It is important that we have term limits for
board members so we can get fresh blood.
You need terms limits; otherwise how do you get
rid of poor board members.
Make sure you have staggered terms so everyone
does not leave at once.
And there
are other supposedly good ideas for ensuring term limits for board members.
In many
cases excellent board members are “forced” to step off the board to make room
for often less experienced, less effective and even less willing board members.
Add to this the lack of familiarity which new board members have with the
current functioning of the board and therefore requiring orientation and
training time.
Healthy
boards do not need fresh blood. A board that is functioning with excellence
will have ongoing connection with its various constituencies. These constituencies
include the legal members, volunteers, donors, recipients of the ministry etc. The
board is constantly being challenged by the input of these people and using
that input to further clarify its Ends. Ends
is the Policy Governance® term used to describe the benefit/blessing provided by the ministry,
the beneficiaries of that ministry and the relative cost/value for providing
that ministry.
What do we
do with board members who are ineffective or just plain tired? One option is to
place something in the bylaws that legally requires the organization to do what
it does not have the moral fortitude to do; (an option, but not a particularly
good option). A board needs to be constantly monitoring itself to ensure that the
directors are performing their role effectively. Another way to address this is to
have one, two or three-year terms which are constantly renewable. For example a
Nominating Committee can approach those board members who are doing an
effective job and invite them to let their names stand for reelection. Doing so
requires the Nominating Committee to do its homework in finding out if the
particular board member is effective. It also allows the membership the
opportunity to vote out directors which the membership senses is not
effectively governing on its behalf.
I currently
serve on the international board of a mission organization that has a very low
turnover. This virtually eliminates the concern for having all board members
resign at the same time. If a board wants to mitigate the likelihood of this
possibility, it can still have staggered terms.
Whatever an
organization decides to do, it needs to do so because it is in the best
interests of the organization and not because the board is unwilling to monitor
the effective performance of its directors.
