Beginning in October 2024, 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 is sought to refine and improve the proposals before they would be voted on by members in late 2025.
Below, learn more about the ESA Governance Upgrade proposals and how you can share feedback at the Annual Meeting, Branch Meetings, and online.
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.
This focus on continual improvement proceeded with ESA's 2023-2025 Strategic Plan, adopted by the Governing Board in November 2022, which directed Society leaders to, among other objectives, "examine governance and governance processes" and "maximize efficiencies in processes."
Answering this call to action, a member task force was formed in January 2024. It examined current ESA governance as well as expert perspectives in nonprofit management and found room for improvement. 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 so it may continue to thrive in the future.
ESA Governance Upgrade: Summary of Proposals
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 Leadership Development Committee as a nominating 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 non-competitive slate of nominees endorsed by the Leadership Development Committee. [more info]
- 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. [more info]
- Create an Advisory Council with representation from ESA constituency groups to support the Governing Board's development and decision-making. [more info]
- Modify the ESA Bylaws to allow amendments to be made by the Governing Board. [more info]
Below, find detailed explanations of the objectives for these changes and the supporting reasoning behind them. Additionally, ESA has provided answers to a list of frequently asked questions about the Governance Upgrade and will add to the list as questions and feedback from members arise.
Governance Upgrade: Full Details
How You Can Help Shape the ESA Governance Upgrade
Evaluating and refining the proposed ESA Governance Upgrade will be an open process: Members will have many opportunities to review and weigh in from start to finish.
Be sure to read the detailed explanations of the Governance Upgrade proposals and explore the Governance Upgrade FAQs. Then, share your input and feedback so that ESA can build a governance system that's right for all ESA members.
(Note: Members may provide input anonymously via the online comment form. Fields for name, email, etc., are included but not required. Comments and questions will remain confidential, visible only to the Governance Upgrade task force and supporting ESA staff to inform refinement of the proposals and to generate additions to the FAQs.)
Learn more. Also see these additional resources available now or forthcoming:
- Watch the "2025 Strategic Outlook and Member Forum," recorded at Entomology 2024 (also displayed below).
- Tune in for a webinar, "ESA Governance Upgrade, Explained," at 2 p.m. ET on February 6, 2025.
- Participate in a member forum at a 2025 ESA Branch Meeting.
Below, at left, ESA 2024 President Jennifer A. Henke, BCE, shares an introductory message to encourage fellow ESA members to learn more and share feedback about the Governance Upgrade proposals. At right, see the 2025 Strategic Outlook and Member Forum at Entomology 2024, in which Henke and ESA 2025 President Lina Bernaola, Ph.D., discussed the Governance Upgrade and responded to attendee questions.
| Welcome Message | Member Forum at Entomology 2024 |
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 Leadership Development Committee as a nominating 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 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 (LDC) would be tasked with this 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. (See Recommendation 4 for detail on how nominees selected by the Leadership Development Committee would be approved 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 Leadership Development 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).
- Three LDC members would be selected from current or recent (within past five years) members of the Governing Board. These board appointees would serve two-year, non-renewable terms.
- Three LDC members would be selected from the membership of the Society. Member appointees would serve two-year terms, which could be renewed once for a second term.
- 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).
[back to summary of proposals]
Recommendation 4: Elect Governing Board members and officers via an annual non-competitive slate of nominees endorsed by the Leadership Development 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. | Leadership Development Committee assembles non-competitive slate of nominees for at-large Governing Board positions, put forth for ratification 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. | Leadership Development Committee nominates Vice President (annually) and Treasurer (every three years), ratified by the Governing Board. |
Discussion: A single, uncontested slate of nominees for Governing Board service would be based on a clear and purposeful process to elevate leaders with qualifications aligned to the Society's needs, replacing a system of elections with low turnout and "popularity contest" perceptions.
