Board Representation

Board Representation

How it is Today

Today board members are "At large" directors with the exception of the pre-licensed board member who has the specific role of representing that subgroup of MFT's.

The others represent ALL MFT's from across the state. Hence it is assumed they speak for a general constituency.

The Idea

What if we had board members form different constituencies?

The most obvious way to do this would be for the board to be made up of one member from each chapter. This allows them to speak for the more precise needs they perceive in their chapter which may be different from one chapter to another.

But is it possible that MFT's are not very excited about their geographic status? Might that explain why so few are actually members of chapters? For professional reasons - consultations, referrals, support, mentoring, supervision - geographic proximity makes a lot of sense. 

But what if there were better ways to divide MFT's for representation on a state level?

What if we allowed MFT's to divide into professional groups and each one elected a member to represent them on the board?

Pre-licensed, private practice, retired, government-employed, education-employed, hospital-employed are just some of the categories that come to mind. Each group has a very different reality from the other. This might allow the board to forge more fine tuned policies and it might allow more members to feel a bit more jazzed about their organization than they do today.

Questions

• What do you think of this idea?
• Is this something that might make you feel more compelled to participate in CAMFT activities? Debates? 
• Are there other categories we might consider?
• How might this improve the way we communicate, set policy, improve the lives of MFT's?