 |
 |
|
|
By Jeffrey L. Metzner, M.D.
I have written this article at the urging of colleagues who, like me prior to my first appointment to the APA Nominating Committee in 1997, had both concern and misinformation regarding the nominating process of candidates for national APA office. I hope the following information will clarify and demystify the nominating process.
There are nine members of the Nominating Committee, which is traditionally chaired by the immediate past president of APA. Each Area Council and the minority and underrepresented committee nominates three candidates; the president-elect selects one representative from each group. The committee has been fortunate to have Carol Lewis of APA as our staff. Ms. Lewis also serves as an unofficial historian and provides important procedural recommendations.
The committee meets twice, once in July and again during the APA fall component meetings. Prior to the first meeting, members receive the following:
The potential candidates for office solicited most of the letters of recommendation we received. A smaller number of letters are written by former APA officers, district branches (district branches are actively solicited by letter from the chair, who is Dr. Herb Sacks this year), or members who were obviously familiar with the nominating process. A third group of "letters" was obtained via Psychiatric News, as mentioned above.
At the July meeting, we were provided with an overview of the nomination process by Dr. Sacks and Ms. Lewis. Dr. Sacks emphasized the importance of absolute confidentiality of the committee's deliberations. Confidentiality is necessary for open and probing discussion of the candidates. It also minimizes the chances that any candidate will accrue an unfair campaign advantage by learning about his/her nominations prior to the general notification at the fall component meetings.
I found it surprising that there was not an abundance of candidates for the open positions despite a large pool of qualified APA members. Economic, family, and time constraints appear to deter many members from running for national office.
My previous misconception that the nominating process was not very democratic and results often predetermined proved to be inaccurate. All of the committee members were active and influential. The selection process proceeded in a complex and incremental way that could not have been preordained. Moreover, the selection process did not conclude with the July meeting.
Reviewing the letters of nomination was an interesting excursion. Candidates campaigning for nomination were easy to identify by the sheer number of letters received. However, a potential candidate with more than 30 letters did not receive more consideration than a candidate with as few as one or two letters because a letter count was seen as campaigning and not a grass-roots nomination. Conversely, candidates were not viewed negatively for their efforts. I was surprised that every letter, including the completed Psychiatric News nomination suggestion forms, was reviewed by the committee members. In addition, suggestions of other APA members for several offices were made at the meeting. The lesson I learned was that all APA members can have a voice in the nominating process by sending written suggestions to the committee.
The committee considered a variety of factors in the nominating process. Qualification for the position was paramount. Other considerations included, when possible, balance in gender, age, geographical location, and identification as a member of an underrepresented group. Putting forth an able, diverse slate of candidates is a challenge.
At times, the chair (on behalf of the committee) will solicit new candidates if we do not feel we have a complete slate. We prefer not to do this because it breaks the seal of confidentiality and stirs considerable speculation about who the committee has selected for what office.
The Nominating Committee convenes by telephone after the July meeting on an as-needed basis. The second meeting in the fall finalizes the proposed slate of nominations. Recommendations for the member-in-training trustee elect (MITTE) from the Member-in-Training Nominating Subcommittee are reviewed and MITTE candidates are selected at the fall meetings.
Following reporting of the Nominating Committee's slate to the Board of Trustees in September, the election fun then officially begins.