In 2025, ESA members are asked to review and shape a set of proposals to improve the governance structure of their professional society.
The ESA Governance Upgrade proposal focuses on simplifying the ESA Governing Board structure, elevating volunteer leaders with critical skillsets, and enabling the Society to better respond to change. The proposed concepts for improvement were developed over an eight-month period by an ESA member task force and were endorsed by the ESA Governing Board in September 2024. Member input in 2024 and 2025 informed a revised proposal submitted to the Governing Board in June 2025. If advanced by the board, proposed Bylaws amendments would be voted on by members in late 2025.
For more background, see:
Governance Upgrade: FAQs (Updated: June 18, 2025)
Why Good Governance is Critical to ESA's Future
How Were These Proposals Developed?
Below, learn more about the ESA Governance Upgrade proposal, including how the proposal was updated based on member feedback in 2025.
ESA Governance Upgrade: Summary of Proposals, Revised June 2025
The proposed ESA Governance Upgrade focuses on simplifying the Governing Board structure, elevating volunteer leaders with critical skillsets, and enabling the Society to better respond to change.
In short, the proposals seek to:
- Reduce the overall size of the Governing Board. [more info]
- Select Governing Board members based on knowledge and skills, not representation of constituent groups such as Branches and Sections. [more info]
- Empower the ESA Nominating Committee (formerly Leadership Development Committee), to identify, recruit, evaluate, and nominate volunteer members for service on the Governing Board. [more info]
- Elect Governing Board members and officers via an annual slate of up to two nominees per open position endorsed by the Nominating Committee. [more info]
- Create an Advisory Council with representation from ESA constituency groups to support the Governing Board's development and decision-making. [more info]
Based on member feedback, the Governance Upgrade Task Force endorsed the above proposals in June 2025 with modifications from the original set of proposals issued in late 2024. These modifications based on member input include:
- Rename the Leadership Development Committee. The revised proposal renames this existing committee as the Nominating Committee to more clearly reflect its role.
- Nominating Committee composition rebalanced with more at-large members. The original proposal called for four members of the Governing Board and three at-large members to compose this committe. The revised proposal calls for two members of the Governing Board and five at-large members, the latter of whom would be selected by the Advisory Council.
- Membership vote on Governing Board positions preserved. The original proposal called for the Nominating Committee to develop a non-competitive slate of a single nominee for each open position on the Governing Board each year. Under the revised proposal, the Nominating Committee may nominate up to two candidates per open position, who are placed on a ballot for member vote.
- Formal eligibility requirements dropped for Vice President and Treasurer. The original proposal to "modify selection of officers so that the Vice President is chosen from current or recent Governing Board members and the Treasurer is chosen from members with relevant expertise," is removed. Under the revised proposal, any member in good standing would continue to be eligible for these positions.
- Membership vote on Bylaws amendments preserved. The original proposal to "Modify the ESA Bylaws to allow amendments to be made by the Governing Board" is removed. Under the revised proposal, the existing process for member approval of Bylaws amendments remains unchanged.
Below, find detailed explanations of the objectives for the current Governance Upgrade proposals and the supporting reasoning behind them.
ESA Governance Upgrade: Proposal Details
Recommendation 1: Reduce the overall size of the Governing Board.
| Type | Current Practice | Recommended New Practice |
| Total Board Size | 18 members: 12 representatives, 5 officers, and 1 non-voting executive director. | 8-10 members: 3-5 at-large members, 4 officers, and 1 non-voting executive director. |
| Members | 12 representatives: One from each Branch (six) and Section (four), one student member, and one early-career professional member. | 3-5 positions: Discontinue representative positions and instead select at-large members based on knowledge and skills. (See Recommendation 2.) |
| Officers | 5 officers: President, Vice President, Vice President-Elect, Past President, and Treasurer. | 4 officers: President, Vice President, Past President, and Treasurer. (Remove position of Vice President-Elect.) |
Discussion: A smaller board of directors will improve decision-making and lessen overall demand on ESA's pool of volunteer leaders.
Broadly speaking, smaller groups perform more efficiently. This social-science phenomenon even has a name—"The Ringelmann Effect"—and the growing consensus supported by academic research, business literature, and nonprofit governance experts recommends smaller decision-making groups. For instance, in their industry standard book, Race for Relevance, authors Harrison Coerver and Mary Byers urge nonprofits to adopt a board size of just five people. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, meanwhile, has long advocated for a "two-pizza team rule." And, in 2017, a survey by BoardSource found a clear trend toward decreasing board size in nonprofits. (For more, see further reading below.)
