I have been described as a “college admissions geek,” and the fact that I choose to see that as a compliment probably serves as confirmation. I may be a geek in other ways as well, but I am most certainly not a by-laws geek (you may choose to disagree after reading this post).
One of my first National Association for College Admission Counseling conferences was in Los Angeles in the early 1990s. I was young and dutiful, and so I went to the membership meeting on Saturday afternoon even when friends were planning to drive out to Malibu. There were a large number of by-law changes to be voted on, so when the board member presenting them said, “I will now read the by-laws changes one by one,” a voice inside my head said, “I’m out of here.” Malibu was lovely.
Last week voting opened for the NACAC’s first online annual member vote. For the first time all eligible NACAC members will be able to vote for two Board Directors and the President-elect. Previously the officers were elected by the Assembly, NACAC’s legislative body.
The vote also includes 17 proposed amendments to NACAC’s by-laws. Yes, that’s a lot of by-law changes. Last week rather than go to Malibu I listened to NACAC’s webinar explaining the vote and read about the proposed by-laws changes on the organization’s website. I found myself wishing that someone would put together a “voter’s guide” explaining the proposed changes for those of us who aren’t by-laws geeks.
Why not ECA? What follows is an attempt to explain the choices that NACAC voters have. It will lay out what’s on the ballot and consider the larger issues this blog always looks for, even when there aren’t any. What this voter’s guide won’t do is tell anyone how to vote. I trust ECA readers to think for themselves and make wise choices.
The most entertaining thing about the NACAC webinar was watching the closed captioning service translation of what was being said. It butchered several names, including my close friend Jane Phone Ash (NACAC Past President), translated by-laws as “buyer walks,” by-law amendments as “buy little moments,” and ad-hocs as “that walks.” It also interpreted NASFAA (National Association of Student Aid Administrators) as NASCAR.
What was most interesting, though, was the closed-captioning translation of NACAC. NACAC was mentioned 30 times during the webinar, and translated as NACAC not a single time. There were multiple interpretations of NACAC as NASDAQ (9 times), Mac (5 times), neck (4 times), and NACA (close, but no cigar—3 times). There were also individual instances where NACAC was translated as knock, magic, neck x, NASA, backpack, and cactus. I don’t know exactly how closed-captioning services are hired, but if you are a national organization doing a webinar with closed captioning, perhaps you should make sure that the captioners know how to spell your name.
Five of the seventeen proposed by-law changes are language changes tied to the change a year ago in NACAC’s membership model. That change removed the need for member institutions to have a “principal representative” and replaced it with “primary contact.” The primary contact can be a clerical person rather than an admission or counseling professional.
Article III Membership, Section 6
Article VIII Affiliate Presidents Council, Section 3
Article IX The Assembly, Section 5
Article X Board of Directors, Section 3
Article XI Board of Directors Eligibility, Nomination, and Election Process,
Sections 1 and 3
In addition, Article VII, Affiliated Associations, Section 3a, having to do with the procedures for establishing new affiliates, now establishes that ten of the 20 required voting NACAC members necessary to establish a new affiliate must be admission or college counseling professionals. That is driven by the language change to “primary contact,” which doesn’t have to be a professional.
Since we are looking at larger issues in addition to describing the specific proposed by-law changes, a comment about that membership model. At a fundamental level, it has worked amazingly well for NACAC, with the organization’s membership growing by 50% in a year, making NACAC parallel the application increases experienced by some of its most exclusive, elite member colleges. The larger a professional organization, the more clout it presumably has. The other side of the coin is that the bigger any organization becomes, the less common ground there may be within the membership. I worry about an increasing divide within our profession on a number of fronts, not least between the admission and counseling sides of the desk. I hope that NACAC will stand for something besides being large.
I also found myself bothered by a statement in the rationale for Article III above. Whereas “principle representatives” were charged with ensuring the accountability and compliance of their institutions, the rationale for the change states that “with the switch to best practices (within NACAC’s Guide to Ethical Practice in College Admission), no members should be monitoring compliance for their institution.” I get the point, but shouldn’t every NACAC member be monitoring compliance for their institution, even if we don’t necessarily have the power to enforce compliance? Each of us has an obligation as a member of this profession to be an advocate for student-centered, ethical admission practices.
The proposed change to Article X, Board of Directors, Section 2a, is to change the title of President to Chair of the Board. The rationale is to “provide more clarity” and “align NACAC with peer organizations,” but this is probably part of a larger strategic move to establish Angel Perez, NACAC’s CEO, as the face of the organization. Angel was an inspired choice for the job, bringing experience as an admission dean on the front lines, and he should be the face of NACAC, but the elected President of NACAC has historically been more than leader of the Board of Directors. The NACAC President represents the membership and the profession (I am clearly not objective, having served in that role). The worry here is whether NACAC will become a more staff-centric, “inside the Beltway” professional organization. I certainly don’t believe that is the intent.
