Motion Passed: Amend Talkboard Guidelines - Term Limits
Dec 14, 2011, 3:52 pm
#16
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,607
Dec 14, 2011, 5:59 pm
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
Why such complicated language? Why not simply say that 'No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms?'
Dec 14, 2011, 6:36 pm
#18
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,607
Here's how I put it in another thread that may be more clear:
- In most instances makes someone who has served two consecutive terms (4 years) on the TB take at least a year off before running again.
- In the instance of a replacement TB member, allows him or her to be elected 2 times after the appointment if he or she is appointed after the first year of the term of the person he or she is replacing. If he or she serves over one year of the term of the person he or she is replacing, he or she may only run one more time after serving out the over-one-year term before taking at least a year off.
I think this achieves those goals in a simple, straightforward way.
Dec 14, 2011, 7:25 pm
#19
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Tokyo, Japan (or Vienna whenever possible)
Posts: 6,379
While it is true others could be nominated, it is not as simple as saying it can be done.
Look at voter turnout, look at the people running. Those two things are perhaps best described as woefully low and very limited in choice, respectively. I know several of the people that ran and that were elected. Some for more than a decade. That aside, there is an absolute lack of positive encouragement to get general membership to stand for the positions. If the TalkBoard positions were as widely advertised as the various “Reporter seeking such and such type of traveler” stickies, I believe we would have a much broader base of voters and a more differentiated list of candidates. Which is in my opinion a good goal for a board of this size.
I would support this motion because it is my belief that fresh blood (or more specifically an artificial replacement of previous position holders) is going to lead to FT needing to be more proactive in engaging membership for the roles being vacated. This would be an altogether good thing. Imagine representation by variety of interested parties over time and the diverse conversations and positions that would be represented. Heck it might even resemble what the American government was designed to be way back when.
Mike
Dec 14, 2011, 7:52 pm
#20
Ambassador, New England
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maineiac, USA
Programs: Amtrak, WN RR, Choice
Posts: 2,655
If the TalkBoard positions were as widely advertised as the various “Reporter seeking such and such type of traveler” stickies, I believe we would have a much broader base of voters and a more differentiated list of candidates. Which is in my opinion a good goal for a board of this size.
Dec 14, 2011, 8:03 pm
#21
Join Date: Sep 2010
Programs: HHonors Diamond; My Mom's Favorite Kid
Posts: 3,929
I think that all in all it's a fine idea. I don't love the idea of someone being on TB for years on end but I also wonder how often that happens.
But I also think we the voters should be allowed to vote for the people we think will represent us the best.
I guess in the end I'm happy with either outcome.
But I also think we the voters should be allowed to vote for the people we think will represent us the best.
I guess in the end I'm happy with either outcome.
Dec 14, 2011, 8:08 pm
#22
Flyertalk Evangelist and Moderator: Coupon Connection and Travel Products
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milton, GA USA
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum Elite, Hyatt Discoverist, Radisson Elite
Posts: 19,040
I have said that I trust the voters... so hope this does not pass.
But again, this is not true term limits. If you are going to do it, no more than two full terms... that is all you need to say. No, take a year off... and then get voted back on the island.
Also, does this apply to current members?
But again, this is not true term limits. If you are going to do it, no more than two full terms... that is all you need to say. No, take a year off... and then get voted back on the island.
Also, does this apply to current members?
Dec 14, 2011, 8:09 pm
#23
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Yup ^
Yup (and kudos for the thorough analysis [which (imho) others should read before passing judgement]
Yup to the first part but as to D.C. they never eat their young 
Bolding mine: Yes, when they are termed out
I agree with the simplicity but you'd have to take into account as noted by kokonutz, you have to take into account a TB member leaving office in mid term tho to add to your proposal, "No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms and if they choose to run for an additional term, they must sit out one full term before running again"
My reasons for support of term limits:
I belong to some professional associations that have a term limit of X amount of terms followed by Y time off before being able to run again at Z time. It's designed to have talented people who are familiar w/ the org serve & use their wisdom to better the organization, but not end up w/ 'career' board members or 'cartels' (cartel isn't the right word, but I think you know what I mean) & also provide a break to those who serve so that they don't burn out. And it's worked quite well.
And as posted by koko in the other thread & which I agree with:
By: BoardSource
Many boards find that setting term limits can be beneficial.
Advantages of a term limit policy:
•The board has the possibility of working with active community members who can devote only a few years to board service.
•Bringing diversity onto the board is easier.
•The board has a built-in balance of continuity and turnover.
