Planning for Change

California Psychological Association

(Presented to the California Dental Association on

September 27, 2013)

Current Structure

• 21 Regional Chapters • 8 Divisions• CPAGS Chair (Student Organization)• Federal Advocacy Coordinators (2)• Foundation Chair• APA Council Representatives (2)• Chairs of standing committees (if not already a Board

member in another capacity—currently 3 people meet this criterion)

• 2013 Board—48 voting members!

Why We Explored Change

• Large Board made serious work difficult to manage• Due to size, meets 2 times/yr face to face, with 1

electronic meeting• Executive Committee (elected Officers) are doing

most of the work of the Board (meets monthly)• Bulky, not agile, and often not really engaged• Thought we could do better, and create a real

working board

The Journey

• Task Force appointed in 2011• Met twice monthly by phone, with 3 face to face meetings• In-depth discussions at three CPA Board meetings • Four phone calls open to all Board members to ask questions of

the Task Force members• Presented report in October 2012, when board approved major

points and asked for detailed implementation plan• Implementation plan unanimously approved by Board in

January 2013• Bylaws change unanimously approved by Board in June 2013• Currently awaiting approval by membership • New structure implemented for 2015

Six Major Points

• All Board elected by the general membership of CPA

• Substantially smaller (10 members)• More frequent meetings (monthly recommended)• Board will continue to have primary responsibility

for creating policy• Board will have primary responsibility for

legislative and advocacy activities• Board will be knowledge/competency based and

accountable to the general membership

And…

• No Executive Committee• All Board members assigned committees/tasks• Board will have direct responsibility for link to

Chapters and Divisions (to maintain that connection)• Meetings to be rotated geographically, if feasible,

and open to members

What We Hope to See

• Fully engaged and working Board • Different way of connecting with our all of our

members• Different way of connecting with our Chapters and

Divisions• Leadership and development for the future as an

important responsibility of the Board

Why We Got to “Yes”

• Significant opportunity for discussion• We learned to listen…carefully• Task Force gave up ownership of a solution• Emphasized that nothing is written in stone, and the

“new Board” can change things if they don’t work• Board trusted the members of the Task Force and

were willing to take a leap of faith

We Did It!

Your Questions…