That same concern is raised by some of the other by-law changes having to do with committees. During my tenure on the Board, a decade ago, there was discussion about whether standing committees were still effective, or whether the future of organizational governance would be short term ad hoc committees appointed to tackle specific issues, an approach that would allow the organization to be more nimble. NACAC had abolished most of its standing committees previously, and currently has four ad hocs at work. The ad hoc model is promising, but it is too early to know how effective it will be.
The new proposed by-laws abolish NACAC’s three remaining standing committees, Admission Practices, Governance and Nominating, and Finance. AP and G&N will become “special” committees, and the Finance Committee is being “sunset,” a lovely euphemism that I may want to appropriate for my obituary.
Article XV Committees, Section 1c Removes G&N as a Standing Committee
Article XI Board of Directors Eligibility, Nomination, and Election Process
Removes reference to G&N as Standing Committee
Article XIII Officers, Section 5 Removes reference to immediate Past President
serving on G&N
Article XV Committees, Section 1a Removes AP as Standing Committee
Article XV Committees, Section 1b “Sunsets” Finance Committee
Article XIII Officers, Section 2d Changes President to Chair of the Board and
makes reference to ad hoc committees
Article XIII Officer, Section 2f Removes President as ex-officio of Standing
Committees (because there are none)
Article XIX Chief Executive Officer Removes CEO as ex-officio for Standing
Committees
Article XV Committees, Section 2 Gives Board power to create committees
Article XV Committees, Section 3 Removes description of Standing
Committee membership
The broader issue here is how NACAC will develop a governance structure that empowers and grows leadership among the membership. It is great to give the membership a voice in electing officers, but even more important is having a hand in guiding the work of the association. 382 NACAC members volunteered for the approximately 80 spots on the four recently-named ad hoc committees, and that makes it clear that members want an opportunity to serve the association and the profession.
I wish these by-law changes were part of a larger blueprint for governance beyond the Board and staff. The Assembly, NACAC’s legislative body, has had its two biggest tasks, electing officers and voting on changes to the ethics code, taken away, so what is the plan for the future of that body? I have been part of intense, invigorating discussions as an Assembly delegate, and I have seen other years when there is little business or reason to meet. What is the Goldilocks solution that will make the Assembly meaningful and relevant?
The standing committee model had its flaws. There was no consistency in the charge or amount of work among the various committees, and the seven-person limit and the rule against more than one committee member from any affiliate meant that sometimes the best candidates couldn’t get appointed. But having a three-year term gave committee members insight and experience confronting the issues facing NACAC. I hope the ad hoc committees provide the same opportunity. Does a committee with twenty members allow and encourage the kind of camaraderie and discussion required to deal with serious issues that a committee of seven does?
I’m not sure how I feel about the “sunsetting” of the Finance Committee. The rationale given was that the committee’s work duplicates the work of the Board’s Performance Committee and outside auditors. That may be the case, but ending the Finance Committee means that no NACAC members beyond the Board have an eye on the Association’s finances.
NACAC has been through several tumultuous years. The Department of Justice investigation into NACAC’s mandatory ethical standards threatened the Association’s existence and removed its signature raison d’etre. Then COVID caused a dramatic financial loss from the national conference and the National College Fairs program that for years has been NACAC’s major source of revenue. The organization has been forced to reduce staff at the same time that a new leadership team has come aboard.
I worry that some of these by-law changes, even if right, may be rushed. NACAC has always been a deliberate organization, and that is both a strength and a weakness. Perhaps these changes need to be expedited, but the Board has not met in person a single time during the past year. My experience with virtual meetings is that it is difficult to develop the kind of rapport and trust needed to read the room and make sure that all voices are heard, especially those hesitant to express reservations about a particular decision.
I have always believed that NACAC is the best hope for our profession, and I continue to believe that. I am excited about Angel Perez’s leadership as the organization carves a new path. I hope that NACAC will remain true to its history and have a governance model that is transparent and decentralized rather than adopt a model that concentrates all power and decision making in the Board and staff. I wish I had a better sense for what that will look like moving forward.
The opportunity to vote will continue through September 15. I applaud NACAC for expanding the vote at the same time that so many cynical politicians are trying to suppress the votes of anyone they think won’t support their radical policy positions. Voting is a right, but also a privilege. Don’t waste yours.
And in this election, it’s okay to provide food and water to your fellow NACAC members as they are waiting to vote.