In the last few months of my presidency it was tempting to amiably float into homeport and make no waves—behavior appropriate for a “lame duck.” The image is serene and quite appealing, however it would be a charade and out of character: In several TAP editorials and in a score of Town Meetings, I have asserted: “We are confronted with a challenge and a crisis today…continued denial will destroy us…It is time for imagination, initiative, and boldness…The time is now.” So, gently floating through the last months of my term would not work. It has been necessary to “walk the walk” and not just “talk the talk.”
Two months ago, I proposed a bylaw amendment that will alter the way the Association considers new members. The amendment in essence moves the responsibility for establishing membership criteria from the Board on Professional Standards to the Executive Council (Board of Directors). This change in our bylaws would provide for greater flexibility and more options in determining who may apply for membership in our Association.
In the current system there are no options. Graduates of an APsaA- or IPA-approved institute can become members of APsaA almost automatically. Under these circumstances it is basically the local institute admission committees that determine Association membership when training begins. Such streamlining for our graduates is probably a fine idea. However, there is no other way to enter our organization. Other than a few (53) IPA graduates, the American Psychoanalytic Association is a closed alumni group.
There is no reason to do outreach for new members since our current bylaws bar all but our graduates from membership. Outreach has no meaning—so we do not bother. The primary function of our Membership Committee is to send welcome letters. To be sure, alumni groups have nice features:They are often (not always) congenial groups of like-minded people who tend to have lovely cocktail parties. I would contend, however, that being an exclusive alumni association seriously narrows the scope of our vision and reduces the richness of debate that comes with inclusion and diversity.
The exclusivity mandated in our current bylaws not only undermines the intellectual fiber, but also endangers the fiscal base of the Association. I have written in this editorial space previously about our current demographics and the projections for June of 2006.
We cannot remain an alumni group and sustain a vigorous Association agenda. The inevitable erosion of our membership numbers and of our financial resources will not support this.
These numbers are alarming. The average age of our TAs will be 73 and 28% of our members will not be paying dues because of seniority. We cannot remain an alumni group and sustain a vigorous Association agenda. The inevitable erosion of our membership numbers and of our financial resources will not support this. It is a reality we ignore at our own peril.
Moving the authority/responsibility for membership from our educational board to the Board of Directors is a first step in growing from an alumni association to a psychoanalytic membership organization—an organization that invites competent graduate analysts (alumni from other training programs) to fully participate in realizing our psychoanalytic mission.
There have been two principal objections to the bylaw amendment:
The Executive Council, with a broader mandate than education, will be able to expand membership criteria. The concern is that this widening of our membership portals will lead to deterioration in the quality of our Association. This is the familiar “barbarians-at-the-gates” argument. I would suggest that we have been there and done that. The last set of “barbarians” (psychologists and social workers) turned out to enrich our Association and to have contributed to our vitality and survival. With a new membership responsibility, the Executive Council will have to debate and develop eligibility criteria and evaluation procedures. The membership of our Association is rather mature, educated, affluent, and cautious. Our eligibility criteria will predictably remain conservative and “safe.” Issuing wholesale EZ-passes to barbarians is very unlikely.
The “piecemeal” argument goes: We recently launched a governance reorganization initiative and this will most likely change aspects of our functioning. A bylaw amendment now may not be in accord with future governance structures, so we should wait. The problem with this line of thinking is that the debating, planning, and proposing the bylaws necessary for reorganization will take several years. We simply cannot afford to wait. I repeat, our demographics are frightening and grow more worrisome with each passing year. A downhill spiral in membership numbers and revenues will be hard to reverse. The bylaw amendment I have proposed will allow us to debate new and expanded membership criteria and then meaningfully and vigorously launch outreach efforts.
The current examination and discussion of our governance structures are important and must continue to ripen. I will continue to strongly support these initiatives. However, if we immerse ourselves only in long-term planning, current critical issues may disappear from view but their impact will persist and expand.
Newell Fischer, M.D., is president of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
The graying and erosion of our membership is an urgent and immediate danger—a danger that must be addressed today.
It is truly unfortunate that my call to amend our bylaws allowing for greater flexibility of membership criteria has been seen by some as a Board-Council conflict. To frame the challenge to our organization in terms of an internal struggle trivializes what is at stake and blinds us to the realities that surround us. The Association's vitality and survival must be central to our concerns, not the decades long Board-Council tug-of-war. We the membership—all 3300+ of us—must take charge and change our bylaws to meet the challenge.
I will be completing my term as president of the Association at our June meeting in San Francisco. I take the liberty of using the last 70 words of this TAP editorial to express my sincere appreciation to the membership. It has been an extraordinarily challenging responsibility and a personally enriching experience. I consider it a great privilege to have served as your president. I hope I have made a difference. Thank you.