Examining the Foundation of AACP: Report of the 2015-16 Argus Commission

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The Argus Commission is comprised of the last five presidents of the Association and it is typically charged to examine an issue that is very broad in scope. Recent charges included examining diversity in our applicant and faculty pipelines and the implications of big data across all the academic missions. In keeping with her overarching theme of foundations of citizenship President Boyle elected to ask the 2015-16 Argus Commission to focus internally and examine key aspects of the organization's structure and functioning (1). The original charges included the following: 1. Investigate and recommend assessments for the Board and AACP CEO to improve performance; 2. Recommend improvements for Board development processes and programs; 3. Complete the analysis and recommend enhancements in the AACP governance model to optimize opportunities for member/citizen engagement in the work of AACP; 4. Insure that an adequate succession plan for AACP executive leaders is in place and understood by all; 5. Recommend process attributes for the CEO five-year review to be completed by June 2017. The Commission met at AACP headquarters in October 2015 and completed work on 4 of the charges. The governance review required additional examination and occurred over the months following the meeting in a series of conference calls. In November President Boyle asked the Argus Commission to also review and recommend revisions to the Board's current conflict of interest policy and practices. BOARD ASSESSMENT The Argus Commission reviewed several resource documents describing assessment practices of various nonprofit boards. There was general consensus that implementing a process of annual board self-assessment represents a best practice in nonprofit board continuous quality improvement. That being said, the Argus Commission noted that the AACP board has operated at a perceived high level of functionality, including successful implementation of four new board positions following the last major governance analysis in 2006-07. Some different approaches to and potential pitfalls associated with board assessment were discussed. Two that did not seem to offer the right balance of information for the investment of time and other resources were an entrance interview as part of the nomination process and a formal assessment of every board meeting. Members of the Commission reflected that we should strive to keep the length of the assessment as reasonable as possible. Two forms of review were identified as worthy of further exploration. The first is an annual self-assessment using an instrument like the one recently released by the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) in collaboration with Board Source (2). An exploration of its cost suggested that it would be approximately $1,000 annually but more specific information on its use and the analysis (e.g., benchmarking) was requested. The second form of input on board performance is an survey to be administered to those completing service on the board. The Commission discussed the timing for administering an annual assessment and agreed that it should be sent after the annual meeting to all those serving on the board the previous year. The results would be summarized and disseminated prior to the fall meeting for discussion in an executive session. For those completing service in July there could be a couple of questions to be used as the exit survey. An initial discussion of the topic of board self-assessment was docketed to the February board meeting agenda. The recommendation will be to implement an assessment in July/August 2016 as a pilot to see how useful the results are and based on this determine if an annual process should be implemented. BOARD ORIENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT Commission members reflected on the changes that had been implemented in the last five years to improve the on-boarding and orientation of newly elected board members. …