The APA Board of Trustees recently voted to approve a recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Election Policies and Procedures to poll APA voting members about how campaigns for APA elective office are conducted. APA members should receive the poll sometime after Labor Day 2000.

In response to increasing concerns about the progressive decrease in voter participation in APA elections and the reluctance of members to run for APA office, then President Allan Tasman appointed the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Election Policies and Procedures in May 1999. The group, composed of Drs. Herzog and Miller (co-chairs) and Drs. Herb Peyser, Herb Sacks, Ed Hanin, Jeremy Musher, Donald Langsley, Patrice Harris, and Sandra DeJong, was charged with recommending actions for possible reform of APA’s campaign process. To provide a basis for its recommendations, the ad hoc committee collected data from several sources: its own members, comments from APA members at Area Council meetings, other medical specialty societies, and district branches.

From the feedback the committee received, most dissatisfaction with the election centered on various aspects of campaigning by candidates, not with the election information provided in Psychiatric News or on the ballot. Some of the issues brought to our attention concerned the following: Many members were annoyed at receiving excessive mailings and e-mails from candidates. There was concern about the amount of money spent on campaigns; there was concern also that some candidates are able to spend more than others are. Other members felt that campaigning has reached an unprofessional and unseemly level, noting that no other specialty society conducts the kind of election that APA does.

Dr. Langsley surveyed 12 other medical specialty societies on behalf of the committee. Five such societies do not have contested elections, and four conduct contested elections through their House of Delegates. The remaining three have contested elections with voting by the entire membership. Campaigning by the candidates in those societies is minimal to nonexistent. APA is the only one of the top 12 specialty societies to hold contested elections in which candidates campaign. The committee took this information to the Board of Trustees in December 1999 and again in March 2000, but the Board found it inconclusive and decided to poll the voting members on their opinions of campaigning.

The Elections Committee developed guidelines as part of its constitutional charge to "establish procedures, with the approval of the Board, for equitable voting of the membership." Over time, this has evolved into oversight of the election-related activities of candidates and their supporters. The intent of the guidelines is to encourage campaigning on a level playing field so that candidates with greater financial resources or more visibility do not have unfair advantage over those with less. At the same time, the guidelines seek to foster opportunities for candidates to educate the voters about their views and experiences.

The current guidelines require candidates and their supporters to use their own resources for any kind of campaign activity. Candidates and each of their supporters may

• write up to 400 letters for national office (100 for Area office)

• send unlimited e-mails

• have unrestricted use of list serves

• attend no more than four mutual presentations with their opponents

• attend no more than eight presentations in their professional capacity during the election period

Since APA instituted contested elections in 1972, some form of guidelines has governed the elections. Restrictions on campaigning were initially adopted—and in fact maintained over the years—as an attempt to address at least four major concerns:

1. To guard against massive campaign efforts to "buy" an election win, particularly if those efforts were to be financed by resources from outside the membership;

2. The revulsion against campaign committees, "war chests," and unwelcome bids for support;

3. The growing distress of the membership at being deluged with campaign materials; and

4. A feeling held by some that large-scale campaigning was unseemly and inconsistent with their idea of APA’s proper professional image.

There are those who feel that, as an organization, APA devotes too much of its time to the national election process. Some members feel offended by the number of letters or e-mails they receive from APA members whom they do not even know endorsing various candidates. Others are upset about campaign guideline violations—sometimes subtle, sometimes overt—for which APA has no effective corrective actions. Still others feel that the amount of personal money (let alone time) spent by some candidates has become excessive and has put the emphasis more on becoming elected rather than what is important to APA as a member organization.

In the last election it was difficult to get one-third of the members to vote. Some members ascribe it at least in part to the present campaign process itself and want more restrictions on campaigning. They compare the process to those of other specialty societies and see ours as having grown increasingly expensive, burdensome, intrusive, time consuming, unprofessional and, as they see it, unfair, favoring those who spend very large amounts of money and time and may be subsidized in doing so. Some potentially good candidates have said that they will not run under these circumstances.

On the other hand, major dissatisfaction with our present guidelines or with having guidelines at all seems to stem from several sources:

1. A philosophical position that holds that any restrictions on campaigning are in principle undesirable and/or undemocratic;

2. A concern that restricted campaigning lowers voter interest and, therefore, voter participation;

3. A belief on the part of a given candidate and his/her supporters that the candidate’s chances of election would be improved under a different set of guidelines or no guidelines at all; and

4. A belief that the guidelines are confusing and/or unworkable, and that sanctions for deviations are, in reality, unenforceable or ineffective.

There are those who are proud of our open and what they perceive as APA’s profoundly democratic process as compared with the other specialty societies we studied. They feel that restricting the process will interfere with those outside of the "system" having a good chance of being elected to high office. Some members feel that candidates, particularly for president-elect, should travel to as many district branches as possible in an effort to meet and listen to members—the "grass roots" of the organization. They believe that members should be given as many opportunities as possible, through meetings, mailings, e-mails, and personal contacts, to get to know the candidates.

Those who favor less-restrictive guidelines feel that this more easily allows an "outsider" to run for, and win, a national election. They also make the point that what works well for another organization should not determine how we run APA. Likewise, they feel that if an APA member chooses to spend his/her own money (or time) running a vigorous election campaign, that freedom should not be restricted or sequestered by restrictive election guidelines. Such an open process, it is argued, is, after all, the very essence of the democratic process.

In the middle are those who see both sides and might be inclined to tinker with this or that, on one side or the other, or those who are content with the process as is.

The choices facing the Association are to continue with the current system of modest campaigning, move to a system that is more restricted, or engage in wide-open campaigning with no restrictions on candidates’ election-related activities at all.

In the spirit of APA as a democratic organization, we seek your help in working this out. When you receive your campaign poll in September, please take just a few minutes to fill it out and return it to us so we will know how you want APA to handle the matter of campaign guidelines. This is democracy in action. Please help us decide how APA should elect its leaders.