Governance Implementation Task Force Annual Report
Final Report of the 2000 - 2001 Governance Task Force to the Board of Governors and Council of Regents
David W. Benfer, FACHE, Chairman, and Dadie Perlov, Founder and Principal, Consensus Management Group
Table of Contents
the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE) can trace its roots
to 1933, it existed at various times in its history as a venue for executives
to network and socialize and as a force intended to maintain the integrity
and raise the standards of excellence of the profession. It has enjoyed
considerable growth and expansion of its outreach, its affiliate base
and the programs and services needed to support all of that. Now representing
nearly 30,000 affiliates, ACHE is the major forum for the exchange of
ideas among many parts of the healthcare community, for continuing executive
education, and for credentialing.
As with all
basically healthy organizations, periodic assessments are prudent investments
in the future. For ACHE, the rapidly changing external environment which
healthcare executives must navigate encouraged the leadership to suggest
a pause...to take stock of the ACHE infrastructure, to be certain that
the College is structured and governed appropriately for a future which
will be less and less like the past.
Chairman Mark J. Howard, FACHE, and the Board of Governors decided to
initiate an informed, independent audit of ACHEs structure and governance,
to be certain that the College would be best positioned to deal effectively
and efficiently with both present concerns and the many new issues that
will certainly surface. The Consensus Management Group (CMG) was retained
to conduct the study. This Report outlines the process used for the study,
CMGs findings to date and most importantly, recommendations for
change in certain areas.
It is important
to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of David W. Benfer, FACHE, as
Chairman of the Governance Task Force, and the outstanding members who
served with him. Chairman Michael
C. Waters, FACHE, the Officers, the Board of Governors and the Council
of Regents generously offered their time, their experience, their wisdom
and their candid opinions to help shape the substance of this Report.
Most appreciated was their support of our efforts and encouragement of
our independence at every step along the way. Without Thomas C. Dolan,
Ph.D., FACHE, Karen Hackett, FACHE, and Lisa Freund, CHE, none of this
would be possible.
endless requests for information, guided us to people and documents we
could not have found without them, and always managed to be available
to us, despite their enormously busy schedules.
of all, though, we want to thank the affiliates, the leaders of HEGs and
WHENs, of special interest groups and committees, and of course, the rest
of the ACHE staff, all whom contributed immeasurably to this report. Their examples and many of their thoughts and quotes form
much of the foundation upon which this report was built.
and processed the thoughts and suggestions of everyone with whom we spoke.
Consideration was given to the source, e.g. would one expect a particular
view from a particular source, or is the source for that view surprising?
CMG also noted the frequency with which an idea or concern was expressed,
and focused hard on the redundancies.
- Two CMG
principals completed a desk audit of ACHE documents and materials, including
bylaws, directories, minutes of Board and Council meetings, publications,
the Annual Report, fiscal audits, budgets, the February 2000 Fact Sheet,
ACHE Organizational chart, 1999 Affiliate Needs Survey, 1999 HEG and
WHEN Rebate Report and Membership Composition Report, Election Candidate
Statistics, current strategic plan, internal communication instruments
and more. This review was independently conducted at the CMG offices
in Virginia and New York City, to provide an internal check and balance
on what was read and how it was interpreted.
- CMG observed
a Board of Governors meeting and a Council of Regents Meeting.
- In small
groups, both the Governors and the Regents had an opportunity to discuss
some of the issues identified by CMG as critical to the study, and to
offer their thoughts. All of those sessions provided invaluable data.
staff focus groups were conducted at headquarters, involving staff at
every level of the organization and from every department. A special
meeting with senior staff (other than the President) provided CMG an
opportunity to see the ACHE headquarters in action.
- A telephone
interview with the ACHE president helped clarify some open issues that
merited CMG attention.
- A meeting
was held with the Governance Task Force, at which many of the issues
listed below were extensively discussed, and many new issues surfaced.
