|
Originally Posted by bhatnasx
(Post 17627851)
No idea - but that doesn't matter to me as the people that serve are the people that the members selected. ;)
|
Why such complicated language? Why not simply say that 'No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms?'
|
Originally Posted by DeaconFlyer
(Post 17628505)
Why such complicated language? Why not simply say that 'No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms?'
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. |
Originally Posted by bhatnasx
(Post 17627851)
No idea - but that doesn't matter to me as the people that serve are the people that the members selected. ;)
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 |
Originally Posted by mjm
(Post 17628931)
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 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. |
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? |
Originally Posted by Mary2e
(Post 17625815)
I support this proposal ^^
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
(Post 17626062)
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
(Post 17627431)
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
(Post 17627825)
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
(Post 17628505)
Why such complicated language? Why not simply say that 'No member shall be elected for more than 2 consecutive terms?'
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by It'sHip2B^2
(Post 17629146)
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.
Originally Posted by bhatnasx
(Post 17627488)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Mary2e
(Post 17625815)
I support this proposal ^^
|
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 17627825)
Do incumbents ever actually get beaten?
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.
Originally Posted by wharvey
(Post 17629175)
Also, does this apply to current members?
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. @:-) |
Originally Posted by bhatnasx
(Post 17627851)
No idea - but that doesn't matter to me as the people that serve are the people that the members selected. ;)
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. :D Thanks to all the current board members that are supporting this. -David |
Are there term limits for moderators?
Yes for term limits when there are term limits for moderators. Until then, NO. |
Originally Posted by Pegasus23
(Post 17630999)
Are there term limits for moderators?
Yes for term limits when there are term limits for moderators. Until then, NO. We have to start somewhere... |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:15 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.