Why Does The APA Never Seem To Change?

[Therapist4Chnge]

---

Members do not see this ad.

One of the listservs I belong to has been having an on-going discussion about gaining influence in the APA, and why it is so difficult for up and coming professionals to get into certain positions. Before this discussion, I thought every member had a vote, and people were elected to positions and then they made decisions from there.

Evidently, not all votes are create equal. Policy is set by the Council of Representatives (think "legislature"), and those members are elected through their respective divisions. To vote at the division level you must join the division (paying an additional fee each year), which can become quite costly. Long-time members of APA (I'm not sure of the cut-off) received free membership from in all divisions, so they can "join" whichever divisions and vote on whomever they want without incurring any cost. The result of this is that the same people keep getting elected to the Council of Representatives, and if non-grandfathered members want a vote, they have to pay each division fee to have a vote.

Frustrating....no?

 

[FranklinR]

Frustrating....no?

It is frustrating, and I didn't know that. I wonder if this was an intentional policy to increase organizational inertia (I guess a more positive way to spin that would be to call it "ensuring consistency") or if this was the unintentional side-effect of the grandfathering policy. I wonder if there's even any way to distinguish between the two.

So is your plan to work on the representation problem first?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

So is your plan to work on the representation problem first?

Instead of reinventing the wheel....here was my response to the discussion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the challenges with the current setup of the APA is that the members who want change do not have the voting power to enact change. Unfortunately the voting system in its current state rewards those with power and seniority and is not setup to properly represent the "common" APA member.

I couldn't help but notice the similarities of the APA's voting system to the results of James Wilson's 3/5th's Compromise (Philadelphia Convention of 1787, for the history buffs), which rewarded a greater % of voting power to those already in power, and a lesser % to each "other person" (which is the term used in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution). The Compromise counted 3/5th of "other persons" in regard to populous of the state, while those in power kept 5/5ths representation. This change was proposed as an attempt to equal out the distribution of seats in the legislature, but it really resulted in a 40% increase in voting power for those already in power, while simultaneously weakening the position of the "other persons". Sound familiar?

In regard to the APA, single members can make some headway into certain APA positions, though a large influx of new people seems much less likely. For the more powerful committees/positions, there doesn't seem to be enough "votes" out there to make changes, since the "free" votes of the long standing members in favor diminish the value of the "common" APA member votes, which rewards the current seat holders and prevents a change in leadership.

I believe it will take a concerted and sustained effort to even be noticed, especially considering the vast majority of our colleagues limit their APA activity to sending in their dues and flipping through the APA Monitor. I support the petition idea, as it seems like a logical first step. I believe someone also mentioned joining smaller organizations as an alternative, and while I agree this can be helpful, the elephant in the room is still the APA.

I am still finishing my training, so I am less able to do as much (yet), but I hope having discussions such as this will help get others involved and talking about what we can do to not be lost in the bureaucracy that seems to pervade the APA leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Ollie123]

If I'm thinking of the same thing you are, its a gradual dues reduction to nothing over the course of 5 years starting at age 65 for people who have been members for over 25 years.

To me, this doesn't seem like that big a deal. Given the age requirement, it seems more geared towards folks who are retiring but still want to maintain professional connections. Maybe you're referring to something else though.

 

[FranklinR]

If I'm thinking of the same thing you are, its a gradual dues reduction to nothing over the course of 5 years starting at age 65 for people who have been members for over 25 years.

To me, this doesn't seem like that big a deal. Given the age requirement, it seems more geared towards folks who are retiring but still want to maintain professional connections. Maybe you're referring to something else though.

It's not that big of a deal in theory - like senior citizens' discounts at the theater, or early bird specials (although I like to eat early, too, but I digress). Also, the thinking could be that they want to keep their organizational memory as long as possible. Both good thoughts.

The problem is that the free membership (combined with a general tendency for voter participation to rise with age after about 50) means the APA's decision making power is not equal across ages of members.

Whether it was foreseen or not when the rule was put in place is interesting but virtually unknowable.

 

[Ollie123]

I doubt it was foreseen...this sounds like an abuse of the system to actually join every division (NO ONE joins every division). Simple solution...you can only join divisions you were actually a dues-paying member of

I'm not saying it isn't a problem, and T4C, please don't take this the wrong way, but could you share your source(s) for this? I have a hard time believing there is such a significant number of 70+ year old APA members who decided to clearly abuse the system by joining all 50ish divisions that it dramatically effects election outcomes.