- CMG met
again with the Board on June 26th, as part of an interim
review of the direction of this study.
call focus groups were completed with:
of HEGs with over 100 members, and with at least 50% of their members
also holding membership in the College
of HEGS with over 150 members but with less than 30% of the membership
holding both local and ACHE memberships
of HEGs with less than 100 members, and with at least 50% of their
members also holding membership in the College
of HEGS with less than 150 members and with less than 30% of the
membership holding both local and ACHE memberships
affiliates, because these affiliates generally provide information
that is not available elsewhere, i.e., they tend to know exactly
why they joined and what they expect
affiliates, another key group, because they know why they left the
affiliates in a variety of healthcare settings, so that we can learn
what they know and think about the College, and why they are not
facilitated discussions with:
at each of the fall district meetings, providing an opportunity
to test interest in a new role for Regents and to provide feedback
from the field
interest group committees during their fall 2000 meetings. Participants
included leaders of post-acute/chronic care executives; nurse executives;
systems healthcare executives; managed care executives; group practice
executives, physician executives and CEOs.
groups and telephone interviews were conducted by members of the Governance
Task Force, reaching about a dozen HEGs and WHENs. (Note: For this
report, the sample covered through interviews and focus groups exceeded
the statistically valid percentages needed for studies of this nature.
In all, more than 250 individuals were formally interviewed, and many
more were informally polled and/or observed.)
- Much of
this report was informed by the assumptions about the future developed
by the Governance Task Force, and the implications of those assumptions
for the future of the College. Some of the key assumptions were:
fragmentation of the healthcare community will require the College
to create more special interest groups
healthcare systems will continue to be stressed
therapy and new drugs will control mortality, leading to excess
capacity in hospitals in some regions of the United States and need
for increased long-term care capacity
will be a sharp increase in female leadership in the industry
will be a less hospital-centric base, with more and more services
outsourced to niche facilities
professionals will need expanded skills in order to appropriately
serve an increasingly diverse US population
will provide a leap in delivery mechanisms, requiring new skills
population will push for more coverage, adding more pressure on
executives for bottom line results
consolidation of services among all branches of the uniformed services,
and with the probability that healthcare will become a smaller part
of the overall uniformed services budget, there will be less personnel
and therefore less affiliates
value of discretionary time will severely impact volunteerism within
gap between the haves and have-nots, and sharp contrasts in insurance
coverage and ability to pay, will cause increasing schisms between
the public and private sectors
in where US population resides, i.e., more people in the sunbelt,
will impact delivery systems
will be pressured to increase coverage for healthcare, but possible
future recession will again cause a redesign of government programs
will continue to grow, with demand for options and choices about
healthcare impacting how healthcare executives determine which of
the many healthcare organizations to join
- ACHE is
a very successful organization, highly regarded both internally and
externally. Therefore, all future decisions about structure and governance
should seek to protect the credibility of the College, and its reputation,
even as it repositions itself for the future. This important criterion
must be considered before any change is approved.
- The College
is blessed with an extremely dedicated, committed and able leadership.
In most situations, this facilitates needed change. However, strong
commitment to the past and to tradition can also inhibit change.
is overwhelmingly committed and loyal to the College as well, with senior
people evidencing a much lower turnover rate than is evident in similar
organizations in the Chicago area.
- A commitment
to making the College more accessible and representative of the changing
demographics of the industry and the profession is already evident.
The representation of the uniformed services, the addition of Governors-at-Large
and Regents-at-Large, and the ability of Diplomates to hold Regent positions
are all positive indicators. In addition, the extension to all Members
of the right to vote for Regents, regardless of tenure, and the staggering
of terms for Governors all point to an increased understanding of the
need for change. Reduced eligibility requirements for Members also demonstrates
the interest of the College in further outreach.
costs utilize 7.7% of the ACHE expense budget, and 26.6% of its 1999
dues revenues. An average cost for governance today should be approximately
6% of the operating budget of a 501(c) 3 organization with budgets between
$3 and $8 million, a percentage that should decline as the budget increases.
