• Voting for the future President of ASCD. The proposed change is to move away from a general election for the President to an internal process of appointment/election by the ASCD Board of Directors.
  Rationale:
  • Currently only a very small percentage of the membership votes in the general election. ASCD has moved to an electronic ballot and, despite numerous reminders about the election in past years, the voting numbers continue to decline.
  • Members often cast their votes without direct knowledge of the candidate's leadership abilities. A profile is published in the election issue of Education Update, and ASCD members have an opportunity to attend or view online the Meet the President-Elect Candidates forum, which is held during Annual Conference, but neither venue provides in-depth information about the candidate's skills and abilities to lead the organization.
  • The Board of Directors is in a unique position to assess firsthand the skills, talents, and abilities of a future leader from the sitting Board members. This proposed Constitutional change will place more emphasis on the candidate's abilities to lead ASCD and to keep it a strong and vibrant organization.
  • The membership will still be in a position to indirectly choose future leaders, because a candidate elected by the membership to the Board may be the next President of ASCD. Therefore, it is critical that we all encourage quality individuals to apply for service on the Board.
• Board Size. The number of Board members has decreased due to the previous Constitutional changes, which have reduced the number of members from the Leadership Council. By the year 2016, the Board of Directors will number approximately 12 members instead of 20 or more members.
  Rationale:
  • We know from our readings on effective boards that smaller boards are more efficient, more engaged, and more manageable.
  • In these tough economic times, we must also look for ways to control our costs while continuing to position ASCD as a relevant and viable organization for the members. Reducing the number of ASCD Board members will help control costs, while also increasing efficiency and engagement.
• Board Terms. The proposed change is to increase the present term of three years for Board members to four years.
  Rationale:
  • Currently, we experience a one-third turnover rate of our Board every year. The four-year term would decrease our turnover rate of 33 percent to 25 percent, and allow us to utilize the talents and expertise of the members for an additional year.
• Leadership Council. The proposed changes call for a restructuring of this group to make it more open and inclusive for all ASCD members. The present Leadership Council would be restructured to an ASCD Forum and a Position Advisory Committee (PAC).
  The new ASCD Forum would be advisory to the board, convened by the board, and would include representatives of affiliates, constituent groups, and other ASCD stakeholder groups. Membership would not be limited and terms would not be prescribed or designated. The ASCD Forum would provide an opportunity to have member voices heard from around the world.
  The PAC would be composed of 16 members appointed by the Board serving three-year terms. Membership would be representative of all ASCD groups and include one Board member. The PAC would be responsible for scanning for issues, policies, positions, and so forth that are in alignment with the ASCD mission and vision and that could be studied further by the Board and the membership. The PAC would bring these ideas forth to the board, which in turn could convene the ASCD Forum to gather input. The Board, ASCD Forum, and the PAC would be working in conjunction with each other.
  Rationale:
  • The Leadership Council has been studied by two different groups in the past. One such study suggested eliminating the Leadership Council altogether.
  • Members of the Leadership Council have complained for years that they did not understand their purpose nor were they involved in generative work on behalf of the association.
  • Affiliates have complained that it has become costly to send representatives to the Leadership Council, as well as L2L and LILA. They have also clearly stated that affiliate representatives get more out of L2L and LILA then participation in the Leadership Council.

Figure