21st-Century ACS Governance

The report of the ACS Governance Review Task Force was very disappointing (C&EN, June 25, page 53).

Why is ACS still worrying about what credentials a prospective member needs? Why not simply accept any graduate with a B.S. or equivalent who subscribes to the goals of the society and agrees to support them? It's a professional society, not an honorary or license-granting body, and membership does not convey certification of professional competence or personal rectitude. I looked at what is needed to join the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Physical Society, the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, and the Materials Research Society, all comparable respected professional groups. The most onerous requirement is a degree in one of the many fields supported by IEEE. The others simply don't care. Have they been harmed as a result? Enough has been invested in this issue. Stop agonizing and just do it.

The task force feared to face the elephant in the living room and declined to change the size of the ACS Council "to avoid diminishing opportunities for members to volunteer productively." Is that the best argument they have? The council is as big as the U.S. House of Representatives, which represents 300 million people! How can such a large body not be unwieldy and unnecessarily expensive (meeting attendance subsidies)? A few years ago, the Royal Society of Chemistry downsized its governing body from 90 to 18. Scaling for population would give ACS about 100 councilors. Why not downsize and have sections represented according to population?

I am not so naïve as to expect that it will be easy to get councilors to vote themselves out of a job. So make them emeritus or grandfather them in some other way. Term limits are not enough. We live in a complex world; ACS must be more efficient and nimble. It's time to face reality and move into the 21st century.

Edwin A. Chandross
Murray Hill, N.J.