This statistic is gathered from the American Society of Association
Executives Operating Ratio Report and CMGs association database.
Given the breadth and depth of ACHEs current governance structure
(Board of Governors, Council of Regents, committees), more than $1 million
is allocated to governance costs. This should continue to be monitored
so as to provide maximum value to affiliates.
- A persistent
question that has been addressed in ACHEs strategic planning processes
is, "What business should ACHE be in, and for whom?" If it
is in business to promote and manage levels of certification for those
eligible and qualified, it would more easily dictate one type of governance
and membership model. However, now that the College is reaching further
down the executive spectrum, and does not in fact require a Member to
ever sit for the Diplomate exam, implications for governance structure
and operations could be dramatically affected. Judicious considerations
about bold new directions are required.
Areas of Structure and Governance for Board Attention:
Perhaps the biggest question that ACHE will face in the near future
is the desired status for local affiliated groups. Clearly, that has
huge implications for how ACHE is structured and governed. With every
indication that most healthcare professionals, especially as they make
their way up the career ladder, start their affiliation at the local
level, this is a level that deserves serious attention. Given that fact,
the College must develop programs, products, and services at the local
level to recruit, retain, and advance affiliates.
Now, the HEGs and the WHENs are totally independent of the College,
without any formal or informal terms of agreement about any mutually
determined rights, role or responsibilities. Those local affiliated
groups with more than 50% in overlapping memberships and those groups
with less than 10% of overlapping memberships, receive virtually the
same support. In fact, one HEG that enjoys an 85% overlap receives little
more attention than a HEG with a 5% overlap.
Some local affiliated groups already consider themselves chapters. Others
are far removed from the College, in thought and in action. A small
number of HEGs and WHENs are consistently effective, offering strong
programs and services, networking opportunities and some Category II
education. They have a history of good leadership, and seem to manage
their organizations with little outside help. Some rely heavily on their
There are considerably more that have uneven leadership and difficulty
in maintaining member interest or numbers. Once the downward spiral
starts, it is only interrupted when an ambitious, capable leader surfaces,
or an exceptionally involved Regent steps in to provide support and
a process that will enable and encourage autonomous HEGs and WHENs
to choose to formally affiliate with ACHE. The steps that might be
a benchmark for the minimum number of ACHE affiliates needed to
qualify for chapter status. CMG suggests that this number could
initially be pegged at 51%, which would make 32 existing affiliated
groups eligible for chapter status. The ultimate goals should
be total co-extensive membership.
the current leaders of these affiliated groups to meet for a planning
conference to determine: their interest in moving ahead; minimum
standards; and most important, the roster of expectations that
the chapters would have of the College, and the College would
have of the chapters.
a smaller planning group of these affiliated group leaders and
College leaders (Regents and Governors) and staff to prepare "Guidelines
for Chapter Status". These guidelines might require minimal structure
requirements (the fewer the better); suggested level of programs
and services; and an established number of new Members, Diplomates
and Fellows sent forward each year. The Guidelines should also
clarify what support, services and incentives ACHE would provide.
These might include: list maintenance; mailing services; providing
a newsletter template; printing and mailing newsletter (with additional
copy from local leaders and contributors); leadership and board
training opportunities; registrations for education and meetings
at reduced rates; a job bank; a hot link on ACHE website; etc.
a minimum total number of members for chapter status.
pilot programs with a number of small and large groups in both
urban and rural areas that wish to convert to chapter status.
a cost/benefit analysis re staff and service expenses vis a vis
potential revenues from increased number of credentialing candidates
for Diplomate and Fellow status, Members, and attendees at seminars
and conferences, etc.
on the results of the pilot programs, develop financials to support
expanded implementation of chapter conversion.
of bylaw changes needed to implement a chapter program.
or add staff to assure the needed level of staff support.
in the formal arrangements on a voluntary basis, with approximately
ten chapters/year for each of the first two years, allowing ACHE and
chapters to refine the approach as real experience dictates. Provide
real incentives for chapters and for affiliates, e.g. a co-extensive
dues rate that is less expensive than two individual memberships.
