Two strategic task forces, The Task Force on Board-Council Structure and Function and The Task Force on Membership and Organizational Issues, met for the first time in Washington during the recent Spring meetings. The charge to both task forces is to review how The American currently operates, to collect data from the societies and institutes, and to make recommendations for needed changes, including changes in the bylaws.
The mandate to the Board-Council Task Force, cochaired by Carl Davis and Robert Pyles, is to review the overall relations between Board and Council. These two bodies have unique but overlapping functions that have in the past generated tensions. A perceived tilt in favor of the Board can be corrected. One possibility is to establish greater organizational symmetry between the two bodies. For example, the Board has a formal structure, the Coordinating Committee, that meets regularly with its chairman, while the Council lacks any comparable structure.
Despite their differences, Board and Council share certain common problems. Both need to enter into more concerted dialogue with their constituencies. Both need to be more inclusive and balanced in making committee appointments and other job assignments. Both would benefit from more active participation by the membership, whether candidate affiliate members or longstanding members who previously have not identified with the aims and goals of The American.
The Task Force on Membership and organizational Issues, chaired by Richard Fox, has been given a mandate to study issues of membership, national and regional meetings, and national leadership.
Since passage of the delinkage amendment, there has been a 50% rise in the number of full members. Many who have newly assumed full membership are former associate members who lack a strong sense of affiliation with the national organization. In addition, there are many institute graduates who have never become members at all. The challenge for the Membership Task Force will be to develop strategies to promote the in-gathering of this large group of analysts disaffected with The American.
The current schedule of membership dues is also being examined. Recent graduates are more likely to be financially strained by the payment of full dues. Reduced dues for new members, with graduated increases over five years, could assist them greatly. By contrast, many life members, whose dues are at present waived, remain in practice. The suggestion that they pay dues commensurate with the level of their practice is under consideration.
Another problem being addressed is that so few candidates, affiliate or not, attend the national meetings. Certainly the cost of attending is a realistic constraint. Yet, as with reality resistances in general, may not this fact conceal something deeper, in this case a sense of alienation from the national organization? A suggested remedy is to promote the development of local candidate organizations and a national candidate group.
Another problem with the national meetings is their dates and venues, the annual December meeting in New York having come under special fire. The complaint is that analysts in the northeast corridor have a free ride at the expense of those in the rest of the country. Although for many, an equitable solution is to rotate this meeting among the various regions, more radical changes have been proposed: abandon the week-long format in favor of affordable weekend meetings; regionalize the scientific meetings; encourage attendance by younger colleagues and their families by providing daycare and more programs for spouses.
The final task of the Membership Task Force is to study the work of the national leadership. As jobs at this level become more complex and demanding, both the president and the chairman of the board find themselves spending twenty or more hours a week on this uncompensated work. As a result, many of those asked to run for office decline because they cannot make the sacrifice in time or money. One solution is for The American, like some of its affiliate societies and institutes, to provide a compensation package for its top officers. The prospect of funding these positions at more than token levels, however, raises a series of fiscal problems which in turn must be addressed.
Both task forces are expected to bring their initial recommendations to Board and Council by May 1993, and their final reports some time in 1994. Both were established by the Ad Hoc Strategic Planning Committee, a joint working group of Board and Council set up in December 1990 by George Allison, then president, and Marvin Margolis, Chairman of the board, who had seen the need for a special group with planning as its sole agenda.
That committee, chaired by Morris Peltz, with Richard Fox and members of the Executive Committee completing the membership, has appointed two additional task forces. The first is the Advisory Committee to the Executive Committee regarding Administrative Operations, chaired by Howard Schlossman. The second is the Task Force on Child Analysis, co-chaired by Morris Peltz and Martin Silverman.