At the AACSB Annual Meeting in April in Boston, a proposal to change the structure of the Board of Directors was withdrawn. Subsequently, the Board voted to introduce to the membership another restructuring proposal.

The new proposal would structure the Board as follows:

Size of Board: 16 - 21 members

• Seven Accredited - contested
• Four Non-accredited - contested
• Five Officers - four elected in non-contested election, one by virtue of position
• Up to five Appointed (maximum of two per year) - Slate of appointed members submitted to membership for ratification by a majority of voting members

Nominees equal total number of open contested slots plus one

For comparison, the current Board is structured as follows:

Fixed size of Board: 20

• Six Accredited - contested
• Three Non-accredited - contested
• Three Corporate - non-contested
• Two International - contested
• One Beta Gamma Sigma (BGS) - by virtue of position
• Five Officers - four elected in non-contested election, one by virtue of position

Two Nominees per open contested slot

For comparison, the withdrawn proposal would have structured the Board as follows:

Size of Board: 14 - 21 members

• Six Accredited - contested
• Three Non-accredited - contested
• Five Officers - four elected in non-contested election, one by virtue of position
• Up to seven Appointed (maximum of three per year)

Nominees equal total number of open contested slots plus one

The strengths of the new proposal include:

• more flexibility to improve the intellectual and cultural diversity represented on the Board
• more flexibility to fill in the gaps in types of institutions represented on the Board
• more flexibility over time to reflect changes in the profession or in the composition of AACSB's membership
• the higher ratio of elected members to appointed members, compared to the withdrawn proposal, may address the concern of non-accredited members that they would not be adequately represented
• the higher ratio of elected members to appointed members, compared to the withdrawn proposal, may address the perception that the Board is attempting to "stack the deck"
• ratification of slate of appointed members by majority of voting members may address concerns about disenfranchisement and "stacking the deck"
• appointment of members after the election of Board members allows full consideration of gaps in elected Board members
• the possible smaller size of the Board makes useful interaction and discussion of strategic issues more likely

In October, a "Board Structure" page was set up on the World Wide Web to offer information to members on the proposal and an electronic feedback mechanism to encourage discussion of the proposal throughout the year also was activated. "These steps seek member input prior to an anticipated vote at the June 1998 AACSB Annual Meeting that precedes the Global Forum," said William K. Laidlaw, Jr., AACSB executive vice president.

Some weaknesses of the new proposal include:

• some corporate, international and BGS representatives may feel disenfranchised by this approach
• some members may perceive the proposal as an attempt by the Board to "stack the deck"
• some members may be offended by the argument that the risk of loss in an election makes some deans unwilling to run
• some members may be offended that number of nominees per open slot in elections is reduced, limiting their choice in elections
• ratification of appointed members as a slate may not satisfy the concerns of many members about disenfranchisement and "stacking the deck"
• benefits of the change may not outweigh the political costs of instituting the change

"We are encouraging discussion and debate of the new proposal at the regional meetings this fall," said Laidlaw, "and we are counting on members to understand the content and implications of the new proposal."