At its annual business meeting in Nashville on October 27, 2007, the Council of Representatives (COR) passed a resolution asking the Governance Focus Interest Group (FIG) to continue working on the structure and function of the COR. The FIG was tasked with researching two structural alternatives – one that kept the COR at its current size, and one that looked at a smaller COR. The FIG was also charged with doing further work on process improvements.

A working group consisting of members of the COR Governance FIG, the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) and the Board of Directors (BOD) met for an intense two-day session in February to formulate recommendations to the COR regarding both structure and function. The group also spent some time reviewing proposed process improvements.

Function discussions revolved around integrating the strategic work of the COR with the SPC and the BOD through the planning cycle. Additionally, each legislative area was evaluated to determine the ones believed appropriate for the COR to retain.

The working group felt that the most important recommendation was a need for change. If the work of the COR is important to SWE, it must be valued by SWE. In order to elevate the work of the COR to the appropriate level of importance, the working group recommends that:

• COR Representatives must be fully committed to the position. The COR Rep should focus only on COR business, and therefore it is recommended that COR members limit their other SWE commitments and local sections not require COR members to perform additional duties.
• The COR should meet face-to-face twice a year. In order to properly discuss mega issues and to participate in SWE’s strategic planning process, the COR has to be fully engaged throughout the year.
• COR meetings may or may not be held at Conference. The issues have been conflict with other events and the timing of conference which is early in the fiscal year.
• Since the work of the COR is valuable to SWE, the travel expenses of Reps should be funded.

The working group explored the options of (1) keeping the COR the same size and (2) creating a smaller COR. Overall, the large majority of the working group favored a smaller COR, principally for reasons of facilitating discussion, cost and the availability of suitable engaged volunteers for the positions. A minority favored maintaining the larger COR and expressed concerns about representation if the COR was smaller.

Structure Proposition #1 – Retain the current size and membership of COR
This option retains the essential aspects of the current COR organization to include direct section representation on COR and direct MAL/Collegiate region representation on COR. These roles and responsibilities form the basis for the grassroots participation that has made SWE a good training ground for leadership skills and teamwork. Concerns have been raised that the size of the body makes it difficult to have meaningful and significant debate, and that sections send representatives that are not prepared for the meeting and have little experience in the COR process. There is no doubt that the COR is large, but that fact in itself does not preclude effective discussion and decision-making. Democracy is not a fast nor particularly efficient way to reach a decision, however, the benefits of each individual contributing to and feeling a part of the process generally outweigh the need for speed at the cost of inclusiveness.

Structure Proposition #2 – Create a smaller COR based on region- and national-level representation instead of the current section-level representation for professional members and region-level representation for collegiate members
The composition proposed here is the result of detailed research, review and discussion; however, it is not meant as the final and only alternative to the COR of today. If COR members choose that the Council should become smaller, further discussion on the exact composition will be conducted.

Note: This proposal assumes the existing Section Representative composition and election will remain as currently defined. Section Representatives would remain officers of their local sections as well as serve as voting members of the Region Council. The members of the proposed Council of Representatives would not be the same people as those elected to serve as Section Representatives and would focus on national issues.

Composition

1. All council representatives, except the collegiate representatives, must be voting members of the Society.
2. The voting membership of the council shall consist of:
   • Two professional representatives per region, elected by the professional members of each region;
   • One collegiate representative per region, elected by the collegiate members of each region;
   • Two representatives of those who do not reside in a region, elected by the members to be represented; and
   • Eight representatives elected by the overall membership
3. The term of office for voting COR members shall be two years. Terms may be staggered in accordance with COR policy.
4. There shall be no alternates for voting members. The Council may establish attendance requirements and a policy for removal of representatives for non-performance.
5. Non-voting members of the Council with the right to participate in the discussions of the council shall include members of the Board of Directors.

Advantages

• Increases the number of SWE leadership positions, because Section and Council Representatives are different people
• Responsibilities for Section Representatives will be reduced to focus on the section and region needs, and more people will be willing to do it
• Section Representatives can dedicate more time to actively participating in Region Council
• COR is a more prestigious position
• More dedicated COR
• Quality people (passion and commitment)
• More informed and productive discussions
• Still represented across SWE (via Region Representatives)
• More nimble for meeting times/etc.
• Constituents have multiple reps at Region level regardless of their section size.
• Easier to manage the meetings/discussions
• Clear roles (national, regional, local)
• Improved teamwork and peer pressure to be prepared
• Smaller group to train – more manageable
• Fixed size, except for potential Collegiate Rep in Region X in the future
• Collegiate members more proportionally represented
• Helps connect national – region – sections more thoroughly (quality person) coupled with strong regions
• Leadership pipeline and quality reps and regional council training ground
• Less resource dollars needed from SWE for meeting and recognition
• Helps close communication loop (section – region – national)
• More reasonable to provide funded meetings
• Each member has more than one rep on the COR (i.e. – no single point of failure)
• Size of body makes deliberation more straightforward
• Can meet via teleconference and have useful discussions
• COR opinions more respected and valued by the Society
• Elimination of alternates
• More focus on COR role versus other roles in SWE
• More similar to existing collegiate structure related to COR

Disadvantages

• Less people exposed to National SWE early on – leadership pipeline restricted
• COR reps need to communicate across the region, not just section
• Disconnect between regional councils and National Council
• No direct route for section to national leadership move
• Implementation of “elected at large” is complex
• Diversity could be ambiguous/hard to implement
• Elected-at-large is a paradigm shift; this can be controversial there may be concerns of them as a “shadow board”
• Less broad viewpoint
• May still be hard to find candidates
• Concern for small number of people to drive legislative or public policy changes
• Significant paradigm shift of both size and structure
• More of a disconnect with the individual member and their issues
• Nominating committee to select 8 at large
• Quorum requirement needs to change back to two-thirds