Here is (most of) what I posted in the private TB forum this morning on the topic:


Sharon has posted the BoardSource pros and cons.

For a more narrative rather than bulleted analysis, have a look here: http://managementhelp.org/blogs/boar...board-members/

The point: "Now, simply put: When the Board Members of a Non-Profit Organization do not have specific term limits, and some-or-all of the same people continue to serve without limit, the Board, over time, is likely to become less representative of the community. There are three common reasons this happens:

(1) Boards get used to doing things their way;

(2) Board members only think important those things that they think are important; and,

(3) Their focus is on providing service to those to whom they provide service.

That was not intended to be cryptic. It is merely a way of saying that a board without term limits has no requirement, no major incentive, to re-examine, change or broaden their mission and/or their activities and services."



The conclusion: "Term limits are an essential ingredient in maintaining a Board’s vitality. Any Board that insists that term-limits are not necessary for them, for whatever reason, is acting on the basis of its own needs, and not out of consideration for the community they are supposed to be serving."

In the comments below the article is an idea for a 'board alumni' group. I actually think that's a really cool idea and maybe something we ought to think about on at least an informal basis.

Unfortunately, the train is gaining momentum and the lid is being unscrewed on talkboard. Blinders on...

Of the two groups that govern/control Flyertalk members, who are members, only one group has a structure for change, Talkboard. I am not aware of a structure to change moderators. Thus my objection in weakening Talkboard at this time. The place to begin is defining the checks and balances of the power between the two groups and the long term impact. [ domination of one group, verses dominion of both.] Term limits for both groups makes domination, or power building, much more unlikely in my opinion.

I would be curious to hear from Talkboard members on whether they believe allowing members to be relected after one year off is really going to change the dial?

People will come off at the same time... then possibly run again at the same time.

If you truly want to cultivate new blood, why not go all the way and do that?

As the global announcement pointing members to this proposal has been live for two days, what are our TB members thoughts on the response volume thus far? Surely if there is any acknowledgment of a problem with the current policy and a pressing demand for a fix, this thread would be abuzz with activity.

Since there is no overwhelming hue and cry in one direction or the other, I can rationalize poster participation in this thread either way:

as a sign of the apathy that term-limits (among other things) are trying to fix, which makes it really important to get this done
or
as an indication that most posters have no strong feelings on the matter so we should leave status quo in place.

Iow, where you stand depends on where you sit.

alternatives to term limits?
 

Although I favor the idea of encouraging turnover, I personally am not in favor of term limits (at least for a volunteer organization such as this). This is in part because I place a high value on experience and institutional memory, and in part because it can prevent me from voting for the person who I feel is best qualified.

Instead of excluding certain people based on the amount of time they served, what about a rule that required including one or more members who had never served? If I am remembering correctly, there are 4 or 5 members elected each year for 2-year terms. You could reserve one of those slots each year for someone who has never previously served on TalkBoard. So assuming the number open seats is 5 for the moment, the first four seats would go to the 4 individuals with the highest vote totals period (regardless of prior experience or lack thereof). The fifth seat would go to the individual receiving the most votes who has never previously served on TalkBoard This guarantees that at least one "rookie" joins the board each year (and maybe more, as a rookie might also be one of the top 4 vote getters). It also effectively guarantees that at least one person from the current TalkBoard will wind up rotating out. But voters, rather than term limits, will determine who that is.

Bolding & underlining mine.

I have also yet to see an argument that taking a single year off after 2 terms is bad for FT.

I've served on a # of BOD of professional assns. They've always had term limits in place similar to what we're recommending here, and it worked quite well.

I haven't decided if I'll run again when my term is up next year, but if I do & am re-elected, I would voluntarily self-term limit myself after that term (if this doesn't pass). I firmly believe that term limits are beneficial to an organization (and a IBB).

Re: serving & never serving again. As mentioned by someone else, that's a non-starter for some of the TB members so this was the compromise. It's a compromise that I still think will benefit FT.

Re: mod limits. This thread is not about moderators, but about TB term limits. Let's keep the focus on the actual motion. Thank you.

Re: why not more posts. I've never actually tracked # of posts to # of days on the public announcement on any of the many things we voted on this year. Shrug.

Re: other suggestions re: seating of TB members. Appreciate the input & something to think about & possibly consider in the future (someone PM'd me with a separate suggestion), but this thread is for the motion mentioned in post #1.

Cheers.

I don't believe that it will change much...but that said, I also don't support this motion.

***

As to other comments from my last post in this thread...

There is always a call for candidates and there is alway a something noted in TalkMail.

Are there better ways of communicating to FTers about this? Maybe...but at the same time, every year, there is a wide variety of members running for TalkBoard - some have been around for years & others are relative newbies with less than 6 months on the board & less than maybe 100 posts...so the word does get out.

In regards to viable candidates - anyone who wants to is allowed to run, there's very few regulation as to who can run as a TB member & all are given equal platforms and access to the candidate campaign question forum. Some are just more engaged than others.

I'm witnessing this in a volunteer organization first-hand. I'm one of the officers in my local club, and was close to resigning, due in part because of a situation with another officer, who has been a club member and officer for at least 20 years.

I met with the president of the club last evening, and mentioned to her that one of the big problems that many of the other officers have, and what has the potential to lead the club into some financial issues, stems from the treasurer. I also mentioned that I think the club needs to impose term limits to address some of the issues.

He's been treasurer for the past 5 years, and was an officer with the club for many years before that, including other stints as treasurer. He's a great guy, and is very knowledgeable about the club, how situations have been handled previously, etc. However, one of the big problems is that he is not very receptive to new ideas, ways to improve, or ways to change the club to better serve its members.

We're looking at having to either raise dues or cut our newsletter, which is pretty unique to our club. Our dues are rather high already, and this officer's wife takes care of our newsletter each month.

When we've discussed the subject of the newsletter, as it is our largest expense each month, we're usually told that the club has always had a great newsletter, it sets us apart from other clubs, and that the club is just fine without taking any action. To him, the newsletter is important to the club, while others place importance on not increasing dues.

As a fairly new member, I'm feeling much frustration, as are the other new members, because our ideas are minimized, if listened to at all, and as such, it serves to chase away new blood, and keep those who have "always done it this way," doing it that way, when there are other options out there that might be better.

Sorry, it is a bit confusing to figure out where to post, in light of the two threads going and the initial message above.

I think noone has said pressing demand. But if you are looking for opinions, heres mine. Term limits@:-)

When we repeatedly see qualified candidates, theres no recruitment issue, and reason not to have limits in that aspect.

Here's why:

Personally, I'd like to see it as one term (2 years) as opposed to one year

What actually do TalkBoard members do?
If I understand correctly, this is a private forum. This is not a governments where excessive length of time on the board could lead to corruption, abuse of power etc.
I think we need to understand better this forum's structure to make intelligent comments on that subject matter.