Is it timely for the American Society of Agronomy to transform into a National Institute and an additional new Society incorporating the A-Divisions? We recommend that ASA expedite a process to evaluate the pros and cons for internally restructuring into two separate corporations.

FIRST, WHY TRANSFORM ASA?

Bill McFee’s article “A unique partnership: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA” in the March 1999 issue of Crop Science-Soil Science-Agronomy News describes the current structural relationships between the Tri-Societies and outlines their independent and interdependent aspects. Bill concludes his article with the expectation that “the joint functioning of ASA, CSSA, and SSSA --- will continue to evolve to meet the needs of our societies’ members in the 21st century”. The Tri-Societies have taken significant steps toward giving enhanced identification and independence to our Societies and these efforts are appreciated. This evolution needs to continue to promote the operational efficiency, rational governance and the national impact of our societies.

The current Tri-Societies structures may be viewed as a “single parent with two siblings”. Although there is a historical rationale for this arrangement and it has served us well, we believe that we have outgrown this structure for a number of reasons.

1. The Tri-Society relationships have inherent inefficiencies in Board operation with oftentimes multiple considerations and revisiting of issues from the parent (ASA) to the siblings (CSSA, SSSA) and back to the parent level again. The CSSA and SSSA Executive Committees and Board Representatives are well exposed to this phenomenon.

2. There is sometimes ambiguity in the role of ASA since this corporate entity can sometimes operate with a one society – tri-society (parent-family) duality at the ASA Board and ASA Executive Committee levels. Technically, CSSA and SSSA are not present when ASA meets, however, some ASA Board delegates are also members of CSSA or SSSA Boards and these delegates can also speak on behalf of CSSA or SSSA interests during ASA deliberations. A similar situation occurs at the ASA Executive Committee level.

3. There is inequity in Divisional representation in that A-division Chair representatives cannot be members of any Board (Bill McFee’s article shows CSSA and SSSA Boards with Divisional Chair representatives, whereas, the A-divisions are without equivalent representation on any Board).

4. The recent decoupling of CSSA and SSSA membership from ASA membership has led to a non-rational governance situation. Division Representatives of CSSA and SSSA Boards who choose not to become members of ASA are nevertheless voting members of the ASA Board of Directors. In both 1999 and 2000, the ASA Board of Directors had or has one or more representatives who were or are not members of ASA. Thus non-ASA members can serve at the highest levels of decision-making on behalf of ASA members.

5. The identity of agronomy in ASA has become diffuse with the presence and addition of various C- and S-Divisions in the ASA Board that are not directly related to agronomy. It is time for agronomy to regain its own clear identity. The ASA Board is too large with its current 43 voting members for effective decision-making for agronomy.

6. Our ASA structure inhibits addition of other related societies that may join in collective strength if we establish a federation structure such as a national institute with individual society membership.

7. Finally, our ASA membership is much more diverse in their research and professional interests than is represented by the name “agronomy”. We need visible national recognition of our genetic and environmental sciences that an appropriate new name can provide. The public has a high regard for the environment and we should be readily identified as the group of societies contributing to environmental research. Additionally, our genetic sciences are emerging into a new era of possibilities that go beyond the food and fiber identity of agriculture.


THE PROPOSAL

We propose that it is timely for the internal restructuring of ASA into two corporations. This restructuring can be achieved by (1) changing current ASA bylaws to give a new name and revised objectives for this corporation, and (2) creating a new corporate entity for the A-Divisions that specifically serves agronomy. We recommend that ASA internally transforms itself into a national institute by changing its bylaws, and that a new corporate agronomic society be created by a similar process that formed SSSA and CSSA. We see this restructuring as a “minimal disturbance” approach to reach goals that will serve our increasingly diverse membership and their sciences as we enter the 21st Century. We have procedures in place for taking these steps.

The proposal to form a national institute as a federation of societies is offered along with a suggested path to reach this status. First, some advantages of becoming a national institute are suggested. We note that a suitable institute name needs to be carefully selected. Possibilities include the National Institute for Agricultural, Genetic and Environmental Sciences (NIAGES) or the American Federation of Agricultural, Genetic and Environmental Sciences (AFAGES); alternatives should be explored. To facilitate discussion of this proposal we use the terms National Institute to refer to the transformed ASA, current-ASA to refer to the current ASA, and new-ASA to refer to the new corporation of A-Divisions.


