Title: Report from TFAIR

Author:

Section/SPIG: Medical Care

Issue Date:

---

TFAIR, APHA's Task Force on Organization and Governance, is in its second year of work and is planning a report and several sets of discussions with sub-groups of APHA membership for the Annual Meeting. This year, TFAIR got off to a slower start than we would have liked. With a change in leadership from Jay Berkelhamer to Paul Locke, we were not active until April of this year when Paul felt he really had authorization and a clear sense of how TFAIR would work with the new Executive Board and a variety of other organizational change projects simultaneously occurring. For example, while TFAIR is focusing on organization and structure of APHA, the Committee on Affiliates (COA) is working actively with Georges Benjamin (Executive Director of APHA) on forging an actual formal agreement with affiliates to strengthen both local and national organizations. This is quite important to TFAIR's work and APHA's ultimate effectiveness, so TFAIR is working collaterally with this development. Likewise, Intersectional Council (ISC) is refining definitions and criteria for becoming a Section and a SPIG as many groups want to get recognition as SPIGs from APHA, and several smaller sections are having problems fully functioning and are seeking support from APHA. (These discussions were a focus of the ISC last year, and the ISC Steering Committee continues to follow-up). Last, as part of Strategic Planning and APHA's new Strategic MAP, introduced last year, the Executive Board and Executive Director are spending some time on Executive Board roles and functions and relationships between staff and membership. Therefore, in reality, TFAIR is part of just one of many important processes looking at organizational effectiveness and change.

TFAIR, consequently, looked at the range of items emanating from its charge as set by Governing Council (GC) and decided to use the Annual Meeting and several pre-meeting conversations to focus on the following:

1) Overlap, consistency and function among the variety of task forces, standing committees, ad hoc committees and standing Boards, like Science Board, Action Board, etc. of APHA, and the identification of a process for promulgation, sunset, accountability and efficacy of these Advisory Units (our term for them all) – something like a CQI process for next year to develop recommendations with respect to existing Advisory Units;

2) Membership Units’ (SPIGs, Sections, Caucuses) roles generally, support, status and decision-making roles (and secondarily those of affiliates as we work collaterally with the COA); and

3) Students, specifically, what kind of organizational structure is required to maximize participation, recruitment and leadership development.

TFAIR either will have recommendations on some aspects of the three issues above, or will frame GC break out discussions and dialogue to reach recommendations for next year (2005). We have some options and ideas that we wish to test out this year in the breakout groups of GC (on Sunday) with respect particularly to advisory and membership units.

Our report will also list other issues that we have not tackled this year. Many of these issues are most critical such as: a) whether there is a need to further clarify roles and functions between GC and Executive Board and staff; b) what structures promote accountability and transparency of leadership most effectively; c) what GC structure in the future would promote decision making and membership engagement most effectively; and d) to be more effective politically, what kind of government relations and advocacy structure and process does APHA need parallel to the existing policy development and Joint Policy Committee (JPC) process.

The JPC process currently allows members to identify diverse issues across the spectrum of public health. Yet, TFAIR wants to explore what kind of policy analysis and implementation resources APHA needs not only to respond to member priorities (as the JPC process now does), but to effectively activate all members on the issues that bring us together as public health workers, on the priorities that GC establishes annually and on which we must be more effective. This area of advocacy effectiveness and organizational change in support of advocacy will be raised.

Last, TFAIR will ask the GC to reauthorize it -– to pull together final recommendations on this year's issues (after GC deliberations and break-out groups) and to tackle the issues on which we have not yet fully developed proposals or consensus. One last note: we are very mindful of developing alternative strategies and having majority and minority reports where relevant to encourage decision making and debate and where we do not have consensus within TFAIR. Until TFAIR actually does more work, I am not sure how this will play out. There is a great deal of consensus on many items within our group, although there is disagreement sometimes, perhaps, on emphasis. Until we are farther along, I am not sure where committee member demarcation lines are drawn. Like the organization as a whole, TFAIR is still figuring things out. Our members are great, flexible, and well-meaning, and it is too early to tell where and if there is even disagreement after discussion. So, I hope GC gives us at least one more year to keep plugging away.

If you have comments on the above, please send them to <lbe710@northwestern.edu>.

By Leatrice Berman Sandler
Immediate Past Chair, Medical Care Section
TFAIR Member