Governance issues continued to be prominent on the agenda of the Executive Council.
Robert Galatzer-Levy presented the final report of the Task Force on Reorganization (TFoR). He began his remarks by addressing the concerns and complaints that have arisen about the task force and its report.
Regarding the task force's make-up, Galatzer-Levy said it had contained no group of training analysts that had opposed another non-TA group. The spectrum of opinion during the proceedings of the task force had spanned TAs and non-TAs alike. Regarding the Council's requests for reworking of various aspects of the TFoR plan, he said that the Council discussion in January had provided “nothing novel” that the task force had not considered. In answer to the criticism that the plan was too complex, he pointed out that the current bylaws were a “behemoth.” “They sit on top of governance” and interfere with the work of the Council.
He rejected the criticism that the task force had not kept the Council informed, reminding the Council that they had posted minutes, held open meetings, published articles in the newsletter, and made regular reports to Council. He said that many on the task force were “extremely discouraged” following the January Council meeting and felt the mandate of the membership had been ignored. The task force members had considered a continuation of their efforts, however more than half of the task force said they would “under no circumstances” continue to serve. They did hope that their hard won knowledge would be used to inform further discussion. Several councilors and officers expressed deep regret about the incident.
A motion was made and seconded that the Council endorse the Renew the American proposal. Most of the councilors speaking against the motion wanted the current bylaws to remain the same except for those few changes necessary to bring them into compliance with New York State not-for-profit law. They believed that, if the Council gave up its historic position as BOD, societies would lose their ability to influence policy. They feared this would result in further disaffection on the part of the members. Because the Renew Plan calls for regional nomination and national election of a smaller number of directors, they feared that small societies would lose representation completely. One councilor said that the smaller BOD would represent an “intense centralization of power” and would lead to increased political strife. They believed members would have more influence through their society representatives than through representatives elected at large. Finally, they were concerned that the proposed limited liability company (LLC), responsible for accrediting functions, was unnecessary or “irrational.” Some feared that the plan was, as one councilor said it, “an ingenious way to preserve the power” of BOPS.
Because the Renew Plan calls for regional nomination and national election of a smaller number of directors, they feared that small societies would lose representation completely. One councilor said that the smaller BOD would represent an “intense centralization of power” and would lead to increased political strife. They believed members would have more influence through their society representatives than through representatives elected at large.
Councilors supporting the Renew Plan expressed a belief that the plan represented an attempt to create balance in governance because under the plan all the governing and regulatory bodies of the Association, BOPS, the Council, and the Executive Committee had to change. While most believed the plan was not perfect, they thought it was good enough. They pointed out that factions within the organization had been arguing about governance for too long and that it was this struggle that was responsible for the apathy and disillusionment on the part of many members. They felt that the Council as BOD was too large and unwieldy and that the smaller BOD would be able to work more efficiently on day-to-day work. This would leave the very important work of addressing matters such as practice issues, public education, and research to the Council of Societies (CS). If the CS were freed from governance preoccupations, it could nurture the societies and their members, supporting psychoanalytic life and engaging inactive members. Further, members of this group believed that one member, one vote in a national election better empowered the members than one society, one vote. And finally, many of these councilors said they were confused by the need for the subsidiary LLC, but they did not see it as an attempt to hold onto power.
In the end, the motion to accept the Renew Plan passed, 22 for, 17 against, and 3 abstentions.
Jane Walvoord, L.C.S.W., is TAP's senior correspondent.
After lunch the Association's not-for-profit counsel, Victoria Bjorklund, addressed the Council, answering previously submitted questions. The first question asked was: Would APsaA be better served by a large or small board of directors? She replied that the size of a BOD has a “tremendous effect” on an organization. She said that the former head of the Charities Bureau has taken the strong view that large boards create “a breakdown of behavior” in that board members develop a lack of ownership and responsibility. Further, large boards become passive, leaving room for politicized members or groups to take over. She said an ideal size board is from 7 to 15 directors.
Next Bjorklund was asked how she could prevent her legal advice being used for political gain. She responded that when she gives a legal opinion, she looks only at the organization's legal documents and compares them to the applicable law. She is not qualified to comment on politics. When she and her colleagues looked at the APsaA bylaws, it was their “strongly held view” that we would be “well advised” to amend the bylaws. What is done with this advice is up to the Association. This became the consistent refrain of Bjorklund's responses. The Association's bylaws do need to be amended in order to come into compliance with New York law. Where change is needed or desired in the current bylaws, bylaw amendments are the proper way to accomplish such changes, Bjorklund said.
Councilors supporting the Renew Plan expressed a belief that the plan represented an attempt to create balance in governance because under the plan all the governing and regulatory bodies of the Association, BOPS, the Council, and the Executive Committee had to change.
APsaA's counsel Jim Pyles reported that APsaA had never had such a successful day on Capitol Hill as they did today (June 15). APsaA and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) joined together at a breakfast and a hearing before the full House Ways and Means Committee in which Ed Markey of Massachusetts presented a privacy amendment. The vote on the amendment went along party lines and did not pass. However, APsaA was able to contribute significantly to the pro privacy arguments, and is building a base of support and knowledge in Congress on both sides of the aisle.