an ad hoc committee to study membership and organization had already been formed. It was determined instead to offer a motion to the effect that the ad hoc Committee on Membership and Organization bring back to the Council by December 1989, a specific plan of action regarding active membership in the American. This resolution, Leavitt said, would allow the time required for study, and yet prevent the matter from being “indefinitely delayed by our usual glacial deliberateness.”
Leavitt's motion provoked considerable discussion. Many cited the concern that behind the specific issue of membership lay questions regarding the basic structure of the organization. For example, the contention was made that the American has two functions, the scientific/professional function and the certifying/accrediting function: how would the proposed question of membership influence and impinge upon these differing functions? Because the matter seems so complicated to many, it was suggested that Leavitt's motion be amended to read, in regard to timing of the response of the Ad Hoc Committee, “as soon as possible,” rather than “by December 1989.” The amendment was voted down, and when the question was called concerning Leavitt's original motion, it carried, 38 voting in favor of the Ad Hoc Committee's being required to report back to Council regarding a proposal on membership by December 1989, and seven voting against.