ESA Governance Upgrade 2025: Answers to Questions and Comments

Why does governance matter?

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's existing governance structure has worked for decades. Why change now?

In short, just because we have always done something one way in the past doesn't mean we should always do it that way in the future.

Current best practices in nonprofit management emphasize board structures that prioritize efficient decision-making and aligning volunteer skillsets with organizational strategy. A member task force assigned to examine ESA governance recommends incorporating these goals into the Society's governance structure so it may continue to thrive in the future.

More broadly, ESA has a strong history of self-reflection and self-improvement, including the fundamental structures of the Society. 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 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.

This focus on continual improvement proceeded with ESA's 2023-2025 Strategic Plan, which included objectives to "examine governance and governance processes" and "maximize efficiencies in processes" and eventually led to the proposals now under consideration.

How would these changes benefit ESA members?

An efficient and effective governance structure ensures ESA can serve the needs of current and future entomologists and advance the field of insect science.

Ultimately, entomologists benefit from a strong professional society, one that has the knowledge and capacity to embrace change, pursue innovation, and respond to an ever-evolving community of scientists.

The proposed changes to the ESA Governing Board structure all stem from a desire to reach these goals, and they are aimed at enhancing the board's ability to meet them.

What steps is ESA taking to get members engaged in learning about these governance changes?

Governance may be an unfamiliar topic for the average ESA member, so the governance task force, the Governing Board, and the ESA staff supporting their work are committed to guiding members through this process. Extensive communications are underway or in the works, including outreach through ESA eNews, direct email, social media, American Entomologist, in-person member forums at the Annual Meeting and Branch Meetings, an online webinar, and more. ESA strongly encourages members to provide feedback to shape the direction of the final governance proposals, and we hope members will take every opportunity to share their ideas and concerns.

Why is a smaller board of directors better than a large one?

On a basic level, the larger a group of people, the more challenging it is to deliberate and find consensus. A simple illustration of this dynamic is the math of one-to-one relationships in groups: A group of six people has 15 person-to-person connections, while a group three times as large (18 people) has more than 10 times as many connections (153).

A desire for expediency must be balanced with the need to thoroughly incorporate and consider diverse viewpoints, which is why other recommendations for changes to ESA's governance structure include a more intentional focus on identifying and seeking balance among the knowledge, skills, and backgrounds in board nominees and an Advisory Council that can serve as the voice of many ESA constituencies to inform the Governing Board's decision-making.

A smaller Governing Board would also be more efficient at an operational level, with fewer seats to fill from an increasingly time-strapped volunteer pool and a reduced administrative load on ESA resources (e.g., travel costs, staff service time, etc.).

Will a smaller Governing Board mean fewer leadership opportunities for members?

At the top level of ESA leadership, there would be fewer positions open on a year-to-year basis. However, volunteer leadership comes in all shapes and sizes, and opportunities across the Society would remain abundant. Such leadership opportunities include participation in ESA Committees, Branch and Section governing councils and committees, ESA journals and publications, organizing conference symposia, and more. The addition of the Leadership Development Committee and an Advisory Council with representation from ESA constituency groups would also add volunteer leadership opportunities.

How would the knowledge, skills, and qualities sought for Governing Board service be determined, and by whom?

The ESA Leadership Development Committee (LDC) would be tasked with the process to identify, recruit, evaluate, and nominate volunteer members for service on the Governing Board. The LDC 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 LDC knows what competencies are needed in the coming year, interview questions would be crafted to identify which candidates meet those competencies.

The LDC would be chaired by the immediate ESA Past President, three current or recent (within past five years) members of the Governing Board, and three ESA members at large. Desired skills and competencies for LDC members would be defined in tandem by the Governing Board and the LDC (as is generally the case with all ESA committees).

Without representatives for specific constituencies, how will members continue to have direction and influence over the direction of their Society?

First and foremost, the Governing Board would continue to be composed of ESA members, as it always has been. The channels for selection of these ESA members to serve at the Society's highest volunteer level would simply no longer be limited to specific constituencies.

Meanwhile, the proposed Advisory Council would be made up of representatives from various ESA components, such as Branches, Sections, student members, early career professional members, and more. The council's role in serving as a voice of the membership to inform the Governing Board's decision making would maintain the connection between the board and ESA components.

Most broadly, ESA members would continue to have a variety of formal and informal channels to influence the direction of the organization—via Branches, Sections, Committees, the Advisory Council, participation in conferences, contributing to publications, and even designing new constituency groups.

How will the voice of smaller or underrepresented constituencies within ESA be heard on the Governing Board if they no longer have a representative?

First, the proposed Advisory Council would be made up of representatives from various ESA components, such as Branches, Sections, student members, early career professional members, and more. The council's role in serving as a voice of the membership to inform the Governing Board's decision making would maintain the connection between the board and ESA components.

Meanwhile, the process for identifying and selecting nominees for Governing Board service would be cognizant of the diversity in board composition along various factors, including board members' ESA "home" constituencies and beyond. While any particular group would not be guaranteed to have one of their members on the Governing Board every year, attention to diversity on the board would ensure that extended periods without board members from key groups would be unlikely.

