Here is a list of Pros & Cons the membership assembled for the bylaw proposal to elect to fill vacancies
Red=Argument against the proposal
Green=Argument in support of the proposal
- People aren't willing to serve.
- About half of candidates run unopposed.
- Proposal requires 2+ people running to trigger term limits, so lack of candidates is a non-issue.
- More candidates may run if they don’t feel that challenging the director will look as if they don’t appreciate that director’s performance.
- More candidates may run if they aren’t up against a historically impossible task. Incumbent advantage.
- More candidates will run if they didn’t think the BoD dynamic was dysfunctional and/or they would be ineffective serving in that environment.
- Incumbent advantage effectively means directors can hold office as long as they like.
- Incumbent advantage exists everywhere. We can't solve it.
- Term limits solves what nominations alone cannot overcome
- Many competent people have run and lost. An incumbent has almost always won.
- Without fear of losing board positions, those positions may receive minimal preservation.
- Term limits take away the ability of the members to choose a proven candidate for the office.
- He/She may run for a different role.
- Perhaps one with more responsibility.
- Temporarily. He/She may again run for the same role in the following term.
- Why is this a BoD concern for Term Limits, but not for Appointments?
- Unsatisfactory directors can be removed by board.
- Yes, but they have been typically replaced by appointment, bypassing membership vote.
- Shorter terms will likely lead to less burn-out, more consistent enthusiasm from the BoD, and better role preservation.
- Less burnout may lead to directors fulfilling their term commitment and not requiring the club to fill unexpected vacancies (Jeremy, Rick, Jen, Brad, etc).
- Resignations may be easier to fill because there will be more people who know the role, have performed it recently, and aren't burnt out. Taking a term or two break is healthy.
- Directors may not feel obligated to run if they know there are also other previous directors in the club.
- New people can improve upon certain aspects of the director’s role.
- New people performing a role can also be less efficient/effective at certain aspects.
- If the previous way of doing it was better, it’s unlikely that the new director would choose the poorer method.
- Different people on board can lead to new ideas and more innovation.
- Experience is also important. When possible, it is better to “promote” for “executive officer” positions.
- The rest of the board can lend advice.
- Fresh enthusiasm is also very important.
- Tiffany, Jeremy, Lacy, and Scott Rybarik were appointed without previous BoD experience.
- Reduces the accumulation of power and control.
- One (potentially poor) candidate would require the sitting director to step down.
- False. It would take 2+ candidates to trigger term limits.
- Two+ candidates could collude to require a sitting director to step down. This could be someone detrimental or nefarious.
- Anyone can nominate alternative good candidates or known candidates.
- Board could also collude to appoint someone that they want but the membership doesn't.
- Who should decide what is detrimental/nefarious?
- If a competent opponent would challenge an incumbent, they would likely step down. No need for term limits.
- There is evidence that this hasn’t happened.
- The incumbent should not need to approve of their successor, only the voting body should.
- There’s a wealth of untapped management experience in the membership.
- Need to be very careful what we add to the bylaws as there could be unintended consequences and they’re hard to correct.
- Also need to be careful what’s left out of the bylaws, especially when it may allow for the possibility of abuse of power.
Reply With Quote