Years ago, the major difference of opinion regarding the economics of our national meetings was whether the burden should be shouldered by those who attend (i.e., whether we should raise the registration fee) or by the entire membership (i.e., whether we should raise our dues). Today the situation has become much more complicated. As Treasurer Stephen Firestein and I have pointed out, we can no longer count on the membership booking enough guest rooms in the host hotel to meet our contractual obligation. In a number of instances, The American has had to come up with sums in the high five figures, not all covered by registration fees. In the future, it is likely that we will be charged up front for meeting space—but that is another story. Even now, we must consider the changed economic situation of many of our members.
Many proposals have been made to the Executive Committee for revising the blueprint of our meetings (to borrow a felicitous phrase from the most recent proposal). Complaints have quite rightly come from members who feel unfairly burdened by the costs of travel, hotel arrangements, and loss of practice. A quick glance at our roster shows three and a half pages of members in California, three and a half in New York, two in Baltimore-D.C. and Virginia, two in Massachusetts, and two in Pennsylvania. Though fewer in number, those who travel from the West Coast understandably feel that those on the East Coast have an advantage in the present situation. But members who live and work in the states between the coasts can make similar complaints, and often find they must travel long distances to attend both meetings. It is difficult to accommodate everyone.
A proposed change in the structure of our Annual Meeting (to have two long weekends: one for scientific programs and one for administrative work) has merit, especially with regard to limiting inroads on practice time. However, it would add additional travel time and fares (although that may be less damaging than loss of practice). I wonder, though, whether such an arrangement might not split the attendance, with those attending the administrative meeting being less inclined to come to the scientific meeting (and vice versa).
Another proposal has been made, which on the surface appears helpful in the face of our members' changing economic needs: to use facilities available in hospitals, medical schools, universities, and even analysts' homes to house small or even middle-sized meetings. Despite the initial attractiveness of this proposal, however, I believe the current practice of using a host hotel to bring members and the meetings under a
single roof provides a real and major benefit: a congenial place to meet and maintain ties with colleagues from other parts of the country. Splintering the meetings by having groups meet at local institutes, homes, and universities would subtract from the time we can spend with colleagues and would occasion the added expense of rental cars or taxis for travel within the host city, which to many would be unfamiliar terrain. Shuttle buses are not an adequate solution to this problem, and in any case The American cannot afford them. We might think of using convention centers, thus keeping the meeting in a single venue, and leaving housing arrangements up to the registrants. However, that might be very costly, as these centers are designed for businesses that pay the costs and reimburse attendees for hotel accommodations. While currently we pay a great deal for hotel rooms, it should be remembered that we nevertheless are extended reduced rates, as are all conventions.
I am aware of the various sources of dissatisfaction with the Waldorf—but I should point out that when we meet in other cities, we have to work at finding hotels whose meeting rooms can accommodate our varied formats (panels, plenaries, small meetings). One interested party pointed out that we are known here. (It's like the question “What's the best restaurant in town?” Answer: “Where they know you well.”) We have a long-term relationship with the Waldorf, they meet our format needs, and we should think twice before giving it up. Rates at other hotels will not be very different.
It must also be said that despite the complaints about meeting yearly in New York, the December meetings there remain the most economically viable ones. We invariably lose money when we meet in resort areas (Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Miami) but always do better in large and attractive cities like San Francisco, New Orleans, and Chicago. Even New York in the spring has a lower attendance than New York in December. Perhaps the May meeting is too near vacation time. Shifting to another hotel in New York would not allow us greater flexibility regarding dates, as hotels charge lower rates around holiday seasons, for the simple reason that space is available. Business slows down during these periods—business people stay home, and tourist bookings do not take up the slack. I should also mention that there are people from outside the Northeast Corridor who, though they seldom make proposals, tell me privately that they like to stay at the Waldorf and do not want to change.)
There is another suggestion that I should like to make. Rather than reducing registration rates (which are actually low in comparison to those changed by the two APAs and by local institutes offering small conferences), we should assess registrants from the host area a higher registration fee since they do not incur travel and hotel expenses. A slightly higher fee might also be assessed for out-of-towners not staying at the host hotel—in effect, a discount for those helping The American to meet its obligations.
Basically, we must listen to these proposals for restructuring in good faith, even when they are made by an interested geographical minority. We have to be careful not to diminish what we do have, and not to create new problems. The proposals may include many good ideas that should be included in our planning. But in this computer age, we are equipped to find out more specifically what various groups want. We must combine our practical experience with survey data and the membership's informed suggestions to address our profession's changed circumstances.
Over the past thirty-five years our organization has grown and evolved. There was a time when New York dominated psychoanalysis both professionally and organizationally. This is no longer true; today there are flourishing centers of psychoanalytic practice, education, and creativity scattered throughout the country. This is a reflection of our vitality and growth—we now have as many members living outside the Northeast Corridor as in it.
Unfortunately, however, this distribution is not reflected in the siting of our meetings, two-thirds of which have been held in the Northeast.
Economic issues are also critical. As members of our task force observed, a national meeting held at the Waldorf does not reflect the image of the “psychoanalyst of the future.” Younger analysts cannot afford the cost, approximately $1,720 for
a seven-day stay in the least expensive single room (including taxes but not the expense of tips, meals, and a week's lost practice). Many analysts attend the December meetings out of 'habit.“ Unfortunately, it is becoming a habit many of us can no longer afford. No registration fee differential will ever offset these costs for those who must foot the major portion of the bill.
To remain viable in the future, The American must modify its meeting arrangements to make them geographically more equitable and financially more reasonable.