•Passive, ineffective, or troublesome board members can be more easily rotated off.
•Board members experience a better rotation of committee assignments.
•A regular infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives is brought onto the board.
•The board gains a regular awareness and pays attention to the changing group dynamics.
•Limits present an opportunity for the board and the retiring board member to reassess a mutual willingness to continue working together with the possibility of enlarging the circle of committed supporters by keeping retired board members involved.
Disadvantages of term limits:
The downside to having terms limits can mean:
•the loss of expertise and organizational memory;
•the board spends more time dedicated to recruitment and orientation; and
•additional efforts are needed to keep the group cohesive.
Disadvantages of not having term limits
Boards without a term limit policy can experience:
•stagnation if no change occurs among the board members;
•perpetual concentration of power within a small group;
•intimidation of the occasional new member;
•tiredness, boredom, and loss of commitment by the board; and
•loss of connection to the constituency due to a change in demographics or environmental factors"
In addition I haven't seen one person post in either of the two threads that exist on this topic why taking a single year off every 2 terms is a bad thing & will harm FT.
Cheers.
I belong to some professional associations that have a term limit of X amount of terms followed by Y time off before being able to run again at Z time. It's designed to have talented people who are familiar w/ the org serve & use their wisdom to better the organization, but not end up w/ 'career' board members or 'cartels' (cartel isn't the right word, but I think you know what I mean) & also provide a break to those who serve so that they don't burn out. And it's worked quite well.
And as posted by koko in the other thread & which I agree with:
By: BoardSource
Many boards find that setting term limits can be beneficial.
Advantages of a term limit policy:
•The board has the possibility of working with active community members who can devote only a few years to board service.
•Bringing diversity onto the board is easier.
•The board has a built-in balance of continuity and turnover.
•Passive, ineffective, or troublesome board members can be more easily rotated off.
•Board members experience a better rotation of committee assignments.
•A regular infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives is brought onto the board.
•The board gains a regular awareness and pays attention to the changing group dynamics.
•Limits present an opportunity for the board and the retiring board member to reassess a mutual willingness to continue working together with the possibility of enlarging the circle of committed supporters by keeping retired board members involved.
Disadvantages of term limits:
The downside to having terms limits can mean:
•the loss of expertise and organizational memory;
•the board spends more time dedicated to recruitment and orientation; and
•additional efforts are needed to keep the group cohesive.
Disadvantages of not having term limits
Boards without a term limit policy can experience:
•stagnation if no change occurs among the board members;
•perpetual concentration of power within a small group;
•intimidation of the occasional new member;
•tiredness, boredom, and loss of commitment by the board; and
•loss of connection to the constituency due to a change in demographics or environmental factors"
In addition I haven't seen one person post in either of the two threads that exist on this topic why taking a single year off every 2 terms is a bad thing & will harm FT.
Cheers.
Here's why that doesn't work: it prevents new people who might do a better job from getting a shot at the position. I've seen this happen first hand in another organization. A lack of term limits also eventually leads to stagnation and lack of new ideas. Having term limits forces the incumbents to help discover new people to learn the ropes so they can be good at the job if they're elected.
Term limits and the turnover they force are good things. Now, if we could just get D.C. to realize this...
Term limits and the turnover they force are good things. Now, if we could just get D.C. to realize this...
Do incumbents ever actually get beaten?
I know there is turnover when TB members quit, retire or get banned for life. I can't think of one example where an incumbent running for re-election has ever been defeated.
In any case, in my capacity of a TalkBoard member, I voted FOR this proposal in the private TB forum today for all of the well-made and meritorious arguments in favor of it. So with my decision taken I will leave it to others to research the actual incumbency metrics if they think it might sway an opinion of a TB member.
I know there is turnover when TB members quit, retire or get banned for life. I can't think of one example where an incumbent running for re-election has ever been defeated.
In any case, in my capacity of a TalkBoard member, I voted FOR this proposal in the private TB forum today for all of the well-made and meritorious arguments in favor of it. So with my decision taken I will leave it to others to research the actual incumbency metrics if they think it might sway an opinion of a TB member.
I agree with the simplicity but you'd have to take into account as noted by kokonutz, you have to take into account a TB member leaving office in mid term tho to add to your proposal, "No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms and if they choose to run for an additional term, they must sit out one full term before running again"
Dec 14, 2011, 11:04 pm
#24
Moderator: Hyatt Gold Passport & Star Alliance
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London, UK
Programs: UA-1K 3MM/HY- LT Globalist/BA-GGL/GfL
Posts: 12,089
I too, hope TB will support this change. It's more an matter of removing people who think 'everything is wonderful in FT and we don't need any change' who tend to be the longest serving members of TB.