Moreover, for nonprofit associations, securing volunteers for all varieties of activity, from peer review to board service, is increasingly difficult in a busy and fast-paced world, and ESA is no exception to this challenge.
While a smaller board obliges each member to take on a larger share of responsibilities, a board composed of members who are eager and truly passionate about leading the Society—and understand the Duties of Care, Loyalty, and Obedience—will be a more enthusiastic, dynamic, efficient, and impactful one. (Also see Recommendation 2, which details the proposed basis for board member recruitment and selection.)
ESA has a robust and talented staff to administer and operate the Society. Gone are the days when volunteer leaders needed to manage membership renewal and meeting registration or sell raffle tickets. This frees up the board to handle larger and more cerebral tasks that focus on strategy.
After thorough consideration and discussion, a straw poll of the ESA Governing Board found a strong majority of members preferring to aim for 8-10 members (7-9 volunteers plus the executive director). In other words, the Governing Board supports the proposal to reduce its own size.
Importantly, the proposed range of 8-10 members is meant to allow a variable number of board members year to year, enabling flexibility to recruit and select board members who possess the skills and knowledge needed in any given year.
Further reading:
- "Does Board Size Matter?" Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 2023
- "What is the Right Size for Your Nonprofit's Board?" Sumption & Wyland
- "The Impact of Group Size on Decision Effectiveness," European Journal of Marketing and Economics, 2020
- "7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making," Harvard Business Review, 2020
- "The Goldilocks Approach to Nonprofit Board Size: What Is 'Just Right'?" Nonprofit Quarterly, 2017
[back to summary of proposals]
Recommendation 2: Select Governing Board members based on knowledge and skills, not representation of constituent groups such as Branches and Sections.
| Current Practice | Recommended New Practice |
| Governing Board members are elected by various constituency groups of the Society: One from each Branch (six) and Section (four), one student member, and one early-career professional member. | Governing Board member positions are selected from ESA membership at large based on knowledge and skills. |
Discussion: Selecting board members based on knowledge and skills will better align volunteer leaders with the Society's strategic needs and with board members' legal responsibilities as caretakers of the Society.
A representational governance structure has historically served ESA well. However, the Society has grown and diversified significantly in the past 50 years. ESA has become an increasingly international organization, and the boundaries (both geographic and disciplinary) that historically defined subsets of members are no longer clear, with many members participating in multiple Branches and Sections. Recent changes that facilitate emergence of new Sections (e.g., the nascent Formal and Informal Teaching Section) add a dynamic relevance to the Society's structure but also present a challenge to governance: If Sections can come and go based on interest, how would those changes be appropriately accommodated in a representational board?
Given this blurring of member boundaries, a representational board model likely no longer best serves the Society. Today, many members feel the current Sections, Branches, and membership types (e.g., Students, Early Career Professionals) do not fully capture the totality of their expertise, interest, experience, and aspiration. In other words, the current practice to designate board positions based on these constituent groups is representative for some members, but certainly not all. Thus, we recommend a change to a leadership body that is representative for all members, not representative of some members.
(An important note: This proposal regards the Governing Board structure, not the Society component structure. Branches, Sections, and current membership types are not currently subject to change.)
Additionally, the Governing Board's representative structure has long created an inherent tension between board members' perceived roles and their legal duties. By agreeing to serve on the Governing Board of ESA (or of any nonprofit association), an individual accepts the power and responsibility of becoming a fiduciary for the Society. As stated in the Association Law Handbook,
"Volunteers have a fiduciary ('loyalty') duty. … These obligations apply to a volunteer and to the organization as a whole. Even when a director, for example, might be elected regionally or by virtue of the director's employer or professional position with a particular company or in a particular practice area, the obligations of the director are to the entire organization, not to the director's employer or constituency. These obligations apply not only to officers and directors of the main governing board but also to chairpersons and others in positions of responsibility on task forces, with committees, in divisions, or elsewhere as part of the governance structure."
This means that members of the Governing Board (and other ESA leaders) are legally bound to act in ESA's best interests. This ideal is often stated as the "three duties" of board leadership: The Duty of Care, to act in good faith to support the organization; the Duty of Loyalty, to put the organization's interests at the forefront; and the Duty of Obedience, to follow the rules that govern the association.
However, positions based on constituent representation present board members with potentially competing interests—those of their Section, Branch, or membership type versus those of the Society as a whole. The proposed shift away from a representational structure for the Governing Board would free board members from this tension and allow them, as ultimate fiduciaries for the Society, to have the cultural authority to effect high-impact strategy. This will ensure ESA's ability to survive and thrive in dynamic current and future environments. (See Recommendation 3 for details on how board members would be identified and selected.)
