Most past presidents and multiple other candidates have stated that APA needs election reforms. In 1979, when I was president of my district branch, I received letters complaining about the amount of campaigning in APA national elections. I agreed with the members and wrote a letter to APA expressing my concern that intrusive electioneering was turning members off as documented in the letters I enclosed. APA appeared to be more interested in the political process than in science and membership issues. I thought this image might result in the loss of members. Unlimited campaigning raised the specter of candidates’ being able to buy elections through extensive campaigns that their opponents couldn’t afford.

In the 1980s APA set some limits on campaigning in an effort to "level the playing field." Supporters could write only 100 letters for Area trustee candidates and 400 for national candidates. Subsequent limits have been set on campaign appearances and other appearances during the campaign period. Limits were set on sending campaign faxes, but campaigning by e-mail is unrestricted. The leadership holds frequent, endless debates as to whether the rules are excessively restrictive or not restrictive enough. Members and candidates complain about violations of the rules in all elections. Except in the most obvious cases, violations are difficult to prove. Moreover, there has never been a satisfactory method of enforcing the rules when they are broken. A grand total of one member has been reported in Psychiatric News as having violated the election rules. No sanctions have been imposed. No votes have been disallowed.

Extensive electioneering is difficult for members who earn most of their income through private practice. They often start at financial and visibility disadvantages when running against well-known members from highly regarded academic or government positions who can campaign without loss of income. Despite these disadvantages, members in private practice have won four of the last six elections for president. In all but one of these elections, the private practitioner had worked at the national level for years, had extensive support networks, and devoted six months or more to campaigning with significant personal and financial sacrifices. Campaigns for other offices are similarly stressful. Some very talented members refuse nominations, realizing the sacrifices that are necessary to compete.

There are no easy answers as to how we can promote and elect the most capable, visionary, and creative members of our organization. More restrictive campaigns? Unlimited campaigning? No other professional medical organization holds national elections with extensive campaigning. Most have a single slate of candidates, that is, uncontested elections, in which representatives rather than the entire membership cast votes. Zealous contested campaigns can be divisive.

This is a membership organization, and, as I suggested in a prior column, we need to know how members view these elections. Are they pleased to have more letters, faxes, e-mail, Internet information, phone calls, Psychiatric News articles, and candidate visits? Are they turned off by extensive electioneering as they were in 1979? Do members want APA to continue spending the $60,000 a year that is required to mail and process ballots for elections in which only one-third of the members vote? Often there is one clearly identified, well-qualified candidate for president-elect. When that happens, the Nominating Committee is hard pressed to find a suitable opponent and may select a member who is willing to run but has little chance of winning. In these instances, would members prefer an uncontested election rather than an election with a sacrificial lamb?

At long last, we may have some answers and meaningful election reform. The entire voting membership will be asked in a survey to indicate its preferences for future APA elections (see page 8). Questions will address the use of financial resources, mailings, e-mail, presentations, and contested elections. The results will be published and used to guide election reforms. This is a chance for all voting members to help shape the way in which your leaders are elected. I encourage you to participate. We value your opinions.