The objective of the Leadership Development Committee's annual process of vetting candidates for Governing Board service (see Recommendation 3) would be to nominate a single, uncontested slate of appointees for open positions on the board each year. This slate would be presented to ESA membership and deemed ratified after a defined period (e.g., 30–60 days) unless members petition for alternate candidates.
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. While this model may be designed to capture the collective will of the membership, in practice it likely does not. Consider these data points from recent ESA elections:
- Since 2016, 42 percent of elections for ESA Vice President-Elect, Treasurer, and Governing Board representatives have been uncontested, with only a single candidate nominated.
- Since 2020, total voter turnout in ESA elections—the percent of ESA's total members that cast a vote—has averaged 14.7 percent, sometimes ranging as low as 9.8 percent and never more than 18.1 percent.
- While all Governing Board members serve as fiduciaries of the entire Society (see discussion of Recommendation 2), current representative positions are voted upon only by members of their corresponding constituent groups (Branch, Section, students, early-career professionals). Given overall low voter turnout, in some cases, board members tasked with serving an organization of nearly 7,000 members are elected to their positions by the affirmative votes of fewer than 100 constituents.
Meanwhile, feedback from ESA members has indicated that elections can be perceived as "popularity contests." Whether or not this perception reflects reality, it nonetheless deters some potentially qualified members from stepping forward to volunteer.
Under ideal circumstances, voting members carefully evaluate candidate bios and statements and assess their alignment with future needs of ESA and insect science. But this is certainly not guaranteed, and it would be wishful thinking to believe that no voting members 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 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.
This process, though yet to be defined in detail, would be based on successful examples from the growing number of nonprofit associations that follow this model, and it would be made transparent to members so they can understand the basis for selection of their Society's leaders. Knowledge and skills sought each year, current strategic needs of the Society, and chosen candidates' qualifications would all be shared with members.
Done right, members could be confident in the quality of the slate of nominees for Governing Board service advanced by the Leadership Development Committee each year. However, should a significant number of members be dissatisfied with the slate put forth, a petition process would be available by which members could propose competing candidates.
Full details of this process for recruiting, interviewing, and ultimately selecting candidates would be initially defined by the Governing Board and the LDC 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: 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.
| Current Practice | Recommended New Practice |
| Any ESA member in good standing is eligible to serve as Vice President-Elect. | Nominees for Vice President position must be current or recent Governing Board members. |
| Any ESA member in good standing is eligible to serve as Treasurer. | Nominees for Treasurer must have previously served as treasurer in an ESA Branch or Section. |
Discussion: Officers are entrusted with the highest level of leadership for the Society and should be well-prepared for their roles through previous service as members of the Governing Board or Treasurers for Branches or Sections.
When the position of Vice President-Elect was added to the ESA "presidential line" more than 20 years ago, the intention was to give future ESA Presidents an additional year to learn how the Governing Board functions, including recent decisions and ongoing work. The chosen nominee serves as Vice President-Elect for one year, then Vice President, then President, then Past President, for a total commitment of four years. This period of "learning the ropes" was viewed as especially important for those elected with no previous board service. However, it also created a succession path that meant the nominee chosen by members each summer would not rise to the role of President until more than two years later.
Removing the Vice President-Elect position would condense the time commitment for leadership at the top level of the Society while also contributing to the goal of reducing the overall size of the Governing Board (see Recommendation 1). To ensure that the Vice President, which would become the first role in the presidential line, is well prepared for the role, candidates should be chosen from among current or recent Governing Board members. ("Recent" would be defined as within the previous five years.)
The Governing Board works closely with and follows the lead of the President. These members most closely know the work needed by the President and what skills are needed. Aligning the selection of the Vice President to current and recent board members will ensure that the President is trusted by the Board and that they are also able to work well on matters currently facing the Society.
Similarly, as an officer, the Treasurer holds a trusted position. In recent years, many Branches and Sections have worked with ESA headquarters staff to conduct their financial reporting. By selecting a Treasurer from among recent Branch and Section Treasurers, ESA will benefit from having Treasurers with relevant demonstrated experience.