According to Association Management Center, today more than 50 percent of membership associations have transitioned away from a board based on constituency toward one that embraces finding directors who have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities to address the changing needs of their organizations. This recommendation would allow ESA to join this modernization of leadership as the Society's composition and roles become more complex in an increasingly connected and fast-moving world.
[back to summary of proposals]
Recommendation 3: Empower the ESA Nominating Committee (formerly Leadership Development Committee), to identify, recruit, evaluate, and nominate volunteer members for service on the Governing Board.
| Current Practice | Recommended New Practice |
| Leadership Development Committee is loosely designed to develop leadership talent within the Society. LDC functions as a normal committee and is defined in the ESA Policy Manual. | Leadership Development Committee is retitled as Nominating Committee and is charged to identify, recruit, evaluate, and nominate volunteer members for service on the Governing Board based on needed knowledge, skills, and other competencies identified by the Governing Board. |
Discussion: Identifying knowledge, skills, and other competencies needed for Governing Board service and evaluating candidates via interviews would better surface leaders with demonstrated qualities to match ESA's strategic needs.
With a change from a representational to a skill-based leadership and governing structure (detailed in Recommendation 2), ESA's approach to recruiting and selecting leaders should also change. At its core, ESA is a business. As such, the skills that make an excellent scientist are not necessarily the same skills required for a successful business leader. Accordingly, ESA should search for strong future leaders in the same way that any business does—through job interviews.
While service on the Governing Board is an unpaid volunteer position, it is not an honorary role; board service is a job that should be sought with the understanding that real work is involved in guiding and directing ESA. Just as a person is expected to go through a job interview to attain any kind of employed position, it is reasonable to expect those who seek to lead ESA to be able to articulate their rationale for wanting to serve and to demonstrate their competencies for the position. An interview process has the added benefit of also allowing candidates a more thorough understanding in advance of the time commitment, attendance requirements, and expectations of board members.
The ESA Leadership Development Committee, retitled as the Nominating Committee, would be tasked with this process to identify, recruit, evaluate, and nominate volunteer members for service on the Governing Board. The Nominating Committee would work with the board annually to identify the core knowledge, skills, and qualities needed in coming years. Some of these skills would be consistent year to year (e.g., strong communication, interpersonal skills, etc.), while others would vary based on emerging challenges or known knowledge gaps on the board (e.g., financial acumen, technological experience). Attention would also be given to diversity among demographic and academic backgrounds. Once the Nominating Committee knows what competencies are needed in the coming year, interview questions would be crafted to identify which candidates meet those competencies. (See Recommendation 4 for detail on how nominees selected by the Nominating Committee would be chosen by ESA members.)
More broadly, this process would allow ESA to better define what kind of leadership is needed to advance the Society and entomology at large. Should we find a dearth of the types of leadership skills needed, the Society could then also invest in programming to develop those skills among the membership.
Under this proposal, the Nominating Committee would consist of seven member volunteers. Members would be sought with skills in developing and vetting job candidates, such as interviewing, hiring, and other experience in human resources. Essential elements of the committee are:
- Chaired by the immediate ESA Past President (who would be very familiar with the Society's needs).
- One additional Nominating Committee member would be selected from among current members of the Governing Board. This board appointee would serve a two-year, non-renewable term.
- Five Nominating Committee members would be selected from the membership of the Society by the Advisory Council and approved by the President. Member appointees would serve two-year terms, which could be renewed once for a second term.
- Desired skills and competencies for Nominating Committee members would be defined in tandem by the Governing Board and the Nominating Committee (as is generally the case with all ESA committees).
[back to summary of proposals]
Recommendation 4: Elect Governing Board members and officers via an annual slate of up to two nominees per open position endorsed by the Nominating Committee.
|
Type |
Current Practice | Recommended New Practice |
| Members | Board members are nominated by respective constituencies: Branches, Sections, Students, Early Career Professionals. (Specific nomination processes vary across current constituent groups.) Positions are voted upon by members of respective constituencies. | Nominating Committee nominates up to two nominees for at-large Governing Board positions, put forth for election by ESA membership. |
| Officers | Vice President-Elect and Treasurer are nominated by Sections, Branches, or petition of at least 10 members and voted upon by full ESA membership. | Nominating Committee Committee nominates up to two candidates for Vice President (annually) and Treasurer (every three years), put forth for election by ESA membership. |
Discussion: A slate of two nominees per open position on the Governing Board would be based on a clear and purposeful process to elevate leaders with qualifications aligned to the Society's needs while allowing members at large to continue to have an opportunity to ultimately choose each new leader of their Society.
