In January 2026, members of the Entomological Society of America will vote on a proposed set of Bylaws amendments that would reshape the size and composition of the ESA Governing Board and its nomination processes. (Photo by Mikhail Nilov via Pexels)

By Jesus F. Esquivel, Ph.D.

Editor’s Note: In January 2026, members of the Entomological Society of America will vote on a proposed set of Bylaws amendments that would reshape the size and composition of the ESA Governing Board and its nomination processes. This article argues against the amendments and is published in conjunction with an article that supports the proposed amendments.

Lack of transparency … misinformation and incomplete information … disenfranchising members of key groups … willingness to circumvent governance protocols … a president and senior staff refusing to release files. These traits describe ESA governance in relation to the proposed “Governance Upgrade.”

I served on the ESA Governing Board (2018-2024) during many of the earlier discussions regarding the so-called Governance Upgrade (i.e., proposed ESA Bylaws changes). From its inception, I have been a non-supporter of the proposed amendments due to the diminishing dedicated representation of constituent member groups on the Board (i.e., Students, Early Career Professionals, Branches, and Sections), the consolidation of power in the hands of a smaller Board (and the newly re-named Committee on Nominations), and ambiguity surrounding the annual definition of “competencies” and the authorizing body for these “competencies.”

To fully understand the impact of the proposed amendments and the perspective in this article, here is a brief discussion regarding our existing governance documents. ESA’s Articles of Incorporation established the Society as a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization “to promote the science of entomology in all its subdisciplines,” superseding all other governance documents. Bylaws are the bedrock of our organization—e.g., establishing member rights, outlining governance processes, and identifying the Board as the sole fiduciary authority. Any amendments to the Bylaws must be voted upon by the membership, provided impact statements accompany the proposed amendments. In contrast, standard operating procedures (SOPs) and policies and procedures (P&Ps) describe processes for conducting the day-to-day business of the Society. Most individual committees and Sections have their own P&Ps, and the Governing Board has its own SOPs as well. Although the SOPs and P&Ps of most of the entities are publicly available (e.g., Southwestern Branch, Plant-Insect Ecosystems Section), the Governing Board SOP Manual is considered an internal document that is purposely unavailable to the general membership. SOPs and P&Ps can be changed by the leadership of the respective entities—but they must be consistent with the Bylaws.

As a non-supporter, I was invited by ESA Executive Director Chris Stelzig to author this article to accompany an article in support of the proposed changes. My key reasons continue to be as mentioned above, but recent developments compel me to inform the membership of related nuances that are not clearly apparent in the most recent announcement by the 2025 ESA Governing Board regarding the Proposed Bylaws Amendments (dated October 15, 2025).

Background

Three Task Forces were commissioned during this process. To prepare for this article, I requested copies of the Task Force reports from Executive Director Stelzig. He declined, indicating that the reports were “confidential,” and that President Lina Bernaola must authorize “release” of Task Force reports. President Bernaola refused to “release” the reports. However, in consulting two Past Presidents of the ESA, I learned that Task Force reports have never been considered confidential, and the current Bylaws do not prevent a member from requesting and receiving any written report. So, why the lack of transparency?

The Board has repeatedly emphasized three justifications for the proposed amendments: that they are member-driven, that they will increase efficiency of the Board, and that they will produce a competency-based Board membership. Below, I call your attention to concerns about each of these justifications.

Member-driven? This term was used regularly at town halls and within ESA communications, implying that the genesis of the Governance Upgrade was a member request or suggestion from outside the Board. However, this is definitely not the case. No member presented such a motion to the Board requesting an upgrade or a revision of the Bylaws.