expansion opportunities in underserved markets where no HEG or WHEN
exists, if there is a substantial presence of healthcare facilities
and consider ways to address markets that are served by multiple affiliated
WHEN leaders to discuss potential options for the future.
a dual chapter structure for members of the uniformed services whereby
individuals in a particular branch of the uniformed services (Air
Force, Army, Navy) would comprise a chapter. In addition, uniformed
services personnel could also be affiliated with their local geographic
Regents for revised roles at the local level. (See recommendations
re Council of Regents.)
appropriate, establish a "Council of Presidents" structure
in Regent jurisdictions with multiple chapters to foster coordination
and communication among the Regent and chapter presidents. Until that
time, it is important that chapter presidents serve on the Regents
national leadership and recognition opportunities for chapter leaders.
chapter status is available to all affiliated groups, discontinue
all but basic services to affiliated groups that do not meet or do
not attempt to meet requirements, and who choose not to work towards
After reviewing Council statistics and performance, reading and observing
proceedings, speaking extensively with Regents, and hearing others speak
about Regents, certain realities became apparent.
Individual Regents are by and large accomplished, highly esteemed leaders
of the profession. Most are "cheerleaders" for the College, serve as
mentors to others coming up the leadership ladder, and advisors for
local HEGs and WHENs, even those that have few ACHE affiliates on their
rosters. Their local roles are generally more important overall than
are their roles in governance. Through no fault of its own, the Council
is a weak governing body. Meeting only once a year does not enable it
to be fast, a necessity for any governing body today. It generally "rubber
stamps" decisions carefully and elaborately discussed and already approved
by the Board of Governors.
In 1988, when the need for more service at the local level became apparent,
the number of Regents was changed from 57 to over 100, and the size
of each region reduced accordingly. This was done at a time when there
were already strong indicators that people all across the country would
have less discretionary time to offer to their professional associations.
The Council's ability to debate and consider issues was severely impacted.
Nevertheless, Regents by and large reported that they enjoy holding
the title and value the prestige that comes with it. Most Regents carryout
at least some of their assigned tasks. They do not consider themselves
a true part of governance, seeing their roles as primarily ceremonial
or as many said, "window-dressing". This is not something that any contemporary
organization should want to perpetuate.
What is perhaps most troubling, is that fewer and fewer Regents run
on a dual slate. In many cases,
staff is required to try to identify anyone willing to run. Because
of the mobility of the profession, many each year resign their Regent
positions because of changes in their job status or location. At any
one time, it is possible for there to be a considerable number of interim
Currently, the performance-based evaluations of Regents are largely
contingent on the number of new Members they recruit, the number of
students they place onto the regular membership rolls, the number of
newsletters they produce and distribute, and the level of activity of
their Regent's Advisory Councils (RACs). The performance of Regents
vis a vis their service to the field is reported as extremely uneven.
Some local groups say they were "saved" by an excellent, hard-working
Regent. A disturbingly large number of local leaders say they have never
met or heard from their Regent in the past three years.
The demands on time, mentioned by almost everyone interviewed during
this process, was paramount for Regents, who are expected to do a lot
of work locally. Some reported that as many as six to ten hours per
week, plus travel and evening work, are required to really fulfill commitments
to the College. An increasing number of institutions are putting specific
restrictions on the amount of time executives can offer for volunteer
work that takes them out of the office, and are offering less reimbursable
expenses for organizational activities, for taking education seminars
or for teaching them.
