Shaping a Representative and Effective Board of Directors

The charge of the Task Force on Reorganization calls for us to design a board of directors for the Association. The charge specifies that the size of the board should be between 15 and 25 and be democratically elected. Because the Board of Directors will be ultimately responsible for the actions of the Association, designing it wisely is a major priority of the task force. Here are some of the challenges we face.

The board's size will affect its functioning. Large boards of directors can be less effective than smaller ones because the mechanics of board meetings are more complex. On large boards, the members often find it hard to get to know one another, each member has less chance to contribute to discussions, each may feel less personally responsible, and the costs of large boards (e.g., travel to meetings) are greater.

However, a disadvantage of a smaller board is that it is more difficult to represent diverse opinions and constituencies. Especially in an organization like APsaA, where members' involvement is highly valued, a smaller board may be a problem because members may feel their voices cannot be heard. Minority positions may get lost or be inadequately represented.

It is important to have a board that includes needed expertise and interests in the wide range of matters likely to come before it. Several seats will be occupied by persons with special backgrounds such as law, finance, or public relations. These board members need not be members of the Association. A means of selecting them will have to be worked out, possibly by election by the rest of the board or by the membership. Psychoanalyst members of the board should also reflect the diversity of the Association. Such interests as those of small societies, candidates, psychoanalytic educators, and others would ideally find representation. Finding a way to accomplish all this will not be simple, because we want to ensure both a democratic process and minority representation.

Another challenge arises because APsaA has until now been a hybrid organization in which members, societies, and institutes all participated in governance. Members directly elected officers and counselors at large; societies were represented through the Council; institutes were represented on BOPS. The active commitment that comes with such representation has been important in maintaining the societies' and institutes' relationship to APsaA. If possible, we want to maintain these close relationships without interfering with democratic elections.

With these apparently conflicting matters in mind, the task force is trying to find workable solutions. Some possibilities include:

1. Electing the entire board at large and trusting the membership to balance its makeup.

2. Designating several board seats by their functions (e.g., representing science and scholarship or candidates in analytic training). Nominees would be chosen by the nominating committee, members would vote directly.

3. Instituting a system like that used by the American Psychological Association (APA) in which nominees are selected by a nominating committee for designated seats, but each member of the Association has several votes which can be used at the member's discretion. For example, if the member has five votes, two might be used to vote for the candidates' representative and three for a representative at large. (The APA's actual method of election is slightly more complex.) Although it is beyond our mandate, the task force has decided to at least consider the possibility of a larger board and to compare it to other possibilities.

While it is unlikely that we will come up with a perfect solution to this problem, it seems very likely that we can find one that is good enough so that the board can be nimble, effective, and knowledgeable about a wide range of matters, and representative of the members.

As always your suggestions and input are extremely welcome.