2023 ASOR AD HOC GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Charge to the Ad Hoc Governance Committee

The affairs of ASOR are managed by a governing Board of Trustees elected and appointed from the membership. ASOR’s by-laws set out a multi-tiered range of governance procedures through which a group of Executive officers led by the President and the Chair of the Board of Trustees, and advised by an Executive Committee, develop and supervise the programs of ASOR in conjunction with the Executive Director and their staff. All the individual programs are guided by one of two sets of standing committees: the Standing Board Committees; and the Standing ASOR Committees. The members and chairs of the Standing Board Committees are appointed by the Chair of the Board in consultation with the President. The members of the Standing ASOR Committees are selected by their respective committees from nominations by the general membership, subject to approval by the Chairs Coordinating Council, a group consisting of the chairs of all the ASOR Standing Committees and chaired by the Vice-President. The chairs of the Standing ASOR Committees are nominated by a Chairs Nominations Committee subject to approval by the Chairs Coordinating Council and the Board of Trustees. All officers and committee members are appointed to three-year renewable terms, limited to a total of six years.

This system works well in general and encourages broad participation in ASOR’s governance by a wide range of members. Concerns have been raised, however, on some points. These are: 1. The length of the President’s term; 2. The structure of ASOR Committees; 3: Institutional memberships and their representation on the Board of Trustees. I take these concerns up individually below in the charge to the committee.
 

1. As it stands now, the President normally serves for two terms. These are followed by two terms on the EC as Past President. This results in a twelve-year commitment to the governance of ASOR. Might a shorter term result in more and better candidates for the presidency and the shorter rotations result in more effective leadership? The Ad Hoc committee is encouraged to examine the practices of similar societies (AIA, AAA, SAA, SBL) and recommend alternative models if they choose.

2. The methods of choosing the standing committees’ members have by and large resulted in vigorous, engaged, and hardworking cadres. We are fortunate our members are willing to serve at the levels they do. There is some sense, however, that the appointment methods of the two groups—the one exclusively in the hands of the executive officers, and the other largely self-generating—can lead to different types of narrowness. What procedures might we put in place to avoid this?

3. The Board of Trustees as it now stands has six members appointed by Institutional Member Organizations. These organizations include any university, college, seminary, museum, or other institution that pays dues as established by the Board of Trustees. The numbers of dues paying Institutional Member Organizations have been shrinking in recent years—down from over 100 to 60. This seems to be an on-going trend. Should we consider adjusting the numbers of institutional trustees?

All the procedures outlined above are laid out in ASOR’s by-laws. Any recommended changes to them will need to be discussed and approved by the Board of Trustees. I encourage you to submit a report to them by early October of this year.

Members

• Emily Miller Bonney, Chair
• Matt Adams
• Sarah Costello
• Randy Helm
• Ann-Marie Knoblauch