BLI 25: Board Reform Without Revolt

Asking someone to give up a seat at the leadership table is never easy, but the 2025 ABA Bar Leadership Institute highlighted two bar associations that successfully restructured their boards without triggering backlash from their members. Emma Garrison, former president of the Colorado Women’s Bar Association (CWBA), and George Brown, a current principal at GCBrown Associates and the retired executive director of the State Bar of Wisconsin shared their experiences of leading board restructuring initiatives during the “Building Higher-Performing and Strategic Boards” session at the 2025 ABA Bar Leadership institute. Garrison led the CWBA initiative during her time in leadership, while Brown worked as a consultant on the Arkansas Bar Association’s governance restructure.  

In a climate that requires smart and strategic decision-making, an oversized board can be a major impediment to getting things done. Planning and running board meetings for large groups can drain an organization’s finances and staff time, especially if it is difficult to establish a quorum.

Garrison and Brown shared their stories of how the CWBA and the Arkansas Bar Association came to realize they had an issue, how they solved it, and what advice they had for others trying to undertake this process. 

Big Boards Just Get Bigger

When the CWBA incorporated in 1978, it started with a small working board. For most of its existence, the CWBA only had one paid staff member, so most of the organization’s work was done via committees. “Each committee had a chair, and each chair was a member of the board,” said Garrison. As the committees took on more work and added two or even three co-chairs, the size of the board expanded along with it. And as the organization grew, Garrison said it made sense to include representatives from around the state and the state’s affinity bars. At its peak, the board size hovered around 45 to 50 people. “Usually when I share that to people who are familiar with nonprofits, their jaws drop,” said Garrison, who joined the board in 2016. While concerns about the practicality of the size of their board were brought up occasionally, there was little urgency to make a change.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the CWBA brought in a consultant to do a life-cycle analysis of the organization.  As part of the process, the organization’s leadership began to discuss how to ensure organizational sustainability. “We needed to create some structure and system around strategic long-term thinking, rather than just the short term, what event do we have next week, and so forth,” said Garrison. The consultant asked how the organization could shift that mindset. Garrison recalled the group’s consensus, “Everyone in this resigned way was like ‘board structure.’”  

Shortly afterwards, Garrison found out that she was going to be the next president-elect of the organization, and she decided to take on the challenge of leading the board restructuring process. She got to work convening a working group and hiring consultants from the ABA Center for Bar Leadership and Elizabeth Derrico & Associates to help ascertain what a more nimble and strategic structure could look like. After interviewing stakeholders, the consultants identified two main challenges to reducing its size: maintaining a sense of belonging among leadership and ensuring a workable board structure.

After extensive interviews with key stakeholders and focus groups, the board approved board reform recommendations based on recommendations from the Center for Bar Leadership. Most notably, the report recommended a 12-person board, but also the creation of an advisory council, where section co-chairs and affiliate chapter representatives would sit. The board approved the new structure in spring of 2025. 

Voting Yourself out of a Job

Much like the CWBA, the Arkansas Bar Association was also running into problems with its relatively large governing bodies. The 5,000-member bar was encountering logistical and engagement issues with its 80-member house of delegates and 27-member board of governors. Leadership observed a decline in active participation in both bodies, making it difficult to reach a quorum and conduct official business. And due to the unpredictability of meetings, both bodies struggled to maintain momentum. “Instead of it taking two meetings to get something done, it would take two years, sometimes three years,” said Brown. 

In March of 2018, the bar retained Brown’s consulting firm to help improve the governance structure. After interviewing stakeholders, including members, staff, and association leaders, they recommended convening a task force to help find solutions. After months of meetings, the 25-member Strategic Governance Task Force, made up members from a variety of backgrounds, locations, practice areas, and career experience, recommended that the house and the board merge into one 60-member body. 

In order for the proposal to be approved, it needed to be voted on by both bodies and then the membership. Knowing the contentiousness of the process, Brown emphasized maintaining an open process. “We had a series of very open meetings. Everybody was invited to come. We sent out surveys. We did a lot of things to make this a very transparent process,” said Brown. After receiving approval from both the Board of Governors and the House of Delegates, the proposal was passed by the membership with more than 90% support.

Even though the whole process took two and a half years, taking on restructuring in a thoughtful manner can make the process easier, “We had several people on the group who were initially were very opposed to this, largely for their own personal agendas,” said Brown “But we were able to bring them around as well.”  

Tips for Making this Happen

Both Garrison and Brown offered up advice to make sure a governance restructuring process remains productive and focused on strengthening the organization. 

First, make sure you have an experienced and visible group leading the process. Garrison convened a working group with both current and past board members. The Arkansas group included three former presidents, as well as representatives who weren’t from the state’s largest cities. 

Second, maintaining clear communication with members throughout the process is imperative. Garrison blogged about the process in real time to keep members informed, “I didn’t wait until everything was wrapped up in a neat little package with a tiny bow.” Arkansas leaders published numerous articles in the bar’s magazine. Both organizations held town hall meetings to discuss the changes. Getting the leaders out in front of members is very important, “[Members] realize that this isn’t just a front, it isn’t just a cabal who’s already planned all this. They get an opportunity to engage,” said Brown.

Lastly, both recommended bringing in a variety of voices to the room. Along with consultants from the ABA Center for Bar Leadership and Elizabeth Derrico & Associates, the group scheduled interviews with former leaders. “People felt like they were being brought along in the process,” said Garrison. 

Brown was even more specific on who should be included in the process, “You have to include the naysayers.”  This helped the team identify problems before they came before the members, and it also helped sharpen their own arguments for why this needed to be done.