Last week Vern Granger, Chair of the Board of Directors for the National Association for College Admission Counseling, better known as NACAC, announced the results of a special member vote to amend the organization’s bylaws. By a margin of nearly 9-1, the membership of NACAC approved amendments that removed all references to the NACAC Assembly, the organization’s legislative body.
It was no surprise that the proposed amendments passed. The only suspense, in fact, was whether there would be a quorum (10 percent) of members voting. That may have something to do with why the deadline to cast votes was extended to November 30.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that I was on the losing side of the vote, for reasons I will discuss later in this post. I purposely waited to write on this topic until the vote results were reported out, because I didn’t want to appear like I was trying to tell anyone else how they should vote. But I think it’s appropriate to take a few minutes and eulogize the Assembly.
The NACAC Assembly succumbed around November 30 after having been in failing health for a number of years. Like many of us, the Assembly experienced a decline in strength and executive function in recent years. There are no immediate survivors, but the Assembly was preceded in death by its close relative, the NACAC Standing Committees.
College admission and counseling professionals who remember the Assembly from its more vibrant days are saddened by the news. Count me among them.
The NACAC Assembly personified the strengths and weaknesses of representative democracy. At its worst it could be mundane. That wasn’t always a bad thing. As President of NACAC in 2010, I had to run both the Assembly and the General Membership meeting, and I was perfectly happy that no big, unexpected controversies reared their heads. There were certainly a few delegates each year who opened their delegate handbooks for the first time as they were walking into the ballroom where the meeting was about to start.
It could be chaotic, with behind-the-scenes political maneuvering and chicanery. At one time the Assembly met twice during the national conference, with a potential third session if needed following the Saturday afternoon business meeting. The expectation was that proposed motions would be put forth during the first session and then voted on in the second session, but in many years delegates played their cards close to the vest, waiting until the second meeting to spring motions requesting NACAC to address some problem in the profession. I have helped other delegates wordsmith on the fly after they’ve offered a motion that wasn’t clear, well thought out, or even grammatically correct.
At one time the Assembly had three major responsibilities. It approved NACAC’s budget before that responsibility was moved to the Board, and there were delegates who picked apart different line items, asking questions like whether NACAC was spending too much on pastries. (I might have been among them–former NACAC Treasurer Jim McCoy probably groaned whenever he saw me come to the microphone.) It elected the Association’s officers, a responsibility that was moved to the entire membership in 2021. And until the DOJ investigation of NACAC’s ethical rules, the Assembly was the body that amended the Statement of Principles of Good Practice (SPGP) and its successor, the Code of Ethics and Professional Practices.
At its best the Assembly was a forum for passionate debate on the great issues facing our profession. I have been an Assembly delegate during discussions about need-blind admission, Early Decision/Early Action, the use of agents to recruit internationally, and a number of other issues that are fundamental and profound to those of us who love college counseling. In those years the energy on the Assembly floor was electrifying. I wonder where that debate will take place moving forward.
Serving as an Assembly delegate might have been the best elected position I ever held. The first time I ever spoke at a NACAC meeting was during the debate about need-blind admission during the Assembly in Pittsburgh in 1993 (yes I am that old–if you weren’t even born yet, or were still in elementary school, I don’t want to hear about it). At that time the SPGP required colleges to be both need-blind in making admission decisions and also to meet the full need of applicants. Today, given the realities of funding higher education, it’s hard to fathom that was an issue. A number of good private institutions argued that confluence of policies wasn’t institutionally sustainable, and the debate within the Assembly was intense. I stood up during the debate, pointing out my previous life as an ethics professor, and argued that the ultimate principle was transparency about our practices.
Transparency in governance was one of the arguments made by NACAC for abolishing both the standing committees and the Assembly, along with inclusivity, alignment with peer associations, and industry best practices. I am willing to grant that the changes might be necessary, and I support Angel Perez’s leadership and vision of the organization.
But is NACAC being truly transparent about the changes? Not everyone thinks so. A friend and long-time leader within the profession told me that he “threw up in his mouth” after the third use of “transparency.” I would characterize the governance changes, especially when defended as “industry best practices,” as translucent rather than transparent. What would be transparent would be for NACAC to admit that it can’t afford the old governance structure in the wake of revenue losses during COVID, or to come out and state that it is pivoting to being a different, inside-the-Beltway, professional association.
In the past two years NACAC has radically changed its governance structure, abolishing standing committees and the Assembly. The demise of both those entities concentrates power in the Board of Directors and in the staff, an Executive Branch without checks and balances.
Ethics is not only about what you do, but how you do it. The governance changes may be necessary, but have felt rushed, without a clear plan for engaging the membership in the leadership of the organization moving forward.
Voting for officers has been extended to the entire membership, and that’s a good thing, but far fewer NACAC members will be active participants in the work of the Association. The loss of the standing committees and the Assembly mean fewer opportunities to grow the next generation of leaders, although Vern Granger’s email indicated that the board has directed the staff to work with affiliate leaders to create a professional development program to develop newer leaders. I’m glad to hear that.
Not everyone will be sad to see the demise of the NACAC Assembly, but I hope all of us will take a moment to celebrate its life and mourn its death. RIP–you will be missed.