Originally Posted by Mary2e

I support this proposal ^^

Originally Posted by SkiAdcock

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.

Originally Posted by oh912flyer

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...

Originally Posted by kokonutz

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.

Originally Posted by DeaconFlyer

Why such complicated language? Why not simply say that 'No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms?'