The proposed new model will ensure that candidates are selected based on the skills and experience needed by the Board for that year, rather than on popularity, visibility, or campaign effectiveness. Competitive elections:

• Require a time commitment that many busy professionals can’t accommodate
• Discourage senior leaders who are unwilling to participate in a competitive process
• Hinder participation from global members who are at a disadvantage
• Limit the pool of talent and the SOA’s ability to build the strongest Board, with the right set of skills and experience.

We hear from members that the current Board election process requires a great deal of time and research to make an informed decision. Around 40% of voting members spend less than 30 minutes researching candidates, and they don’t feel prepared to make an informed decision on candidates they don’t already know. By implementing a strong vetting process that aligns candidates with the skills and experience needs of the Board, members will have transparent, skills-based information about candidates that is easy to digest. This process also aligns with leading governance practices for not-for-profit organizations and corporations.

Yes. We will seek to limit candidate campaigning activities to ensure they are not as time-consuming as in the past. This approach will promote fairness and respect the time of both President-Elect candidates and voting members.

Under the proposed new model, candidates will be evaluated against a specific set of skills and experiences that are needed by the Board for that year. The top candidate for each open Board member seat will be presented to members for a “for/against” vote, creating a more transparent and skills-aligned process.

A majority “for” vote is required for a candidate to be elected to the Board. A majority vote means that more than 50% of the votes a candidate receives must be “for.” For example, if 100 members vote for a candidate, that candidate will need to receive 51 “for” votes to be elected.

No. The petition process for the SOA Board elections will not be relevant in the updated structure. Members can still self-nominate for a role on the Board, and they will be evaluated against the skills and experience needed by the Board for that year.

If a nominated candidate doesn’t meet the voting threshold, it is treated as a vacancy on the Board. The Bylaws provide options for when this occurs, including holding a special election or having the Board appoint someone to fill the vacancy until the next election.

Candidates outside the U.S. and Canada often struggle in competitive elections due to limited name recognition, fewer in-person networking opportunities, and time zone barriers that hinder visibility. In addition, many countries have restrictions on social media platforms and competitive elections are not as common in some markets, compounding these challenges. The proposed shift to a skills-based evaluation and “for/against” vote ensures candidates are selected based on their alignment with Board needs rather than campaign visibility.

Separating the roles will align strengths and experience with each position, resulting in more effective leadership. Past Presidents and Chairs (who held both roles) report spending 600-800 hours per year in the role, which is a significant time commitment for someone who is also working. Combining the roles of President and Chair overlooks the distinct skillsets needed for each position.

The President of the Board is the public representative of the SOA and will attend a variety of global and profession-wide events. Additionally, the President is a voting member of the Board of Directors. 

The Board Chair sets the Board agenda and leads and facilitates the Board meetings. The Chair helps lead strategy development and works with the SOA CEO to ensure smooth operations and corporate compliance. The Chair does not have independent authority to change SOA policy or operations.

The primary role of the Chair is to lead the Board. Therefore, Board members are in the best position to identify individuals who excel at facilitating discussions, presenting alternative points of view, and guiding the group toward effective decisions. This approach aligns with leading governance practices.