ESA Governance Upgrade 2025: Answers to Questions and Comments

In 2025, ESA members are asked to review and shape a set of proposals to improve the governance structure of their professional society.

For full details on this governance review process, see "ESA Governance Upgrade 2025."

Below, ESA provides answers to questions and comments from members about the proposed governance changes and the governance review process. The FAQs are grouped into general subject areas, and FAQs that have been added after the initial set was published are marked with the date they were added. (Most recent update: June 18, 2025) Click links in the question list to jump to answers.

Governance Review Process

Board Size

Board Composition

Board Member Selection

Nominating Committee

Advisory Council

Sections, Branches, Committees, and Membership

Governance Review Process

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 have been conducted, 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 encouraged members to provide feedback to shape the direction of the final governance proposals, and we are grateful to members who have shared their ideas and concerns.

How has feedback on the initial proposal been evaluated and factored into revisions? (Added June 18, 2025)

The Governance Upgrade Task Force has reviewed all comments received via the member comment form as well as in-person comments shared at ESA 2025 Branch Meetings and the Member Forum at Entomology 2024. The task force has met at least monthly since December 2024 (more often in recent weeks) and collaborated over email in between. Member feedback has been invaluable throughout this process, and it has directly informed several changes in the revised proposal that will be delivered to the Governing Board in June. These changes 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.

Will comments received from members be shared publicly for other members to see? (Added June 18, 2025)

Verbatim member comments will not be shared. However, this Frequently Asked Questions page has been generated by generalizing the questions, concerns, and feedback received from members (and updated with additional questions in January and June). The comment form was designed to allow for anonymity to encourage unfettered viewpoints, and the form stated that all comments would remain confidential to the Governance Upgrade task force and ESA staff. Comments will also be provided to the Governing Board to aid in its final evaluation of the task force's revised proposal.

What is the proposed timeline for a revised proposal to be made available to members, and when will members vote? What information will be provided to members, and what percent of voting members is required for approval? (Added June 18, 2025)

The Governance Upgrade Task Force will deliver a revised proposal to the Governing Board for consideration at its meeting June 26-27, 2025. The board may then choose to advance the proposal as drafted, advance it with additional modifications, send it back to the task force for further study and revision, or abandon the proposal entirely. If advanced in June, the revised proposal would be published for member review in July, and it would include a report summarizing the proposal and process as well as a "red-lined" Bylaws document that would detail the exact text amendments to be made to the ESA Bylaws under the proposal. A member vote on the amendment package would be conducted in the fall, with two-thirds of participating voters required for approval (as currently required under ESA Bylaws Article XII).

Can this proposal be enacted under a trial period, with a planned review and member vote after a predetermined timeframe? If not, why not? (Added June 18, 2025)

The Governance Upgrade Task Force evaluated this suggestion but deemed it non-feasible due to the complex nature of the changes proposed and a lengthy transition period that will be necessary to institute changes and realize their intended benefits. Moreover, channels and processes for member feedback and influence on any aspect of the Society (e.g., Advisory Council, petition process for alternate candidates, etc.) will be in place that could enable such a review. If, after some time, members are not satisfied with any part of the Society's governance structure, they will continue to have the opportunity and power to drive further review.

[back to top]

Board Size

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 an Advisory Council with representation from ESA constituency groups would also add volunteer leadership opportunities.

What are the financial implications of the proposed governance changes, and how will they impact the Society's sustainability and mission? (Added January 10, 2025)

Direct financial implications are minimal and are not a primary motivator for the proposed changes. A smaller overall Governing Board size will incur reduced administrative costs (e.g., travel-related expenses for in-person meetings), and non-competitive elections may reduce voting-software vendor costs. However, indirect effects will affect the Society's bottom line: A Governing Board better equipped to make decisions effectively and efficiently is envisioned to improve the Society's ability to serve members and enhance the quality of its benefits and programs, all of which would improve the organization's financial standing.