Culling through the raw notes provided by 101 Regents themselves, some
of the key, and most revealing themes pertaining to governance surfaced:
representation is a good idea for Regents
diversity is positive
is sometimes difficult to defend Board actions to affiliates
better performance reviews at every level
of clarity as to principal role of Regents, i.e. field service representative
or part of a real governing body
little opportunity for input into decision-making process because
of size of body and tightness of agenda
demands at work and from family leave less time for ACHE activity
a Council of Regents, with decreased numbers and revision of Regents'
roles both on Council and in the field.
the Council of Regents to include one Regent for each state, branch
of the uniformed services, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and
Canada with an additional Regent added for each additional 500 Members,
Diplomates and Fellows above a 500 affiliate census (i.e., up to 999
Members, Diplomates and Fellows in a jurisdiction would qualify for
one Regent; 1,000 to 1,499 Members, Diplomates and Fellows in a jurisdiction
would qualify for two Regents; 1,500 to 1,999 Members, Diplomates,
and Fellows in a jurisdiction would qualify for three Regents, etc.).
Based on the current census, this would result in 62 Regents, including
two Regents in the states of California, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania
and three Regents in the state of Texas. In light of the growing diversity
among ACHEs elected leaders and among HEG leaders, it is no
longer necessary to have Regents-at-Large on the Council of Regents.
The reduction in both geographic Regents and Regents-at-Large would
be accomplished through attrition in the existing class of Regents
one three-year term for Regents, with one-third rotating off each
year. This is in response to many comments about the difficulty of
making a four-year commitment in this employment environment.
overall purpose of the Regent is to provide advice and counsel to
the Board of Governors, to elect the Board and Nominating Committee
members, and to serve affiliates at the local level.
The role of Regents at the annual meeting of the Council would be
the jurisdiction, a Regent would be expected to:
a true grassroots perspective to the table, with a formal process
for identifying and discussing common trends and issues, and the
implications for ACHE and for the profession.
as part of a think tank, working in small groups to consider how
ACHE must position itself for the future.
the Board of Governors on all of these issues, trends and concerns.
familiar with the organizations financial resources so that
a thorough knowledge of ACHE priorities and how they are resourced
can be communicated to the field.
for each class of Nominating Committee members, Governors and
new and revised ethical, professional, and public policy statements.
intensive training and orientation for the Regents' roles in the
the high prestige of the Council, through maintenance of some
of the pomp and circumstance surrounding investiture, and through
recognition of the essential roles played by Regents at both the
national and local levels.
Work with assigned staff to service and/or start chapters. ACHE
field staff would partner with Regents to support their field
a Council of Presidents of chapters and chapters in formation,
for guidance, identification of local needs, training for their
roles, and the sharing of best and worst practices.
grassroots perspective by assisting with career counseling and
serving as contact for local affiliates expressing ideas or raising
issues about ACHE programs or services.
the presence of senior leaders at local meetings, to help meet
the networking needs of younger affiliates looking to advance
their careers in health care.
as an ambassador to local health administration programs, visiting
the students or arranging for visits by senior leaders to provide
insight about the field and the benefits of ACHE affiliation and
sitting for the Diplomate exam and advancement to Fellow.
a strong pool of possible successors.
in meeting the recruitment and retention goals for the jurisdiction.
individuals for future national leadership and attention by the
National Nominating Committee.
as liaison to state hospital association.
to provide performance-based annual evaluations of all Regents, to
assure accountability, reward excellence and fill service gaps if
- In light
of the proposed changes to the Regents role, consider the role
of the Regents Advisory Council. The RACs will be critical in
the transition process. The long-term goal should be greater reliance
on the chapters to provide affiliate support.
of each Regent should be a jurisdiction responsibility, with a clearly
established process outlined in ACHEs Bylaws. This should provide
continuation of a self-nominating process for establishing an
election slate. The Regent would be expected to seek and encourage
potential candidates to become part of this process. Every effort
should be made to have at least two candidates on the slate.
election process, within each jurisdiction, managed by headquarters
By all accounts, and from all those who are aware of this governing
body, there is a strong consensus that this body has led the College
well, and responsibly. The commitment of time and talent is well known
and widely appreciated, as is their accessibility to affiliates. Nevertheless,
there is a strong residual belief that the Board of Governors is still
primarily an "all white body of hospital executives" and an "old boy
There is also recognition that they are in fact the governing
body of the College, since the Council of Regents is acknowledged to
be a "rubber stamp" assembly for all the reasons already outlined.
