The Executive Council is The American's board of directors, charged with managing the Association's affairs. In recent years it has come into its own with a spirit of activism and purposefulness. As part of that process some hard questions have been asked of and by the Council.
The Council is the descendent of an executive council created to manage The American after it was reorganized in 1932. In 1951 The American was incorporated in New York State, and the Council was formally designated as the board of directors. Because of the Council's broad but loosely described powers, its functions were reexamined in 1952, 1959, and 1982, often in relation to the more defined responsibilities of the Board on Professional Standards (BOPS). Despite those efforts, issues and problems were unresolved.
Recently the Council's function was again examined by the Committee on Bylaws, Procedures and Organizational Structure and Function, chaired by Anton Kris; and the Joint Task Force on Strategic Planning: Board-Council Structure and Function, cochaired by Robert Pyles and Carl Davis. Both groups questioned the Council's suitability as the board of directors and the Council's relationships to the president, Executive Committee, and BOPS. Seven councilors, Paula Bernstein, Fred Busch, Judy Davis, Henry Kaminer, DeWitt Montgomery, Elise Snyder, and Jon Meyer, were elected to undertake an internal review of these and other questions, including, Is the Council too large and unwieldy to serve effectively as a board of directors? One proposed alternative was to expand the Executive Committee. This proposal raised concerns that a group with such authority and composed of the Association's officers would unduly concentrate power, at odds with recent trends toward democratization.
In fact, the Council's size is determined by the growing number of societies eligible to send representatives and the provision for nationally elected councilors-at-large. Size, in this instance, may be advantageous, because the Council is arguably the most broadly representative body in The American. The large membership of the Council also has the advantage of providing the necessary people-power for the organization's tasks and enables the Council to avoid being paralyzed by strong minority opinions, as frequently occurs in smaller bodies.
We concluded that effective functioning, not size, was the essential ingredient of a good board of directors, and that effectiveness is the result of spirit and sense of purpose rather than some other arbitrary standard.
In the past the Council has often been considered a rubber-stamp entity or even an auxiliary of the Executive Committee. For those who have been councilors for a while, however, one of the most striking aspects of this Council is its activism and democratic spirit. For example, the Council elected this Committee on Structure and Function to do a probing internal review of its functions, and has engaged other select committees to investigate and report on sensitive areas, such as our lobbyist's resignation. In the latter instance, the Council also influenced the establishment of the current integrated, effective lobbying approach. Another example is the recently passed measure to elect rather than appoint representatives to the IPA House of Delegates and to the North American international psychoanalytic groups.
If the Council is to function as a board of directors, the councilors have to take seriously not only managing the Association's affairs, business, and financial assets, but also the task of protecting its good name and scientific and intellectual status. In the face of those responsibilities, plans are under way to educate new councilors and keep the more experienced ones up-to-date regarding their duty to be informed and to act diligently, especially since councilors assume liability on behalf of the organization. The Council is also reassessing its relationships to its committees. It is not generally recognized that committee debates and reports are the primary means of formulating policy. In fact, the principal policy-making body, the Executive Committee, is a standing committee of the Council and is responsible to it. In collaboration with the president and the Executive Committee, the Council is considering electing a councilor as a nonvoting Executive Committee representative to insure open dialogue.
The Council is also reviewing Finance, Agenda, Nominating, Societies, By-laws, Appointments, and other committees that relate to board of directors' functions. An effort is also under way to insure exchanges with other information and policy committees, such as Governmental Relations and Insurance, Public Information, and Scientific Activities. In particular, members of our Committee on Executive Council Structure and Function feel scientific activities have been under-served and are taking steps to facilitate research input to budgetary and policy priorities.
Most boards of directors disseminate information about the directors' expertise in order to best use their experience and skills. This has not been done by the Council in the past, but it is now examining how to fully use these resources. Furthermore, in the face of increasing demands, the twice-yearly meetings of the Council do not provide enough time to review and discuss all the required actions.
Recently, the Council has worked electronically between meetings to review and debate such issues as the CD-ROM psychoanalytic literature project and the recommendations for Council restructuring. When the Council convened, this prior work informed discussion and expedited action.
The Council shares history with BOPS. In 1932, both the “executive council” and the “council on professional training” were established, the latter becoming the Board on Professional Standards in 1946. Although tensions about strategy and tactics have occasionally arisen between the two bodies, there has been a mutual commitment to high standards for our profession. In line with its responsibilities to be informed, the Council has taken a collaborative position of facilitating communication when such tensions arise. An example of this collaborative spirit was the appointment of Donald Rosenblitt, secretary of BOPS, as a consultant to this Committee's review of Council function. The spirit of collaboration also exists within the Council. It is important to note that all proposals are being worked on collaboratively with the President and Executive Committee. New proposals will be implemented on a trial basis to allow experience to suggest improvements. If these consensual
Jon K. Meyer chairs the Select Ad Hoc Committee on Executive Council Structure and Function.
changes seem desirable and effective, they can then be codified as bylaws and voted on by the membership.
The Council is seriously reviewing its mission and performance, a process both challenging and invigorating. Perhaps the best testimony to this were the comments of councilors and observers that the recent Council session was interesting and fun. The issues are always interesting; the fun was derived from understanding what was required, insuring that the necessary information was available, and engaging in presession discussions, all of which allowed the Council to act knowledgeably and with dispatch.