The origins of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology.

As early as the 1970s there were attempts by the leadership of the AUR to recruit residency program directors, including private (community hospital) directors. The efforts did not go much beyond letters of invitation however, and at the time, complex membership requirements made it difficult for private directors to qualify. The first substantive effort began in the fall of 1984 when the late Dr. Charles Putman, then the President of the AUR, established the ad hoc committee on residency directors chaired by Dr. Gordon Gamsu, with Dr. Putman and five others as members. The committee was charged with creating a forum and a newsletter for addressing issues important to program directors, and the AUR executive committee was asked to consider changes in the bylaws that would remove impediments faced by private directors. At least two issues of a newsletter were sent out, and participation by readers was spirited. In one of the issues, the exchange of opinions constituted almost 18 unabridged, single-spaced pages. A “residency director’s symposium” was begun. Unfortunately the format did not lend itself to participation by attendees who may have had homegrown problems they wanted to air, and in the meeting halls, program directors were not identifiable, a factor that made it difficult to initiate informal discussions with other directors. Private directors, if they attended at all, could be “strangers in a strange land”. Interest waned. There was no appreciable surge in program director membership or attendance. In 1989 Bill Thompson, an ardent advocate of increasing the participation of private directors became president of the AUR. He appointed Jerry Arndt, a private directormember, to the chairmanship of the ad hoc committee, and supported Dr Arndt’s efforts during the subsequent administrations of Dr. Joe Sackett and Dr. Al Moss, both of whom were strong advocates of increasing program director interest in the AUR. The residency director’s committee issued special invitations, held a special reception (to enable program directors to meet and converse with Executive Committee members), added nametag identifiers for program directors, and instituted a buddy system, whereby a veteran member hosted a new member; but in the end, the result was nothing more than another blip on the interest chart. It was becoming clear that to attract program directors in significant numbers, a different approach would be required. At the interim meeting, chaired by Dr. Moss in November of 1991, discouraged by the limited success of the latest efforts, Dr. Arndt asked if the Executive Committee “really wanted to continue to pursue program directors from all sectors”. When the committee reiterated a firm desire to do so, the development of an independent organization of program directors that met with the AUR, but had its own bylaws, its own officers, its own committees, and its own dues structure, was suggested. This idea seemed to catch the imagination of the Executive Committee members and a motion to proceed was passed without a single dissenting vote. In the ensuing weeks the essential ingredients of a new organization were assembled. A name, bylaws, a logo, stationery, a membership database, and list of candidates Acad Radiol 2004; 11:594–595