SOME ADVANTAGES OF A NATIONAL INSTITUTE

A National Institute name is needed to give national identify to our genetic and environmental sciences in addition to that of our agricultural sciences. Biotechnology and environmental research are well established in our societies and we will benefit from national recognition of these fields of endeavor. Students and the public have strong rapport with the environment. We need to “unmask” our broad environmental and genetic contributions from our agronomic heritage.

A federation structure should reduce inefficiencies in some of our decision-making, provide flexibility of society membership and eliminate non-rational governance. Formation of a new corporate society for A-Divisions will enhance the identity of agronomy and provide equitable opportunity for A-Division members to manage their affairs.

Additional societies that join the National Institute (facilitated by a federation structure) will lead to greater economic resources for enhancing our presence in Washington, DC while maintaining our Madison Headquarters. For example, we need greater involvement in decision making by providing science-based information on political issues. We also see the National Institute having a national mission for outreach and education that broadly represents all of our sciences. We are a rather small number of people making a huge contribution to the Nation and the Planet. The National Institute will advance the opportunities and methods for voicing our mission and accomplishments.


STEPS TO THE FORMATION OF A NATIONAL INSTITUTE AND A NEW-ASA

What implementation path can we follow? The following ideas are offered:

1. ASA should consult with CSSA and SSSA to see if they are willing to become member societies of a National Institute with a federation structure. If agreement is obtained, the following steps are suggested.

2. Revise the ASA bylaws. Change the corporate name (Bylaws Article 1) to a National Institute that suitably identifies our research and professional domains. Change the corporate objectives (Bylaws Article 2) to include that of a National Institute, structured to manage a federation of individual societies, and with its own institute functions. Other changes in bylaws will follow as a consequence of changes in objectives. We note that this newly named corporation will own the Headquarters properties and employ the Headquarters staff. The change in bylaws does not involve transfer of assets.

3. In concert with step 2, create a new corporation for the A-Divisions following procedures used in the formation of SSSA and CSSA. We view this new corporation as a “true” Agronomy Society of America. A revised name that puts agronomy first can be considered for the new-ASA, although American Society of Agronomy can certainly be used. Either way ASA would be the acronym. The continuity of ASA is preserved with the new-ASA being identified as founded in 1907 and restructured at a new date.

4. The mission of the new-ASA will be specifically agronomic and will no longer involve all C- and S-Divisions. The new-ASA Board may include A-Division Chairs, A-Division Bd. Reps, relevant Bd. Reps from CSSA (e.g., C3, C4, C5, C6) and SSSA (e.g., S4, S6, S8), plus Regional Branch and appropriate certification Reps. The new-ASA will actively participate with CSSA and SSSA through selectively shared Board Representatives.

5. The new-ASA will elect its Executive Committee from nominations provided by the A-Divisions and participating C- and S-Divisions. This enhances opportunity for A-Division members to become President of the new-ASA. Members of C- and S-Divisions participating in the new-ASA will also be members of the new-ASA to avoid the non-rational governance situation mentioned earlier.

6. The new-ASA will develop its bylaws, possibly using CSSA and SSSA bylaws as models, and will incorporate as a separate society.

7. The financial assets of the current-ASA will be partitioned to the National Institute and to the new-ASA for their independent use. The basis for an equitable partitioning will be determined by the participating entities.

8. The Agronomic Science Foundation and ARCPACS will relate to the National Institute in a similar way as with the current-ASA.

9. Appropriate societies should be contacted to assess their interest in joining the proposed federation of societies.


COORDINATION COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL

We recommend that the National Institute have a Coordination Committee (not an executive committee) and a Council. The current-ASA Executive Committee and current-ASA Board are well suited for serving a National Institute in these respective capacities. No new bureaucracy is needed.

1. The National Institute Coordination Committee will consist of the executive committees of member societies (new-ASA, CSSA, SSSA). This is equivalent to the current 9-member ASA Executive Committee, which consists of the Past President, President and President Elect of the three societies. (This has a “Senate” structure with each society being equally represented).

2. The Chair of the National Institute Coordination Committee may be internally elected by its members or alternatively may rotate annually among the Presidents of the member societies.

3. The National Institute Coordination Committee will provide agenda items for consideration by member society Boards and will provide recommendations, as appropriate, to foster coordination among member societies. Member societies will provide their decisions back to the National Institute Coordination Committee through their executive committee members. The National Institute Coordination Committee will resolve differences or refer issues to the National Institute Council.