Dec 15, 2011, 12:30 am
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: check swarm
Programs: DL DM & 2MM, SPG/Bonvoid LT Titanium, Hyatt Globalist, $tarbucks Titanium
Posts: 14,404
If this was a 1-person or a 3-person board of advisors, then I'd be more apt to push for term limits. But this is a 9-person board with 4 or 5 members being replaced every year. In my several years on FlyerTalk, I don't believe that there's been a single year where there wasn't some TalkBoard member turnover.
Dec 15, 2011, 12:30 am
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: check swarm
Programs: DL DM & 2MM, SPG/Bonvoid LT Titanium, Hyatt Globalist, $tarbucks Titanium
Posts: 14,404
Dec 15, 2011, 2:01 am
#27
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,622
I did, in November 2010. I fell 2 spots short of the cut. Members from quiet corners of FT have a hard time getting votes for TalkBoard.
Just 2 months later, the resignation of two members put me back on the TalkBoard to fill the last 10 months of a term. At that point I knew I had only 10 months on TalkBoard before probably losing another re-election bid.
Those 10 months were more productive than my prior 2-year term. Without the deadline, if I had been re-elected in November 2010, things would have gone differently. I know myself well enough to realize that I would have been slower at everything. Also, I would probably not have pressed the Abstain revision in the absence of a solid count of support. I learned from that experience that calling a vote increases the chance that people will carefully re-think the issue.
As I said in the other thread, we all have deadlines at work. That's because deadlines make us all more effective. A 4-year deadline is better than no deadline at all. The current proposal could cost us 20% of the service time of the best TB members. My experience this year tells me that 4 years with the term limit deadline will be more effective than 5 years without any deadline.
As it happened, I won my re-election bid last month. Maybe it was the low turnout. Whatever the reason, I was surprised. I then term-limited myself out of the VP slot, and I was thrilled that the person I thought deserved the position was approved unanimously.
Of course. What do you think we are, sneaky politicians or something?
We tried to anticipate and prevent any tactics to game the term limits. FTers are experts at finding and exploiting loopholes.
If approved, this proposal will disqualify me from running again in 2013 because my break in service was only 2 months. That's OK, because I work very well under a deadline. @:-)
Just 2 months later, the resignation of two members put me back on the TalkBoard to fill the last 10 months of a term. At that point I knew I had only 10 months on TalkBoard before probably losing another re-election bid.
Those 10 months were more productive than my prior 2-year term. Without the deadline, if I had been re-elected in November 2010, things would have gone differently. I know myself well enough to realize that I would have been slower at everything. Also, I would probably not have pressed the Abstain revision in the absence of a solid count of support. I learned from that experience that calling a vote increases the chance that people will carefully re-think the issue.
As I said in the other thread, we all have deadlines at work. That's because deadlines make us all more effective. A 4-year deadline is better than no deadline at all. The current proposal could cost us 20% of the service time of the best TB members. My experience this year tells me that 4 years with the term limit deadline will be more effective than 5 years without any deadline.
As it happened, I won my re-election bid last month. Maybe it was the low turnout.
Whatever the reason, I was surprised. I then term-limited myself out of the VP slot, and I was thrilled that the person I thought deserved the position was approved unanimously. Of course. What do you think we are, sneaky politicians or something?
We tried to anticipate and prevent any tactics to game the term limits. FTers are experts at finding and exploiting loopholes.
If approved, this proposal will disqualify me from running again in 2013 because my break in service was only 2 months. That's OK, because I work very well under a deadline. @:-)
Dec 15, 2011, 2:21 am
#28
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Upcountry Maui, HI
Posts: 13,308
I completely support term limits. I think it's a good idea and we have to reach out to develop new talent when needed, find new people that share our community vision and are passionate about it.
Don't worry, for some of you it won't be an end to your career, just a brief pause in between terms.
Thanks to all the current board members that are supporting this.
-David
Dec 15, 2011, 6:28 am
#29
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Denver, CO USA
Programs: UA-Gold, 1MM, Marriott Gold, Global Entry
Posts: 1,086
Are there term limits for moderators?
Yes for term limits when there are term limits for moderators. Until then, NO.
Yes for term limits when there are term limits for moderators. Until then, NO.
Dec 15, 2011, 6:58 am
#30
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SEA/ORD/ADB
Programs: TK ELPL (*G), AS 100K (OWE), BA Gold (OWE), Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat
Posts: 7,763