One of the Divisions that thinks I am a member of it, sent out the message below from Frank Worrell who is a member of APA board of directors. I'm not sure what it all mean (I am also not sure why I keep receiving practitioner relevant emails from APA since I have never been a clinician, just an academic and a researcher).
Any practitioners on Tips know what is going on? -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu Note Town Hall Meetings: Practitioner Town Hall Meeting, TODAY, February 8, 2018 at 7 p.m. ET. To register, go to https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ 7788848400694268675 Scientist/Educator Town Hall Meeting, February 13 at 730 p.m. ET. To register, go to https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ 6321832707915751939 Public Interest Town Hall Meeting, February 15 at 630 p.m. ET To register, go to https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ 38998966431677699 *Dear Division 52 Members,I am not sure you have heard about this, but there’s an interesting development at APA that seems to be beneficial to the field at large. APA is requesting public comment, so please take the chance to have your voice heard, whether you agree or disagree with this change* *Here’s the proposal: * Some of you may know that APA has a companion organization (referred to as APAPO) that is a C6 organization (can engage in *unlimited *lobbying) focused on lobbying for practitioner needs, *and a limited set of education issues*, that was distinct from regular APA (a non-profit C3 organization*). APA recognizes now that having the C6 organization focus almost exclusively on practice activities limits the degree to which APA can engage in lobbying* on behalf of science, education, and public interest issues as well (which is perhaps needed now more than ever in this very troubling political climate!). Thus, APA is proposing to expand the scope of this separate organization (and rename it APAIP) to now also include advocacy in all areas of psychology, including lobbying for more science funds! The good news is that the new version of this advocacy organization will not cost members more – APA wants to use member dues such that everyone is automatically joining both organizations for the same price as it used to cost for joining just the regular (C3) APA. This means no more “practice assessment.” Also, all dues will remain flat for at least the next three years. There’s a useful slide deck (http://psyciq.apa.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/PublicSlidesFinal.pdf) for more info. As you can imagine, there are a lot of opinions about this change. So, please speak up! I think it is a great step to include advocacy for the field in a much broader and inclusive way than was done in the past, including for education and science issues! This change could be significant because advocacy is something APA does well, and they have the power to actually make a difference on a variety of issues (like NIMH funding levels, funds for training grad students, etc.). To offer an opinion, please visit the public comment site at the following url: (http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/4139840/PublicMemberComments) – it just takes a second, and it will be important for APA to hear whether this is something you want or not. This site also has links for frequently asked questions and a webinar if you want more information about the proposed change. Also, if you have any comments for me directly that you want me to know about, please email me directly at fra...@berkeley.edu. Frank C. Worrell, Ph.D. Member-at-Large APA Board of Directors --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=52085 or send a blank email to leave-52085-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