[back to summary of proposals]
Recommendation 6: 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. See four examples in this PDF: Example Advisory Council Models. 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. (See accompanying diagram for conceptual illustration of this structure.)
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]
Recommendation 7: Modify the ESA Bylaws to allow amendments to be made by the Governing Board.
| Current Practice | Recommended New Practice |
| Bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 majority vote of the members who vote in a duly announced ballot initiative. | Bylaws may be updated by the Governing Board as needed. |
Discussion: Allowing the Governing Board to amend ESA Bylaws places this critical responsibility in the hands of volunteer leaders who are most informed and who are formally and legally obligated to consider the organization's best interests.
ESA is a membership organization of individuals who work with insects and other arthropods. But it is also a business. It is not always comfortable to talk about ESA as a business, but since we are recognized by the IRS as a corporation (nonprofit organizations are indeed still corporations), it is essential that we operate like a business.
A board of directors is the fiduciary for a corporation. The collective discussions and decisions of the board are always conducted in such a way that the result is supposed to serve the best interests of the corporation. This is the case for ESA as it is for any corporation. (See discussion for Recommendation 2.) On the other hand, members of the Society have a stake in it and its future, but they 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.
As discussed in regard to Recommendation 4, voter turnout for elections is regularly low, including for past amendments proposed for the ESA Bylaws. Two recent examples: In 2021, members were asked to approve adding an Early Career Professionals representative position to the Governing Board. Of the 5,681 members eligible to vote at the time, only about 12 percent cast a vote. The 2018 vote to modify the Bylaws and create a Policy Manual (among other changes) saw similar voting totals. Of 5,988 eligible voters, only 8.2 percent cast a vote.
In short, members at large have displayed minimal interest in exercising their authority to approve amendments to ESA's Bylaws. 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 obligated to consider the organization's best interests first and foremost. Members at large, meanwhile, would still have multiple 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.
[back to summary of proposals]
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."
In November 2023, the Board approved a plan to form a Presidential Task Force of member volunteers to examine ESA governance and to hire an outside expert, Association Management Center (AMC), to advise the task force.
Task force members were selected by 2024 ESA President Jennifer A. Henke, BCE, who also chaired the group. Attention was given to seeking a wide representation of current and future leaders of Sections and Branches while keeping the group to a manageable size. It began its work in January 2024 and concluded in August. The task force's engagement with AMC was bi-directional, with AMC learning about ESA's governance practices in detail and the task force learning from AMC about current research into nonprofit management and leading practices at peer associations.
Through several meetings, AMC presented the task force with a list of areas in which ESA's governance practices were out of alignment with leading nonprofit practices and options for possible changes. These were discussed—often at great length—in task force meetings, with consideration given to the Society's history and culture but also an eye toward the future.
Partway through the task force's work, ESA convened a large group of members (~50) for a virtual "listening and learning" meeting to get first-hand perspectives on their experience as volunteer leaders and basic impressions on potential future directions. Participants were recent, current, and future leaders of ESA, as demonstrated through their volunteer roles within the organization. Feedback from this session largely corroborated the task force's assessment of areas for potential improvement.
The task force delivered a preliminary set of proposals to the Governing Board for consideration at a full-day strategy session in June led by AMC. Feedback from the board was incorporated into the complete set of proposals described above. At its September meeting, the Governing Board approved a motion endorsing the proposals to be shared with ESA membership at large for further comment and evaluation.
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.
- Early 2025, date TBD: Governance Upgrade webinar. (Details to be posted here when available.)
- Spring 2025: Member Forums hosted at 2025 ESA Branch Meetings.
Task Force
The work of the task force formed in 2024 is complete, and a new Governance Upgrade task force is being formed to review member input and refine the proposals in 2025. This task force will be co-chaired by two past presidents, Jennifer A. Henke, BCE, and Rob Wiedenmann, Ph.D. Other task force members will be named in the near future.
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