Talkboard is considering Term Limits - seeking your input
 

This was post # 127 in the 'one more thing - term limits' thread. That thread discussed the concept generically, went off-topic re: mods, & then further went off-topic when the TB Prez election verbiage was added to it.

So, since the topic is being discussed/considered in TB & we ARE looking for FTers input, I am starting this thread as a stand-alone with the verbiage being considered included.

As noted in the other thread, this isn't a motion yet, but it is being discussed, and no idea if it will pass or not. But I think that anything that's up for a possible vote by TB deserves its own thread, and as mentioned the other one was both unweildy (sp?) & had gotten off-topic.

"The TalkBoard recommends modifying the TalkBoard guidelines as follows:

Add a new paragraph 3.B.i.e.
e. TalkBoard members who are subject to the term limit defined in Section 3.D.i shall be ineligible to be candidates in the current year.

Revise paragraph 3.D.i
i. TalkBoard Member: The term of a TalkBoard member shall be two (2) years. Five TalkBoard members shall be elected during odd numbered years and four TalkBoard members shall be elected during even numbered years. Term Limit: A FlyerTalk member is ineligible to be a candidate in the current TalkBoard election if by the end of the election period the member will have served on the TalkBoard more than three years out of the preceding four-year period. "

We're basically eliminating this part which currently exists: "There is no limit to the consecutive or cumulative number of terms to which a member may be re-elected." (I don't know how to do the strikeover of text, which shows what is being deleted; sorry. Someone can PM me if they know how & I'll change it). And adding the part that is italized above.

As koko said in post #128 in the other thread:

"As one of the TB members who helped draft this amendment, let me say that here is what I think it does:

- 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.

In the spirit of consistent, collaborative input (), comments on and analysis of the wording of the proposed motion (as well as the relative merit of the intention, of course!) is greatly appreciated!!!"

Cheers.

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"

Cheers.

I am opposed to term limits for the simple reason that this is an issue which the voters can decide.

Exactly.

+1

I would simply point out that incumbency has inherent advantages.

And asking a volunteer to take a year's break after four years so they can see the board for the perspective of a 'regular' poster is a good thing. And no great burden on either them nor the TB.

I believe that I was the first proponent of term limits and the first person I applied it to was myself. When I was running for my second term I said that I would never seek a third one.

I ran for TB because I felt that certain changes needed to be made. IMHO, that is the only valid reason to seek to be on it.

If someone can accomplish what he wants to do in two terms, he has no need to seek a third one. If he can't accomplish it in two terms, there is no reason to believe he will be any more successful in a third, fourth, or fifth term. He should therefore step aside and let someone else have a crack at getting these changes made.

Another vote for this.

Absolutely. Let the voters choose incumbents or not as they see fit. End of.

Agree and is one reason I support TB term limits.

Continuity is important.. Passing of the torch, where you don't have to get every single member up to speed is important..

Its alot more work to get members up to speed if rotation is required, even if its a 4 year limit.. Let the voters decide..

Either 4/9 or 5/9 already is at some sort of speed. Or more, if some of them aren't termed out and are re-elected.

New blood is good. Old blood needs oxygen from time to time, otherwise it is blue and doesn't feed the brain well.

I note some of the crustiest, oldest, and most dedicated FT members are in support of this.

"I note some of the crustiest, oldest, and most dedicated FT members are in support of this."
:eek:

Strongly in favor of term limits.

I said that with love :) - I guess the tone didn't come through on this antiquated platform :p

+1 to that. Do a max of two terms (either back to back or with a break in between) then move on. This is a BBS where people discuss first world problems after all...

Strongly agree.

For those of you who just want to listen to the voters, maybe you support a FT forum wide poll?

Thats a great idea on many subjects@:-)

I'm in favor of term limits, as it gives more people an opportunity to volunteer and also it gives people a break from serving, and gives them a chance to relax and enjoy being a regular member.

The currently suggested motion allows for previous TB members to run again, after taking a year off, so it's not limiting them to 4 years and that's it. It's simply giving them a vacation for at least a year.

i before e, except after c ;)

As for the topic, I lean towards supporting term limits. There were a lot of members who ran for TB, and mostly former TB members were elected. Terms limits allows for some new blood, never a bad thing...

I didn't realize TBers took a break from being a regular remember or weren't able to relax during their tenure. ;)

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

As I think someone else said on another thread, no longer having to log-in and check a specific forum was a change for them.

Huh? I fail to see any relevance 1984 has on the quote, or even on this topic in general.