With eight elected from the eight districts established for election
purposes, three elected "at-large" in an effort to assure diversity,
one elected from the uniformed services, and three Chairman Officers,
this fifteen member body is at optimum size for effective decision making.
However, geographically elected boards were a 19th century
necessity that unfortunately got carried into the 20th century.
Today, more and more organizations are moving into the 21st
century, by opting for a much more effective method of board selection.
When geography was a valid way of choosing leaders, both transportation
and communications were difficult. Although the need to continue geographic
selection disappeared by the middle of last century, it took many organizations
another fifty years to alter the process.
When geographically elected, it is almost impossible to assure that
a board will have the full range of skill sets needed for an effective
board, or the diversity needed to truly reflect current and targeted
member categories, profiles and type of employing organization. When
slated in total by a Nominating Committee, efforts to assure the balance
of needed skills and experience have a higher likelihood of achievement.
- No change
in the size of the Board is recommended.
effect, twelve Governors would be elected at-large with at least one
elected from the uniformed services to serve three-year terms.
- It is
suggested that the election of Governors remain within the purview
of the Council of Regents, from a slate presented by a National Nominating
Committee. Since the Council is a constituent based body and is elected
by the grassroots, it is in a strong position to elect those candidates
best able to serve with distinction.
The candidates would be slated by a National Nominating Committee. This
would be a blue-ribbon committee, expected to sit year round, working
as a search committee, to seek and identify outstanding people for board
The National Nominating Committee would be charged to assure a board
that is diverse in every respect. It would be sensitive to but not driven
by geography. In other words, it would assure that the Board is not
primarily east coast or west coast, urban or rural. It would make certain
that all constituencies would be considered. Above all, it would assure
a well-balanced group of strategic thinkers, best able to lead ACHE
into what, in every respect, will be a vastly different healthcare landscape.
To enable the committee to identify potential leaders from every part
of the country, the National Nominating Committee would continue to
have some geographic representation. It is recommended that the Committee
be composed of eleven members, placed according to the following formula
members elected geographically, one from each of the 8 election
member elected by and from the uniformed services
2 most immediate Past Chairmen (the current Immediate Past- Chairman
and the Immediate Past-Chairman once removed).
is also recommended that the Nominating Committee be open to service
by Diplomates as well as Fellows.
Committee would be chaired by the Immediate Past-Chairman once removed.
No one on this committee would be eligible for slating. To assure
continuity on this critical committee, yet enable a continuum of
new people to serve, it is suggested that there be two-year staggered
terms, with roughly one-half of the committee (i.e. 4 elected by
the districts) rotating off each year. The uniformed services member
would serve a two-year term and then be replaced by another uniformed
services person for a new two-year term.
This process maintains the grassroots character of the Nominating Committee
while enabling it to develop a board that has the potential to be stronger
than the sum of its individual members.
Committee members reported that by and large their service on committees
was not satisfying, with many indicating that committee meetings were
boring, and that in too many instances they were asked to approve what
staff had already created. The notable exceptions were comments from
committees that have exciting agendas and real work to accomplish, and
were being asked to make real decisions or offer recommendations. In
all organizations, standing committees often tend to get stale over
time, especially when their charges remain fundamentally the same.
There is a high degree of satisfaction and excitement among those who
are asked to serve on special, or ad hoc committees. When expectations
are unclear, when members serve for many years on the same committees,
and when more time is spent on process than on product, there is little
pleasure or pride in service.
three standing committees appear to be needed by ACHE: Nominating,
Exams/Certification, and Ethics. These are the hearthstones upon which
the College is built.
- In the
next year, ACHE should evaluate its committee structure, giving consideration
to reducing the number of its remaining (approximately 40) committees.
For tasks or assignments that need to be accomplished, it may be far
more effective to convene a group of those most able to complete the
task, and to make the assignments as time and task specific as possible,
and to convene them only when needed, not on a "stand-by" basis. People
with tight demands on their time appreciate this. The College would
benefit from this. There would be no "busy work".
