The following letters to the editor were received in response to the Viewpoints column in the November 5 issue on the role of APA’s past presidents on the Board of Trustees. On the ballot for APA’s 2000 election, APA members will be asked to vote on two amendments to APA’s bylaws that concern the service of past APA presidents on the Board of Trustees. Currently, past presidents serve a three-year term as voting members of the Board immediately following their term as president. After that three-year period, they are considered nonvoting members of the Board for life and may attend any Board meeting at APA expense. The amendment on which APA members will be asked to vote would enact a policy whereby past presidents, after serving a three-year term with vote, will no longer be members of the Board but may continue to attend Board meetings at their own expense (the same as other APA members). The second amendment on this issue would allow current past presidents (those elected before 2000) to continue as members of the Board without a vote and to attend Board meetings at APA’s expense.

Very misleading! That is my opinion about Dr. Barry Wall’s Viewpoints article on the role of past APA presidents on APA’s Board of Trustees. Dr. Wall wants to get rid of past presidents at Board meetings so younger members will have more power. He writes, "One voice (and vote) out of 20 can have much more impact than one voice (and vote) out of 30."

But the fact is that past presidents have no vote after three years now! There will be no change in voting power if members vote as Dr. Wall urges. His "simple math" is simply wrong and unfortunately misleading. Past presidents do not in the present regime remain voting members of the Board occupying "positions of power and authority," as Dr. Wall warns APA members. I find all this highly ironic since as a past president myself, I stopped attending meetings after three years when I lost my vote and the "power and authority" that go with it. Dr. Wall may be right that APA should not subsidize the attendance of past presidents at Board meetings for economic reasons. But he is certainly wrong to suggest that his measure will redistribute voting power to the newly created Board membership of an early career psychiatrist. There may be something important and symbolic in cutting off the perk of the old guard, but psychiatrists should know the difference between a symbol and the reality.

In my personal opinion, Dr. Wall’s misleading article published in APA’s official newspaper puts the election results on this matter under a serious cloud.

Alan A. Stone, M.D.

Cambridge, Mass.

Wildly compelling Byzantine fun? Phantasmagoric extravaganzas? Perhaps not. This letter is just a plain horse and wagon note about bylaws and APA government.

We APA members have a bit of work to do. It is not particularly hard work, but far too many APA members avoid it: to pass the proposed reorganization, we need at least one-third of eligible members to vote.

For reasons I will briefly explain, I hope all APA members vote for all the bylaws changes on the January ’00 APA ballot. These include (1) a large corporate reorganization for APA (requiring voting by over one-third of eligible voting members, and a two-thirds vote in favor), and (2) six proposed amendments to the current bylaws.

The large reorganization item (1) is designed to change APA’s tax status somewhat, protecting most tax-free functions and advantages while also allowing more aggressive political and economic action. This is timely and reasonable.

Following this large reorganization item on the ballot, there will be (2) six proposed amendments to the current bylaws. Most are noncontroversial, but one issue has aroused controversy: should past presidents continue to be invited to Board of Trustee meetings? At present, we past presidents are invited, for three years with a vote, then without. Those of us who have served as APA president expected that arrangement to be continued, as part of the job description when we ran for office and served. At the very least, I think, presidents elected before the year 2000 should be grandparented in and continued. (Voting yes on Amendment 6 would achieve grandparenting.) Our expenses—for the few of us who go—make up a tiny item in the APA budget (and, from a purely strategic, calculating point of view, an amount enormously smaller than the significant amounts of money given to APA and its satellite institutions in recent years by past presidents).

What about presidents elected in 2001 and after? I think it is good for morale to cultivate past presidents, and past presidents bring, among other things, comprehensiveness, integration, loyalty, good will and a bit of humor, and a great many valuable and long-term points of view to the Board (along with some necessary tough-mindedness—e.g., about cost cutting—that is more difficult and rarer for those still potentially running for office). Past presidents, as is clear to any long-term observer of the Board, have often lent balance to the power of the president and medical director, and have stood up for sometimes unpopular causes—e.g., for minorities, women, residents, early career psychiatrists, and long-term values such as biopsychosocial integration. (Voting no on Amendment 5 would keep the present welcome for past presidents).

Some sophisticated bylaws readers may reasonably vote no on Amendment 5 and yes on Reorganization and Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. That would be useful. (If in doubt, please clip out and keep this letter as a guide). But to expect most APA members to read and understand all bylaws seems to me somewhat unrealistic, so I will return to my general advice: I urge all APA members to vote, and to vote for all the bylaws amendments.

Lawrence Hartmann, M.D.

Cambridge, Mass.

I wonder how many APA members are aware of the fact that all past presidents are afforded expense-paid trips to meetings of APA’s Board of Trustees for their entire lives? This is a wonderful perk and may not be the intention of the membership when voting for the president. There may be cases when a past president’s position on issues may be in such stark disagreement to that of the interests of the current membership that his or her paid presence may be anything but the wish of the membership at the time.

A paid membership on the Board of Trustees for three years should be enough to ensure continuity, and thereafter a past president could continue to impart wisdom and historical perspective at his or her own expense, as can the rest of the membership. Each past president could then have an opportunity to show where his or her feelings about APA really lie, at his or her own expense.

I, for one, as a life fellow and a past president of a district branch (Massachusetts), am willing to trust the judgment of our presently elected officers and Trustees, as well as several immediate past presidents, to be our leaders and to be aware of our history. Election to the presidency of APA should not carry with it lifetime expense-paid trips to Washington, D.C. One would hope that respect for the past contributions of an APA president do not require picking up the tab for expenses for trips to Washington, D.C., for a lifetime. Finally, all the past members of our Association are entitled to recognition for accomplishments but not free trips to headquarters.

Edward Mason, M.D.

Worcester, Mass.