Structure and Governance Review

Highlights

Webcast on Proposed Structure Changes

Members of NACCHO's Structure and Governance Workgroup held a webcast on Wednesday, November 12 that covered the proposed organizational changes included in the workgroup's draft recommendations, which are below. The PowerPoint presentation is available here.

For more information on the workgroup, recommendations, or to give feedback, see below.

In the Spotlight

NACCHO Structure and Governance: Preliminary Recommendations Now Available for Member Review and Input

NACCHO’s governance structure was designed over 15 years ago when the National Association of County Health Officials and the U.S. Conference of Local Health Officials merged.

In the spirit of continuous quality improvement, President Bobby Pestronk created the Structure and Governance workgroup in September 2007, which was charged with reviewing the governance structure and recommending changes that would serve the membership more effectively.

The workgroup's preliminary recommendations are now available for your review and feedback. To download the report, please click here. Please use the form below to submit any comments. You can also e-mail your thoughts directly to structure@naccho.org.

COMMENTS
I do believe that NACCHO should work to be very efficient and effective and consider reorganizing as needed.The forums may not be needed. I would not create affinity groups as a replacement. There are multiple affinity groups where these needs could be met- APHA sections,APHA Special Interest Groups, NEHA etc. I am concerned that if we create a significant number of affinity groups we will lose the focus on leadership, administration and governance of local public health departments. It may serve to create silos within NACCHO.
I support the proposal and bylaws changes suggested. I agree that the focus of NACCHO needs to be on the leadership, administration and governance. In my mind, NACCHO is not meant to be primarily a "public health technology body", but how to support public health professionals to apply leadership principles and practices to public health. There are many other avenues to gain public health issue-specific ideas and guidance.
I support the proposal and bylaws changes that would allow for the creation of a council of SACCHOs and the appointment of an ex officio SACCHO representative to the board of directors.
I support the recommendations but wonder what resources will be devoted to the work of the council of past presidents in order to make its work relevant. Will funds be budgeted?
Regarding Recommendation III-B that requires one member of the Exec Committee to come from a jurisdiction serving less than 100,000 population, I offer that person should represent a population of less than 50,000. The reason is, if I recall correctly from past NACCHO survey results, approximately 65% of local health departments serve populations less than 50,000. I am in complete agreement with formation of an advisory panel of past NACCHO presidents. I also recommend allowance be made for retired Env Public Health practitioners who still have much to offer. They may have more time to volunteer, they are people seasoned in practice, and the aging workforce means there will be a lot of people qualified to serve in advisory roles such as on committees and workgroups. Because they simply are not employed in active service with a health department does not mean they have lost their desire to remain engaged and contribute.
The section about 10 at large board members is confusing as it states that the 4 population specific at large "may be provided by forums" but forums are being eliminated. Also seems to needlessly complicate the at large nomination process, how is one to know if it is better to go for the population slot or one of the 6 non-population slots? And, what is so important about those population levels to designate vs. everything in the middle? Not sure it is good to remove the membership from the selection of the 3 members of the Executive committee to be selected now by the board itself. Again, on Recommendation III-B, what is so critical about designatind representation for small and large but not sizes in the middle? III-C and D: Like these, there should be more opportunities to comment on policy and get information Past Presidents council: okay idea but how big should it be? And, better for history and mentoring vs. a special policy advisory role.
6 Records Returned