Proposed Change in the Governance Structure of ABET

1. Proposed Change in the Governance Structure of ABET Overview of Ideas Under Consideration July 2014

2. Contents of Presentation • Timeline for Context • Major concerns with current structure • Major concerns about current proposal (July 2014) • Overview of Proposed New Governance Structure

3. Decision Timeline Concerning Possible Changes to the Governance Structure Recent History Current Plan If an affirmative vote If ratified

4. Major Concerns with Current Structure • Current Size of the Board of Directors • All literature reviews state this is not ideal for effectiveness • Directors have stated the size should be smaller • Societies have stated the size should be smaller • Strain on Directors to adhere to loyalty to ABET over loyalty to their Society when serving on the Board • Some impediments in strategic action (rather than reaction) due to constraints of convening a large Board • Concern that Board should spend more time on governance issues such as Vision and Strategies, and not get too entangled with management issues • Need to have a Board where appropriate competencies and perspectives are present on the Board to ensure ABET continuously improves

5. Spectrum of Feedback to GSTF3 Report – May-June 2014(More detailed approach with a Board of Directors and Board of Delegates) This report does not go far enough to remove the problem of ABET Directors representing their society instead of ABET This report Should do more to simplify the approach, the Board of Delegates should clearly be a voice but not governing or in Commissions way This report still does not clearly resolve current concerns and only adds a layer of bureaucracy This report is ok but my society, and others like it, should have a seat on the Board of Directors This report is fine, let’s proceed Apologies to any director who feels we miss characterized their feedback, there was other feedback to make minor corrections and modifications

6. Proposed Change in the Governance Current Governance Structure Proposed Governance Structure Societies Appoint Directors Societies Appoint Delegates Directors Elect Officers and some on EC Delegates Elect Officers and Directors (~49) (13) Committees composed predominantly of Delegates Councils composed predominantly of non-Directors Committees composed predominantly of Directors Councils composed predominantly of non-Directors

7. So Much is Similar, What is the Point • The Directors is a smaller group and there is no need for the Executive Committee • The Delegates are appointed by their Society to represent their Society, so no loyalty issues • The Delegates can focus on accreditation and process issues, especially targeting the commissions where they have programs • The Directors can focus on ABET Governance and Planning

8. How do Societies Keep A Strong Voice • The Societies continue to appoint evaluators, commissioners, and now delegates to focus on the accreditation criteria, procedures, and outcomes • The Societies’ Delegates compose most of the Board of Directors committees, so still have input into Financial issues, Strategic issues, and Governance issues • The Societies’ Delegates compose the Awards and Nomination Committees, and they elect the Officers and Directors • The Societies continue to be required to ratify Constitution changes

9. What are some of the other advantages? • Primary loyalty to ABET, as required by NY law, is better ensured” • Directors (not just a subset) can meet more often without raising costs to ABET • Some unique visionaries can be intentionally sought as Directors, regardless of their membership in a member society • Delegates can focus on the areas of accreditation where they have programs • Delegates can work with Commissions to be more forward thinking about optimizing accreditation procedures