Efficient? This was another term used during town halls and earlier communications touting smaller Boards as “more efficient,” suggesting that the current Board size was inefficient. During my two Board terms, inefficiencies arose chiefly from failures to follow established governance processes and failure to share complete information with the full Governing Board. In multiple cases, the Executive Director, Executive Committee, or smaller subsets of the Board made premature decisions circumventing established Bylaws and rules of governance procedure. Additionally, in some instances, the Executive Director misrepresented Board decisions to Committees or members, and the Board was then forced to re-direct towards correcting said misrepresentations. Thus, in these situations, although it may have appeared the current Board was inefficient, these types of repeated inefficiencies were not of the Board’s doing, nor were they related to size of the Board.

Competency-based? This was yet another term used heavily throughout the multi-year campaign for the proposed changes. Ironically, there is no mention of competency-based requirements within the proposed amendments to the Bylaws, and there is a paucity of information within the proposed Advisory Council description.

In summary, it’s unclear what gave rise to the proposed amendments to the Bylaws, since we have no insight into member input or Task Force reports. Secret deliberations do not promote open and thorough debate about our Society’s future. Proposed changes would further concentrate governance and disenfranchise membership constituencies. The current Bylaws and the current Governing Board composition (and size) already represent our diverse competencies and membership and, if our Bylaws are followed properly, promote transparent and efficient governance.

Concerns Related to Key Proposed Bylaws Amendments

See full proposed bylaws amendments.

Article IV. Governing Board. Section 1. Membership and Authority (page 7 of the proposal)

• Regarding new Board structure: One key concern is loss of constituent representation, including the Student and Early Career Professionals. These groups can account for ≥50% of attendees at meetings. Disenfranchising these members risks loss of members and representation of our diverse constituencies.

Article IV. Governing Board. Section 3. Nominations and Elections (page 9 of the proposal) Two key concerns lacking clarity:

• Regarding the “number of … positions to be filled each year shall be determined … with input from the Nominating Committee”: Why is the Nominating Committee involved in determining the number of At-Large positions to fill? The main purpose of the Nominating Committee is to identify candidates. This Committee shouldn’t have the power to influence the number of At-Large positions to fill.
• Regarding the imposed 10% threshold for additional nominees to join a ballot: This is a radical change from the current Bylaws in requiring that a candidate not nominated by the Nominating Committee be required to submit a “petition signed by at least 10% of members of the Society.” The 10% threshold (equating to approximately 700 members signing a petition) is an insurmountable hurdle for a nominee, especially because the average total membership voting turnout for a general election is approximately 15%. Our current Bylaws state that a member has a right to hold office and allows for nomination by Sections / Branches and self-nomination with only 10 supporting signatures. Transitioning to requiring 700 supporting signatures is truly a draconian attempt to suppress additional nominees on a ballot and infringes on member rights. How did the Task Forces arrive at this threshold? Or did they?

Article IV. Governing Board. Section 5. Meetings and Executive Committee (page 10 of the proposal)

• Regarding removal of At-Large members from the Executive Committee: In removing At-Large members, the composition of the Executive Committee will only be elected officers. The consolidation of power is evident here because elected officers rely on the Executive Director for management of Society business and headquarters staff.
• Regarding removal of “for emergency actions”: The original language serves as a gatekeeper for the Executive Committee to only act and conduct business on “emergency actions” on behalf of the Board, not in lieu of the Board. Removal of this language is an attempt to consolidate power into the Executive Committee without input from the remainder of the Board.
• I doubt these removals were suggestions from any of the Task Forces, but I cannot confirm because the President refused to provide the written reports.

Article X. Committees. Section 6. Advisory Council (page 15 of the proposal)

• Regarding creation and role: While pitched as a mechanism to have constituent representation involved in governance, this Council doesn’t have any decision-making power. Advice or counsel may be provided to the Board, but the Board doesn’t have any obligation or requirement to act on topic(s) that the Council presents on behalf of a member. Additionally, the proposed language fails to provide clarity regarding the processes to be used in Council business (i.e., “rules … are intentionally light”); basically, “trust us on this.” At best, this Council is designed to placate individuals contending that a smaller Board would disenfranchise or diminish the voices and concerns of constituent groups.

What Happens If the Proposed Motion to Amend the Bylaws Fails?