4. The National Institute will have a Council that minimally includes the Executive Committees and Division Representatives of member societies. The inclusion of other Board members, such as regional branch, certification and chapter representatives, needs to be evaluated. (The Council is similar to the current-ASA Board). Note that C- and S- divisions with a representative also on the new-ASA Board will have one vote (not two) in Council decisions. The Council will only meet on selected (perhaps rare) occasions to determine issues that require broad participation that cannot (or should not) be resolved by the National Institute Coordination Committee. (The Council will be a “House of Representatives” with participation by the various divisions of member societies).

5. Decisions by the National Institute Coordination Committee and Council will be made by democratic procedures. On issues specified by the National Institute bylaws a 2/3 majority will be required (perhaps for example, the fees paid by member societies for National Institute operations and voting on new society applications to join the Institute).


ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS

The National Institute will enhance our image with the public by open visibility for the expanding genetic and environmental science energies of our Societies. The National Institute will provide information and educational services for its member societies. The National Institute may also undertake investigations and research on subjects determined by the member societies.

Support services associated with publication of member society journals and our newsletter, maintenance of our Internet server and web pages and the organization of Annual Meetings will be undertaken by the National Institute. Essentially all of the current-ASA operations of the Madison Headquarters, including ARCPACS and ASF, will be conducted within the National Institute. Various Tri-Society Committees (AC, AS and ACS) will function within the National Institute. All A-Committees will become part of the new-ASA. Adjustments in the assignments of some Tri-Society committees are expected in a federation structure. Also, divisions that broadly serve all members, such as Division A1 (Resident Education), may need to operate at the National Institute level to fully represent all member Societies.

Initially the new-ASA, CSSA and SSSA will be member societies of the National Institute, paying dues for the services and use of facilities provided by the National Institute. Later additional societies may join the National Institute. The member societies will conduct their business with independent and interdependent cooperation with facilitation by joint (e.g., AC, AS and ACS) committees and the Coordination Committee of the National Institute. It is expected that the Council of the National Institute will meet occasionally (less than annually) to address fundamental issues such as Institute bylaws and budgetary matters. Some issues may be prepared for ballot of all individual members.

Several challenges with the adoption of a federation structure were presented in the article on “Structure and relationships among the three societies” by Betty Klepper, Keith Cassel and Bill McFee (Agronomy-Crop Science-Soil Science News, 18 October 1998 edition from the Annual Meetings in Baltimore; see Model 5 on page 5). Some of these challenges are addressed in the above proposal. For example, the federation bureaucracy is created from current-ASA structure and not by developing a new “super” layer. Note that new organizational structures (Executive Committee and Board) are needed for the new-ASA at the member-society level with the advantage of giving all A-Division members an equitable voice. The 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt status of the National Institute and the new-ASA must be carefully examined with guidance from legal council. Ways and means to obtain tax-exempt status should be determined that meet current legal and tax regulations. We do not see this as an impossibility. For example, the Federation of Animal Science Societies (founded 1998, 3 societies) and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (founded 1912, 15 societies) both have 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt status. The brief comments in this section are offered to foster discussion on how the National Institute may operate and relate to member Societies.


TOWARD APPROPRIATE ACTION

Corporations with complex organizational structures merge, break up and change names as they adjust to changing conditions. We should also adjust our organizations as appropriate. We should not be constrained by a structure that has served us well but may no longer be suitable as we look ahead. There are many other aspects and details involved in the proposed restructuring of ASA; however, resolution of these issues will take focus once an overall framework is established.

If you find any merit in this “National Institute and new-ASA” proposal, please address the questions below in your divisional electronic news group and at your business meeting during our next Annual Meeting in Minneapolis.

Question for CSSA and SSSA members: Do you support your society becoming a member society in a federation if such a structure is offered in a reorganization of ASA?

Questions for ASA members: What are the pros and cons of ASA restructuring into two proposed corporations from your perspective? What action should ASA undertake with regard to the reorganization proposal?

Please have your Board Representative(s) bring recommendations for restructuring from your business meeting to the ASA, CSSA and SSSA Boards as a contribution to the democratic process. Our vision for serving our members and for enhancing the national presence, recognition and impact of our sciences moves to implementation only as we take appropriate action.

The following members support the open discussion of this proposal addressing the future of ASA:

Signed: Robert J. Luxmoore, Jan W. Hopmans, Bruce A. Kimball, D. Keith Cassel et al.