Importantly, ESA's formal constituent groups are not the only factors by which ESA members identify themselves and contribute to the Society. A process that considers diversity on the Governing Board holistically can account for qualities such as demographic backgrounds, specific areas of academic expertise, and nuanced professional experiences. For example, what if the board is lacking in gender balance? What if it lacks members working in certain cutting-edge disciplines? What if it lacks members with science policy and government advocacy experience? The current structure based on representation of formal constituent groups might surface such volunteers, but it might not.

Why is a single slate of nominees better than open elections for choosing volunteer leaders?

A slate of candidates for Governing Board service chosen by the ESA Leadership Development 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.

For example, if the board is in need of members with financial expertise, knowledge of artificial intelligence, or government advocacy experience, a nomination process managed by the ESA Leadership Development Committee can directly address these needs. It could do the same for various other qualities and backgrounds to ensure a diverse mix of ideas and perspectives among board membership.

In contrast, a contested election process can leave board composition up to chance, with no guarantee that members at large are motivated to elect leaders with knowledge and skills aligned to the Society's strategic needs or who would collectively constitute a diverse mix of backgrounds.

Moreover, despite dedicated efforts from ESA leadership and staff to promote participation, voter turnout has been consistently low in ESA elections (typically in the range of 10 to 18 percent), and close to half (42 percent) of elections for ESA Vice President-Elect, Treasurer, and Governing Board representatives have been uncontested since 2016.

If voting turnouts are low now, won't they only get lower with an uncontested slate?

It is possible that voting turnout would decrease if this proposal is adopted. While voter turnout is important to contested elections, it is not a key metric in a nomination model that generates a single, uncontested slate for member approval. Instead, key metrics under the proposed new governance model would include: Are members engaging with the Advisory Council, nominating themselves and others for leadership positions, renewing their membership, volunteering on ESA committees, reading ESA journals, and attending ESA meetings? Ultimately, these are the metrics that matter to ESA's success, and this process will ensure that we have the right leaders in place to continue offering outstanding programming to the membership.

Why should the Governing Board have the authority to amend ESA Bylaws?

A board of directors is the fiduciary for a corporation, and its collective discussions and decisions must be conducted in such a way that the result serves the best interests of the corporation. This is the case for ESA as it is for any corporation. On the other hand, members of the Society hold no such obligation. They are free to vote on matters that are in their individual interests or those of their Section, Branch, membership group, entomological specialty, demographic cohort, or similar interests.

And, historically, members at large have displayed minimal interest in exercising their authority to approve amendments to ESA's Bylaws. The last two Bylaws amendment votes put forth to members, in 2021 and 2018, saw voter participation of just 12 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

Requiring this approval, even when members are supportive, significantly slows the Governing Board's ability to enact meaningful improvements to ESA structures. It also exposes ESA to the risk of a vocal minority of members moving the Society in a direction contrary to the best interests of the organization and the community it serves.

Allowing the Governing Board to amend ESA Bylaws places this critical responsibility in the hands of volunteer leaders who are both the best informed and equipped to evaluate such changes and formally and legally obligated to consider the organization's best interests first and foremost.

How could members at large continue to influence ESA Bylaws?

ESA members would continue to have a variety of formal and informal channels to influence the general direction of the organization—via Branches, Sections, Committees, the Advisory Council, participation in conferences and member forums, contributing to publications, and even designing new constituency groups. Any of these groups would have the ability to propose Bylaws amendments for the board's consideration.

Additionally, if members were to find that the Governing Board was not acting in members' best interest, they would have the opportunity to petition for an alternative slate of candidates for board service at the time of nomination each year.

What purpose would an Advisory Council serve within the overall ESA governance structure?

The proposed 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. Structured to include representatives from various ESA constituent groups, the Advisory Council would maintain a vital connection between the Governing Board and ESA components.

How would the Advisory Council be structured, and who would serve on it?

Many different models exist for how such an Advisory Council could be structured. See four examples in this PDF: Advisory Council Example Structures. These examples (which come from other nonprofit associations that have created such a group) are not meant as a specific menu of choices but rather as illustrations of possibilities as we develop ESA's own Advisory Council. This structure would be based on member feedback and consensus and would be subject to further iteration and refinement. The key to success of the Advisory Council would be that the Governing Board receives the constituency input it needs to make informed decisions.

If a representative structure is not ideal for the Governing Board, why should it be adopted for the Advisory Council?

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, in large part because the Governing Board is tasked with regularly making key decisions about the direction of the Society and must be able to do so expediently.

An Advisory Council, however, is envisioned to focus less on immediate decision-making and more on productively channeling the voice of the membership to inform the Governing Board's 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.

What impact would these changes have on ESA's current Branch and Section structure, membership structure, or committee structure?

The changes proposed for ESA's governance structure are primarily focused on the Governing Board and do not affect the membership structure of the Society.

Would the proposed governance changes create conflict with existing Section and Branch bylaws and operating procedures?

Other than their procedures for nominating representatives to the Governing Board, Section and Branch bylaws and operations would not be affected by the proposed governance changes. Under ESA's existing Bylaws, the Sections and Branches are empowered to be self-governing, and this proposal would not change that. The only restriction is that the Sections and Branches cannot adopt bylaws that are in direct conflict with ESA Bylaws.