It's not the time yet to quit APA in anger and frustration. Primarily because there's no alternative. We have no other recognized accrediting body, and it'll be at least a decade before APS is in a place to really compete.
But I'll say it again--there is no "the APA." No etherial being presides over the profession and determines our fates. It's just a bunch of committees (which people can get on and then not shut up about the problems and push to actually change things) and psychologists (who can be replaced by more effective leaders).
APAGS subcommittees will be up for new members shortly after convention.
http://www.apa.org/apags/governance/index.aspx Most divisions have turnover at that time, too I think. Get in at that level. Scream about the problems and help to fix the policies.
Hmm, I see it a bit differently.
APA is run by a board of directors with an immense amount of control. If you disagree, consider when they gave a multi-million-dollar retirement package to the former CEO and no one in APA including the Council even knew about it ... that information came out when it was revealed in a newspaper column about retirement packages. Also, I have heard many complain that the staff is extremely influential in leading elected officials in deciding policy and that many elected officials complain that they have little influence.
The practice assessment scandal could be more evidence of highly centralized power in APA. For 10 years APA deceived the entire membership into believing the assessment was required for membership when it is only a voluntary donation to APAPO. Among the vast majority defrauded by APA were many people who had served in elected positions at the division level, for example. In fact, a poll of council members showed that 48 percent of the council believed it was mandatory!
Some years ago the self-styled "dirty dozen" changed APA's political system to tilt the organization heavily towards "practice". They created the Practice Directorate, which has much more funding and influence than the Science Directorate. They also increased the size of the council, which actually makes it weaker as it is less decisive and more dependent on staff to lead them. Also in that expansion, they gave state organizations a large voting bloc on the council. At last count 60 of the 162 votes on the council were from state organizations. This is significant for a couple of reasons: The state organizations are very heavily tilted towards practice. They are also subsidiaries of the APA Practice Organization (the state list-serves are owned by the practice organization and the annual "leadership conference" is conducted by APAPO, which then uses the state leaders as lobbyists to spread their political policies. The states receive grants from APAPO.) Finally, the state organizations are very homogenous. The interests of Oklahoma and Arkansas are almost identical, for example. The divisions are diverse, so that Military Psychology would have different priorities than, say, Health Psychology.
The APAPO's governing board is not chosen by those who pay the APAPO dues, but by the council, which is run mostly by the state organizations which receive money from APAPO, a sort of strange circular power structure. BUT ... that board does not have the final say over APAPO, instead it's the APA board of directors.
Therefore, it seems that there is an argument that there IS a THE APA, a core of staff members who remain long after elected officials move on, and who guide and direct policy, and also a core of politicians who serve in multiple elected roles. The council is heavily tilted toward practice and is weak because of its size so it depends on the staff and the board.