Drawing an inference from one datapoint is a poor foundation for policy.

Just responding to some of the doublespeak posted thus far.

As I said in the other thread, I am not a fan of term limits.... I trust the voters.

HOWEVER, if term limits are going to be instituted to get "fresh blood", then it should be that no member can serve more than two full two-year terms EVER. None of this take a year olff and you can come back on.

I would also say it should apply to current members as well... and should not be grandfathered in. If you will have served two terms at the end of your current term, you are ineligible to stand for election again.

Either do not do it... or do it all the way.

I would be more than happy to vote for 2 terms and never again. I will do my absolute best as a TB member, but I have no problem going back to being a general member after a while. However, I'm doubt that has a snowball's chance in you-know-where of passing.

In addition to the generic list Sharon quotes above, I’m trying to work on a pros and cons list specific to this issue as it relates to FT, since that’s how my mind tends to work.

I’ve combed the threads and here is what I have come up with.

Anything missing on either side?


Pros of term limits as proposed:

Overcomes inherent incumbent advantage, ensuring new blood and fresh ideas in each TB seat every four years at the most.

Motivates TB members to be active rather than passive stewards of FT as their time to serve is limited.

Prevents a permanent class of TB members from emerging/prevents posters from using long-term service on TB as a CV-builder for their travel blogs, services or other for-profit ventures.

Ensures that TB members spend at least one year out of five experiencing FT from the perspective of a poster rather than a TB member/poster.

Ensures that no weirdo masochists use prolonged service on the TB to get their sick jollies. ;)



Cons of term limits as proposed:

Limits the ability of a poster to vote for their favorite successful candidate to be on the TB three times in a row.

Would require even incredibly effective, popular TB members to take a year off every four years.

On the flip side, potentially does not go far enough by allowing a TB veteran to run again after taking a year off.

Wow.. 2 terms in a row and never again..

I guess if TB really wants new blood, this is the way to do it..:)

^^^^^^^^^^^

(And I add my amen to Eastbay1K's comment with love and respect to a few members of the current TalkBoard who I consider good friends.)

Who's to say the fresh blood can't reach out to the crustiest, oldest, and most dedicated former TB members for advice and counsel?

They can try, but sometimes when you try and take the crust off, you just find more crust underneath. :o

And doing an excellent job of it:

Voters are typically going to vote for people that are already elected or posters that have been on the boards for a long period of time with high post counts

Strongly in favour of term limits.

You need fresh ideas and new input from a variety of posters.

How many of the current Talk Board members have held office for two or more terms? Is it more than one?

In favor of term limits. The proposal seems like a decent number (4 years on, must take 1 off)

We've never had a shortage of candidates to run for TB election. You can't convince me that name recognition doesn't have a major effect on the results.

Thus why I believe no one should serve more than two terms total... taking one year off will not stop them from getting re-elected. So you would probably have someone serving 8 out of 9 years... not much of a term limit... :)

Here are election results in a nutshell:

2006 - techgirl, Spiff, Jenbel, bhatnasx
2007 - gleff, Cholula, lucky9876coins, Punki, kokonutz
2008 - Spiff, bhatnasx, skywalkerLAX, nsx
2009 - gleff (replaced by UA_Flyer), lucky9876coins, Markie, B747-437B, Radioman (replaced by jackal)
2010 - Spiff, Cholula, SkiAdcock, bhatnasx
2011 - goalie, kokonutz, nsx, jackal, RichMSN

I couldn't find anything concrete as to who was elected in years prior to 2006 or if anyone prior to the 2009 election was replaced by another member, but perhaps someone else could shed some light on those.

So interestingly enough, all of this year's "winners" would have been eligible if the rule was "two terms on, one year off", and the only ones who would not have been eligible to run again would have been gleff and lucky9876coins if they were to attempt to run. I think the rest of the data speaks for itself.

Here's one more take - term limits are pretty useless, IMO. Some countries have had term limits for decades - doesn't materially make a difference to the voters; some states have put term limits in place - it merely changes the game, and eliminates people who are invested in the long urn or have contributions to make because of longtime experience.

The people elected are more important than term limits, but the idea of term limits is great window dressing - but that's all it is.

The first TB formed in 2001. Randy appointed three members (Dorian, Punki and spvii), six were elected (Cigarman for sure.) Randy suspended campaigning/voting for some length of time -- a week maybe? -- due to events on 9/11. A number of resignation were tendered within a few months of the election and wharvey, Spiff and hfly were appointed as replacements. The rest of the story you'll have to dig for yourself. :)