Simply, the existing representative structure remains. ESA is currently a successful professional society facing multiple challenges including publications, meetings, and anti-science trends in society and government. However, there is room for improvement, and the following considerations are offered to improve governance processes, accountability, and Society viability:

1. Enhance transparency to support trust and informed governance. As a tax-exempt organization, members should have access to all reports, including financial data and task force reports—especially so for members of the Governing Board. For example, current policies—implemented by the Executive Director and “Presidential Line” (i.e., individuals elected to serve as Vice President-Elect, and advancing through Vice President, President, and Past President)—have prohibited the Governing Board from knowing the executive compensation packages and other essential fiduciary information. Also problematic is that the Governing Board SOPs are purposely withheld from members, The lack of transparency and resulting mistrust must be corrected to retain membership and for ESA to remain a viable nonprofit organization. Broadening transparency in these areas should help reduce confusion, support shared understanding, and strengthen trust between leadership, staff, and members.

2. Reinforce the Board’s role in setting organizational direction. Major initiatives such as the Governance Upgrade and Branch Evolution Project were brought to the Board by the Executive Director—not via motion by the Board or Members. The Governing Board should set the direction, consistent with member-driven priorities, and delegate execution to staff. Improving alignment between the Board’s strategic responsibilities and staff implementation should help ensure that major initiatives reflect the priorities of the Society’s membership and elected leadership.

3. Clarify authority roles relative to the Bylaws. The Bylaws dictate that the Board (composed of elected Representatives and officers) is the sole fiduciary authority. However, the Presidential Line and Executive Director have empowered themselves to conduct business while purposely excluding the remainder of the Board (e.g., see bullet 1 above). The Bylaws do not recognize (or empower) the Presidential Line to conduct business and further state that the Executive Committee should only meet and conduct business for “emergency action.” The Board should have full authority to review and conduct all Society business, with the Executive Committee only meeting for emergency actions, per Bylaws.

4. Support Representatives in fulfilling their communication role. Representatives should be able to speak directly with their constituents and other members regarding Society issues. Yet, the Executive Director has issued edicts prohibiting Representatives from speaking publicly regarding their personal position on Society issues—the so-called “One Voice” concept that Board members are not free to voice dissenting views—and has redefined the role of the Representatives (i.e., dictating that Representatives no longer represent the constituents that elected them to office). Suppressing Representatives’ voices runs counter to our Bylaws and infringes on members’ rights.

5. Maintain focus on the Society’s scientific mission. Bylaws indicate that ESA is a scientific organization open to all interested in entomology. We must take care with actions within the political arena and respect that our diverse members have differing views about many issues, including those more specifically associated with entomology, such as pesticide use. Be especially careful about involvement with clearly partisan issues or with making awards to specific legislators. We should refocus our efforts on science and reduce any efforts not consistent with our nonprofit status as a professional society supporting entomology.

6. Evaluate opportunities for fiscal efficiency. The “Upgrade” seeks to reduce the size of the Governing Board, citing budget concerns. However, ESA headquarters staff and other ESA employees’ compensation accounted for 48% of the Society’s $7.4 million in expenses during 2024 (increasing from previous years). With such numbers, does it make sense to reduce volunteers rather than paid headquarters staff and other employees to improve fiscal accountability and continued viability of our Society?

In summary, my hope is that each member reflects on the concerns highlighted here and on the above six areas of consideration to ask whether a reduced Governing Board—equating to fewer eyes monitoring transparency and accountability—is in our best interest. I’ve spoken with multiple members seeing a need for changes in transparency and accountability in our Society. I believe that the current proposed “Governance Upgrade” is actually a Governance Downgrade that reduces the fundamental representation of members in the governance and operation of our Society. Please vote against the proposed amendments to our Bylaws.

Jesus F. Esquivel, Ph.D., is a past representative of the Southwestern Branch to the ESA Governing Board (2018-2024) and past chair of the ESA Committee on Ethics and Rules (2020). Email: [email protected].