The objective of the Nominating Committee's annual process of vetting candidates for Governing Board service (see Recommendation 3) would be to nominate up to two candidates for each open position on the board each year. This ballot would be presented to ESA membership in advance of a scheduled election period.
In some years, more than one At-Large Member role on the Governing Board would be open. In such cases, candidates would be considered and placed on the ballot collectively for the available positions. In other words, if two At-Large seats are open, up to four candidates could be placed on the ballot, and the top two vote-getters would win the seats.
Additionally, a candidate who participates in the Nominating Committee's call for candidates but is not nominated by the committee could be added to the ballot by submitting a petition signed by at least 10% of members of the Society.
Since ESA's founding, it has filled its Governing Board and other volunteer leadership positions through contested elections, with members voting for their preferred candidates. Under ideal circumstances, candidates are nominated for their leadership qualities and voting members carefully evaluate candidates to assess their alignment with future needs of ESA and insect science. However, this is not guaranteed, and it is possible that some candidates may be less than fully committed to board service and that some voting members may base their choice solely on who they know or on other more casual factors.
In contrast, a slate of candidates for Governing Board service chosen by the ESA Nominating Committee would be generated from a clear and purposeful process designed to elevate leaders from among ESA's membership with demonstrated qualifications that are directly aligned with the Society's needs.
This proposed model maintains a voting role for membership in the ultimate selection of Society leaders while ensuring that available candidates have robust qualifications that are aligned to the Society's needs.
This process would be based on successful examples from the growing number of nonprofit associations that follow a similar model, and it would be made transparent to members so they can understand the basis for selection of the nominees presented to them. Knowledge and skills sought each year, current strategic needs of the Society, and chosen candidates' qualifications would all be shared with members.
Full details of this process for recruiting, interviewing, and ultimately selecting candidates would be initially defined by the Governing Board and the Nominating Committee and then refined over time as the needs of the Society change. A generic version of such a model is illustrated below and could be modified for ESA's needs (provided by Association Management Center, adapted from Recruit the Right Board, 2019, ASAE):
[back to summary of proposals]
Recommendation 5: Create an Advisory Council with representation from ESA constituency groups to support the Governing Board's development and decision-making.
| Current Practice | Recommended New Practice |
| Non-existent | Create a body of ESA member leaders to advise the Governing Board on matters of importance. This body may include representative positions filled by ESA constituency groups (Branches, Sections, Students, Early Career Members, and possibly others). |
Discussion: An Advisory Council would channel the voice of ESA members to inform Governing Board strategy and would employ a representative structure that encompasses a diversity of constituencies within ESA membership—including Branches, Sections, and beyond.
Recommendation 2 states that ESA's top governing body should no longer be composed of representatives from various constituencies. However, feedback and input from these groups are still important to the policies and strategies developed by the Governing Board. In fact, the role of constituency groups in consultation and governance should be expanded, but in a different functional role—a new volunteer body that we're referring to as an Advisory Council.
Many different models exist for how such an Advisory Council could be structured, and the key to success of the Advisory Council would be that the Governing Board receives the constituency input it needs to make informed decisions. (See accompanying diagram for conceptual illustration of this structure.)
The proposed structure for the Advisory Council, as of June 2025, would be a maximum of 15 members, selected as representatives of the Society's Branches, Sections, and other constituent groups as defined by the Governing Board. One ESA officer (President, Vice President, Past President, or Treasurer) and the Executive Director would serve as nonvoting members. The Council would meet at least once per year (likely more). In addition to providing input to the Governing Board, it would be tasked with nominating at-large members of the Nominating Committee.
While the restrictions on the size of an efficient and effective Governing Board suggest moving away from a representative structure at the top level of ESA governance (see Recommendation 1), an Advisory Council is envisioned to focus less on decision-making and more on productively channeling the voice of the membership for informing the Governing Board's strategy deliberations. Thus, the Advisory Council could afford to trade expediency for inclusivity and adopt a structure that encompasses a diversity of constituencies within ESA membership, both those represented in the current Governing Board structure and others.
In short, an Advisory Council would allow for Branches, Sections, student members, and early-career members to continue to have a formal connection to the Governing Board while potentially incorporating additional key constituencies, as well.