[back to top]

Board Composition

Doesn't removing representation of constituent groups (Branches, Sections, Students, and Early Career Professionals) on the Governing Board risk making it less diverse and inclusive? (Added June 18, 2025)

The existing structure generates diversity only along three specific categories: geography, scientific subdiscipline, and career stage. However, diversity can be measured by myriad other factors that the Society's representational groups do not address. Thus, rather than being locked into board seats in just those three categories, the proposed new board structure with all at-large members allows for a selection process that can take a holistic approach at building diversity on the Governing Board. This responsibility will fall to the Nominating Committee, in consultation with the Governing Board. Should the membership at large believe that candidates nominated by the Nominating Committee fail to deliver adequate diversity on the Governing Board, members may convey this concern directly to the Governing Board and the Advisory Council, or they may petition to nominate additional candidates.

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.

What steps will be taken to avoid the new structure becoming an exclusionary club and to ensure diversity in representation? (Added January 10, 2025)

The nomination process for Governing Board positions would begin with the Board and Nominating Committee working together to identify skills, qualifications, and characteristics needed on the Board in the coming year and beyond. Critically, this step would include evaluating diversity on the board across a variety of demographic factors, such as ESA constituency group membership (Branch, Section, etc.), career stage, scientific expertise, geographic location, age, race, and gender. The Nominating Committee would then be tasked with incorporating these needs into its evaluation and selection of nominees.

While a Board of 8-10 members may not allow for representation of all demographic factors of possible consideration at any one time, the process would aim to maximize overall diversity on the Board year to year by avoiding overrepresentation of any individual qualities present among board members and minimizing the length of gaps in any qualities not present. Additionally, an understanding of and commitment to ESA's diversity, equity, and inclusion principles will be sought in candidates, so that the Governing Board can be effective in serving ESA's diverse community even if its makeup does not directly represent all sectors of the community at any given time.

How can ESA balance the need for leadership experience with the inclusion of students and early-career professionals on the Board? (Added January 10, 2025)

The nomination process for Governing Board positions would begin with the Board identifying skills, qualifications, and characteristics needed on the Board in the coming year and beyond. Critically, this step would include evaluating diversity on the board across a variety of demographic factors, and one such factor would be career stage. While a Board of 8-10 members may not allow for inclusion of a student, early-career professional, or both every year, the process would aim to maximize diversity in career stages present among Board members year to year and minimize the length of any gaps in student and early career professional presence on the Board.

What other organizations use governance and nomination processes similar to this proposal? (Added June 18, 2025)

Below is a list of professional societies whose governance and nomination processes employ many, if not all, of the same elements outlined in the ESA Governance Upgrade proposal. (Links point to organization bylaws or informational resources about governance procedures.)

[back to top]

Board Member Selection

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

The ESA Nominating Committee would be tasked with the 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.

The Nominating Committee would be chaired by the immediate ESA Past President and include one current member of the Governing Board and five ESA members at large, selected by the Advisory Council. 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).

What would the process look like for members to be nominated or to apply for Governing Board roles? (Added June 18, 2025)

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 would be modified for ESA's needs. Key steps would include

  • an open call for nominations communicated to all members;
  • clearly defined list of skills, qualifications, and characteristics sought in the call for nominations;
  • application/nomination form that specifically asks candidates to demonstrate their fit with desired skills, qualifications, and characteristics;
  • scoring and evaluation system that aligns with skills, qualifications, and characteristics sought;
  • nominee slate that includes candidate profiles demonstrating their qualifications for member review.

Flowchart illustrating a multi-step process, with each step in a blue teardrop shape pointing toward next step. Title bar at top reads: Nomination Process Recommended Steps To Include. Steps in flowchart are: Appoint Leadership Committee; Discuss BOD needs, competencies, & representation; Establish a candidate interest form; Confirm # of available seats & any re-election of current mbrs; Solicit or post a call for nominations from the membership; Collect nominations & candidate statements; Obtain leadership team input; Prepare a matrix for scoring system; Determine gaps b/w culled list and BOD needs; Score and rank candidates; Conduct interviews of culled list; Prioritized candidate list; BOD to determine final slate; Present a slate of top-ranking candidates to membership; Allow for a petition process; Elect directors and officers; and Communicate results to membership. Fine print at bottom reads: Courtesy of Association Management Center.