For example, in other associations these ad hoc task forces have been
established for many different reasons, and take many different forms,
enabling the involvement of large numbers of people, but over shorter
periods of time, e.g.:
An advisory panel, when a white paper is produced by staff but
could benefit from review by other eyes and minds. Such a group
is convened, expectations are clarified, and the group meets once
or perhaps only by telephone or internet, or not at all.
think tank can be convened when a tough issue deserves review.
Such think tanks might be asked to identify target membership
markets, or plan a new education offering, or consider the need
for revisions to an existing program. The possibilities are endless.
Using talent this way is not only effective in achieving results,
it is sensitive to the realities of the amount of discretionary
time available to most affiliates. The results are generally in
inverse proportion to the small amount of effort required to establish
and service them.
reaction panel could be established to review a draft brochure
or other product produced by staff, to see how it reads in the
field. Here again, Regents can be asked to serve, or an entire
chapter or an appropriate special interest group can be asked
to offer comments.
internet can be used to put in place some advisory panels made
up of affiliates with a common interest, who may be called upon
to comment on a white paper, all via the internet.
Interest Groups (SIGs):
These are by and large extremely successful. Groups of post-acute/chronic
care executives; nurse executives; systems healthcare executives; managed
care executives; groups practice executives; and physician executives;
and CEOs enjoy the networking opportunities that their meetings provide,
and expect little else. Most, if not all of them, are also active in
their specialty organizations, and look to the College to deal only
with their roles as executives in healthcare facilities.
Because there is great clarity of what ACHE can and cannot offer them,
and ACHE delivers what is expected of them, the SIGs are functioning
well and pleased with their status.
- No change
in structure or role is suggested. In fact, any other recommendations
for more structure should be assiduously rejected. A SIG is most effective
when it has little structure, is rather freewheeling, and considers
networking its most important role.
- As the
environment dictates, the College may well want to add SIGs. There
should be no reluctance to do so.
WHENs may well want to consider banding together to become a SIG within
the College, even if they choose to maintain their local WHEN operations
College should utilize SIGs to help develop specialized education
programs for parts of the profession that are not now well represented
or adequately served within ACHE. They may be asked to produce a white
paper, and be encouraged to make recommendations to the Board on issues
that they identify as important for the College.
or other WEB site interactive opportunities should be provided for
If some or
all of these recommendations are accepted in concept, the next steps might
well be to:
focus groups with Presidents of HEGs that have more than 50% of their
membership also belonging to ACHE, to determine readiness to move towards
focus groups, in person or via conference call, with Regents who have
candidates for chapter status within their regions.
focus groups with Regents re the proposed new roles for Regents.
through analysis by staff, the fiscal implications of all CMG recommendations
that are of interest to ACHE leadership.
proposals to Board and Regents in March 2001.
- If approved,
develop a transition plan and timeline to move from current structure
and governance model to proposed new model.
the bylaws as needed to support changes, and begin transition process.
all the raw data collected during the last three months, some recurring
comments are worth noting. When asked about the barriers for change within
ACHE, the almost universal answers were: the culture and history of the
College; elitist attitudes; and the self-interests of those in leadership
now or aspiring to leadership. These perceptions remain troubling to leadership.
It is anticipated
that this report will be read with a willingness to look at what might
be rather than at what is. The College has an illustrious past, is vibrant
at present, and has the promise of a dynamic future. To assure this will
require some adjustment in "how we do things around here", something that
all successful organizations and institutions regularly consider.
of Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C., the former president of the University
of Notre Dame, bear repeating: "My basic principle is that you dont
make decisions because they are easy; you dont make them because
they are cheap; you dont make them because they are popular; you
make them because they are right." We wish nothing more or less for
the leaders of ACHE, who ultimately must decide what is right for the
researched and prepared by Dadie Perlov and Linda Shinn, Principals, Consensus
Management Group, March 2001.