[back to summary of proposals]
Why Good Governance is Critical to ESA's Future
As a nonprofit organization, ESA's governance structure determines how the Society makes decisions and how leaders within the Society are identified and selected. An efficient and effective governance model ensures ESA can serve the needs of current and future entomologists and advance the field of insect science.
ESA has a strong history of self-reflection and self-improvement. For instance, the 2007 "Renewal" consolidated ESA's membership structure into the Sections we know today and began the process to add the International Branch in 2009. In 2018, members developed and approved changes to ESA bylaws that simplified many Society policies and procedures and allowed the organization to be nimbler and more inclusive.
Modern best practices in nonprofit management emphasize board structures that prioritize efficient decision-making and aligning volunteer skillsets with organizational strategy. The ESA Governance Upgrade seeks to incorporate these goals into the Society's governance structure—in a way that meets member expectations—so it may continue to thrive in the future.
How Were These Proposals Developed?
ESA's 2023-2025 Strategic Plan, adopted by the Governing Board in November 2022, directed Society leaders to, among other objectives, "examine governance and governance processes" and "maximize efficiencies in processes."
The process to pursue this directive has involved two member task forces, an outside expert on nonprofit governance, multiple events and opportunities for Society members to provide input, and discussion and deliberation by the Governing Board at several of its meetings between 2023 and 2025.
In November 2023, the Board formed a Presidential Task Force of member volunteers to examine ESA governance. This task force worked with an outside expert, Association Management Center (AMC), between January 2024 and August 2024 to identify areas in which ESA's governance practices were out of alignment with leading nonprofit practices and options for possible changes.
The task force developed a preliminary set of proposals, which the Governing Board evaluated at a full-day strategy session in June 2024 and approved in September 2024 to be shared with ESA membership at large for further comment and evaluation.
In October 2024, ESA shared the initial Governance Upgrade proposal with members and began a series of events and opportunities for members to learn about and share feedback. These opportunities included forums at the 2024 ESA Annual Meeting and 2025 Branch Meetings, an online webinar, an article in American Entomologist, and an online comment form.
A second member task force was formed in December 2024 and co-chaired by ESA Past Presidents Jennifer A. Henke, BCE (2024) and Rob Wiedenmann, Ph.D. (2013). This task force further evaluated the Governance Upgrade proposals and weighed input from members collected through various channels as well as additional staff research.
Based on member feedback, the task force delivered a revised Governance Upgrade proposal in June 2025, with several significant modifications from the original. The ESA Governing Board will evaluate the revised proposal at its June 2025 meeting. If approved by the Governing Board, a set of amendments to ESA Bylaws will be shared with ESA members ahead of a member vote in fall 2025. Approval by two-thirds of voting members is required for Bylaws amendments to be adopted.
Timeline
- November 2022: Governing Board adopts 2023-2025 Strategic Plan, including objectives to "examine governance and governance processes" and "maximize efficiencies in processes."
- November 2023: Governing Board approves formation of Presidential Task Force to examine ESA governance and hiring of outside expert to advise the task force.
- January 2024: Task force members appointed by 2024 ESA President Jennfer A. Henke, BCE, and task force begins work via virtual meetings.
- May 2024: Member listening session with ~50 members to get first-hand perspectives on the volunteer leader experience and basic impressions on potential future directions.
- June 2024: Governing Board participates in full-day strategy session focused on governance, examining preliminary set of concepts from task force.
- September 2024: Governing Board endorses governance proposals to be shared with ESA membership at large for further comment and evaluation.
- October 2024: Governance proposals shared with ESA members for review and comment.
- November 2024: ESA hosts "2025 Strategic Outlook and Member Forum" at Entomology 2024 for in-person discussions on ESA governance.
- December 2024: Second member task force formed, which proceeds to meet monthly through June 2025.
- February 2025: ESA hosts webinar, "ESA Governance Upgrade, Explained."
- Spring 2025: Member Forums hosted at 2025 ESA Branch Meetings.
- April 2025: "ESA Governance Upgrade: New Ideas for a New Era of Leadership in Entomology" published in Spring 2025 issue of American Entomologist.
- June 2025: Second member task force completes evaluation of member feedback and delivers revised proposal to Governing Board.
About ESA Governance
ESA's governance structure determines how the Society makes decisions and how leaders within the Society are identified and selected. To fulfill its strategic principles, ESA must ensure that its governance system provides opportunities for all members, has a global perspective, and supports ESA's work to increase its influence. Find more details at the links below:
ESA Governance Structure
ESA Governing Documents