How can ESA ensure that the selection process for Board members is inclusive and not just based on personal networks? (Added January 10, 2025)

The process envisioned for the Nominating Committee would include a series of steps to ensure inclusivity and selection based on qualifications and not personal connections. Key elements include:

  • Open call for nominations communicated to all members;
  • Clearly defined list of skills, qualifications, and characteristics sought in the call for nominations;
  • Application/nomination form that specifically asks candidates to demonstrate their fit with desired skills, qualifications, and characteristics;
  • Scoring and evaluation system that aligns with skills, qualifications, and characteristics sought;
  • Nominee slate that includes candidate profiles demonstrating their qualifications for member review.

[back to top]

Nominating Committee

How would ESA governance be improved with a Nominating Committee that evaluates Governing Board candidates before they are placed on election ballots?

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.

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 Nominating 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 the candidates nominated for board roles.

In contrast, a ballot open to any and all nominees or applicants can leave the eventual 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.

What evidence supports the idea that a Nominating Committee process improves governance as compared to simple open elections? (Added June 18, 2025)

In Recruit the Right Board (2019, ASAE), a study of nearly 350 nonprofit professional societies and trade associations examined board recruitment, nomination, and selection practices and overall board performance. (See summary version of study findings.) Among key findings was that "Ascertaining competencies and skills for board members is the most influential and effective step to practice for better board member performance." It also found that 77 percent of such organizations have a committee for board member recruitment and selection. Collectively, these findings illustrate the strength of a process that relies on a deliberate, intentional recruitment and evaluation process for board members.

How will members be able to evaluate the qualifications of nominees selected by the Nominating Committee? (Added June 18, 2025)

When the slate of nominees is presented to members, the information provided would include a reiteration of the skills, qualifications, and characteristics sought in the call for nominations as well as a summary of qualifications for each nominee. This would allow members to essentially "check the work" of the Nominating Committee and evaluate whether nominees fit the qualifications sought.

How will members of the Nominating Committee be selected? (Added June 18, 2025)

The original proposal called for four members of the Governing Board and three at-large members to compose the Nominating Committee. However, based on member feedback, 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. Specifically, the committee composition would include

  • the immediate ESA Past President, serving as chair;
  • one additional current member of the Governing Board, who would serve a two-year, non-renewable term;
  • five at-large members selected by the Advisory Council and approved by the President, serving two-year terms, which could be renewed once for a second term.

What recourse will members have if the Board makes decisions that members disagree with or if the Nominating Committee nominates directors that members do not support? (Added January 10, 2025)

If members believe that the Governing Board is not acting in members' best interest, they would have the opportunity to petition for alternative candidates for board service at the time of nomination each year. Members may also continue to voice their feedback to ESA through existing channels: Sections, Branches, Committees, direct communication, and choosing to participate (or not) in ESA events, publications, and programs.

[back to top]

Advisory Council

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 mechanisms will be in place to ensure that member feedback is adequately shared and considered by the Board and not distorted or "watered down" as it moves up the hierarchy? (Added January 10, 2025)

The Advisory Council is envisioned to serve as a voice of the membership to inform the Governing Board's decision making. This new volunteer body would thus provide the opportunity for member input and feedback to be gathered and evaluated more often and more thoroughly than the Governing Board is currently able under the existing structure. While not yet determined, the Advisory Council's role and charge from the Governing Board would be strongly tied to advancing useful member input to the Board. Meanwhile, existing reporting mechanisms would remain unchanged: All ESA Committees, Sections, and Branches would continue to provide mid-year and year-end reports to the Board, and ESA staff would continue to report to the Board on findings from member surveys, needs assessments, engagement reports, and more.

How can ESA ensure that the Advisory Council's recommendations will be seriously considered and acted upon by the Governing Board? (Added January 10, 2025)

The Governing Board thoroughly evaluates requests and recommendations from ESA Sections, Branches, Committees, and staff—and often specifically tasks those groups with investigating issues and developing recommendations for the Board's consideration. However, no proposal or recommendation from these groups is binding or guaranteed for approval. Ultimately, the Governing Board makes final decisions. While not yet determined, the Advisory Council's role and charge from the Governing Board would be strongly tied to advancing useful member input to the Board. Thus, if developed effectively, recommendations from the Advisory Council would be strongly considered by the Governing Board for action.

[back to top]

Sections, Branches, Committees, and Membership

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.

[back to top]

Want to learn more? See other content tagged with
governance

©️ Entomological Society of America