You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
The National Association for College Admission Counseling's members are voting for the next month on bylaws changes for the organization.
Some of the changes are not expected to have a major impact. For instance, the president of NACAC would be replaced by the chair of the board, which is a role the president has filled.
Committees are also being removed from the NACAC bylaws. NACAC will still have committees, but they won't need to follow the bylaws in terms of when their members are selected or how long they will serve.
One of the committees, the Admissions Practices Committee, was responsible for issuing guidelines on ethical practices in admissions. In a video on the proposed changes, Angel B. Pérez, CEO of NACAC, stressed that ethical issues would continue to receive attention. He said the committee could act (regardless of whether it is in the bylaws) and short-term committees would be appointed to examine particular questions that come up.
Jim Jump, the academic dean and director of guidance at St. Christopher’s School in Richmond, Va., and a columnist for Inside Higher Ed, recently published a blog post about the changes.
"The broader issue here is how NACAC will develop a governance structure that empowers and grows leadership among the membership," Jump wrote. "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 … I wish these bylaw 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?"
He added, "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 20 members allow and encourage the kind of camaraderie and discussion required to deal with serious issues that a committee of seven does?"
