History of the Spill

Many members are confused about the spill and how we ended up with this disastrous result of losing all the non-clinical directors on the APS Board. Here is what happened.

When the request for the spill was signed by 100 members in April, RAPS expected it to take place soon after. At that time, RAPS believed the only fair and reasonable thing to do was to spill all the directors and let members vote in a whole new board. This view was supported by legal advice.

They particularly wanted the new board to reconsider the governance changes being recommended. The Governance Review Committee that made them was once again over represented with clinical members which influenced their proposals.

But the APS Board acted quickly to avoid the spill by bringing forward the date of the Governance Review at a date cunningly chosen to avoid having to add the spill to the Agenda.

This change of date created a major distraction for RAPS, and they were forced to put the spill on hold and fight against the governance changes at the EGM on June 6. (They lost blocking these by only 1%)

The changes passed to the Constitution meant that members voting rights were highly restricted and non-clinical members would only be able to get two more directors on the board at the most – a DGPP member and the president elect. The other two positions had been given to the Clinical College – which in our view should have gone to the other Colleges – and DPRET, a tiny academic minority who are mostly clinical.

After the EGM in June, RAPS tried to call for a general meeting to bring on the spill. However members were fatigued, confused and disillusioned after the shenanigans of the EGM – they had had to sign too many documents by then.

Then the board again manipulated dates by calling the AGM unusually early, further confusing members about the Call for a General meeting for the RAPS Spill.

RAPS was forced to wait until the AGM to have the spill. By then they realized if everyone was spilled, under the new governance changes, they would only have 2 non-clinicals on the new board. 

What was originally intended as a chance for members to vote in a whole new board, was no longer possible because it had been overtaken by events.

By this time, two of the non-clinical members (Felicity Allen and Mary Magalotti) were coming to the end of their terms on the Board.  So RAPS advised members not to spill the two remaining non-clinical directors: Michael Carr-Gregg and Jill Wright. 

This gave the Clinical College an opportunity to go on a witch hunt against all the non-clinical directors who had been a thorn in their side all year, who had lost their majority on the board through further clever strategies by the clinicals.

We now have a board with 7 out of 8 clinical directors – in other words,  the clinical faction that represents only 20% of the members now have full control of Society.

 

6 thoughts on “History of the Spill

  1. Thanks RAPS for the leadership and tenacity you have shown. I think what we see is the result of the difference between an honest and open approach and a long-standing underhanded one which seems to know no bounds.

    What I would like to know is whether and how can this fight be taken further, if at all.

  2. Notice in the middle of the history some very naive advice from the lawyer. Of course everyone wants to be fair, but I would have thought the lawyer would have pointed out to RAPS representatives that they were in the middle of a desperate political struggle and that they should have targeted the people they wanted to knock out. Beware of legal naivete – you think they are men/women of the world but they are not.

    The power of the purse is the next step. Don’t renew APS membership – they are doing nothing for you: do nothing for them.

  3. Is there another way to address the issue of non-democratic representations of the interests of all members, to start with?

    RAPS leadership team has been magnificent with exposing several areas of mal-functioning with the current APS and suggesting efficient ways to make the APS more democratic, transparent and accountable to all members. As far as I am concerned, I feel stronger for knowing that we, the so called Generic Psychologists, have such a sharp RAPS team. I would like to think, you will continue to lead in the role of reform instigators, and will be looking forward to reading more from you soon.

  4. One of these days I must read Machiavell and Sun Tsu. I think it will shed some light on what happened and who we are dealing with.

Leave a Reply