Secretary's Report: ATA Leadership, Diversity, and Representation

Who should lead the ATA by sitting on the ATA Board of Directors? This is a question that the ATA Board of Directors has been discussing. The ATA membership has changed over the years and is highly likely to change again. For example, in the past we had a large representation of surgeons that dwindled over the years. Recently, basic scientist representation has been declining while we have had significant growth in representation of surgeons, women, oncologists, and practicing clinicians.

Should the ATA Board of Directors reflect who we were, who we are, or who we want to be? If "minority" groups (e.g. surgeons, basic scientists, women) are to be represented then how do they get elected to the board? History (and common sense) has shown us that in an open, competitive election that the minority candidate is unlikely to win when running against a "majority" candidate. The results of such elections generate a homogeneous Board that embodies the ideals of the majority group.

I coincidentally thought about these issues as we celebrated the American Independence Day on July 4th and was reminded that the American Revolution was not about anger over taxation and regulation, but that these rules were being applied to these colonies without their representation or consent. As the ATA moves forward, we will continue to make difficult decisions regarding the mission of the ATA and how we best achieve this mission and our goals. These decisions affect all of us and everything we do, including our meeting programs, meeting registration, journal, guidelines, website, membership dues, fellows programs, and public policies, just to name a few.

The idea that the ATA Board of Directors making these decisions should be composed of people reflecting at least who we are, if not who we want to be, is likely optimal. Currently, the Board and the Nominating Committee is struggling to change our composition based on our open competitive election process. To change this, it is likely that the Board will need to designate Board "slots" or "categories" for election in a given year, such as "clinician-in-practice" so that several such individuals can be identified by the membership and the Nominating Committee to run against each other in an election. In the end, a "clinician-in-practice" would be guaranteed to be elected to the board. The following year the same, different, or no "slot" or "category" may be chosen based on the needs of the ATA and factoring in those members rotating off of the Board. This year, the ATA membership will likely be asked to vote for a change in our By-Laws that would allow, but not mandate, the ATA Board of Directors to create these categories and to ask the Nominating Committee to fill them with candidates. While the idea of an election outside of the "may the best man win" concept may sound "undemocratic", it seems to me the best way to offer representation to our changing membership.

Sincerely,

Richard T. Kloos, MD
Secretary/Chief Operating Officer