I'm divided on the issue, but ultimately will likely be voting against it. Here's why: I think both the current structure and the proposed new structure is problematic. I've always felt that the Executive Committee consists of too many people who are not directly elected by the members. This means that, should we elect both a President who tries to make misguided policy decisions and other officers who are either unaware of it, apathetic, lacking in courage, or (worst of all) in agreement, we could see an Executive Committee stacked with individuals who would essentially be "yes men" for the President. This proposed restructuring does nothing to address or mitigate this possibility. Indeed, with fewer positions to fill, and with potential managerial/department-head types filling those positions rather than people who are "hands-on" and passionate about the department they are overseeing, this potential for abuse becomes even more pronounced. I recognize that the size of the EC may be a bit unwieldy for the challenges ACE faces today, but I would be more comfortable with this plan if one of the two following modifications to it were made:
1. Make the six newly created/consolidated positions also directly elected by the membership, just like the President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer are;
or
2. Add two elected member-at-large positions to our Executive Committee. The sole duty of these members-at-large would be to represent the views of the membership directly on the EC and to report back to the membership on the EC's decisions. They would be our watchdogs making sure our EC is acting in our best interests. These two elected officials could also be delegated tasks, but they would have the right to refuse if they feel as though it would bias them in any way or get in the way of their primary duties to represent and report for the average ACE member. This would also make for a more balanced EC: six directly elected officials (President, VP, Secretary, Treasurer, two members-at-large) one indirectly elected official (Immediate Past President), and six appointees (Member Services Director, Communications Director, Publications Director, History and Preservation Director, Region Director, and Events Director).
Without either of these two ideas implemented, the restructuring proposal does not, in my view, adequately insulate us from the prospect of a misguided and power-hungry President in the future. Granted, I do not necessarily foresee this happening anytime soon, but (in my opinion) we had at least one such individual in ACE's past and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. For those reasons I must withhold my endorsement of the proposed revisions and modifications of Bylaws Two, Five, and Six.
