I am going to agree with Jarrod on this. I am on the executive board for a non-profit group, with a membership of approximately 300 members in the province of Alberta. In the original by-laws, there was a maximum of 2 consecutive 1 year terms in the same position, for anyone on the Board. This included the executive, and the directors (we have 7 directors) What we have been finding over the last 10 years, is that it is getting harder and harder to get people who are willing to be on the Board, and when someone is willing (foolish) to let his name stand for Secretary for 10 consecutive terms, the By-Laws became a problem. To the point that the by-laws were re-written and the maximum term length was removed for the executive. By haveing the maximum term of office in the by-laws will not increase members participation on the Board. That is something that the members themselves have to want to do
Darcy
Jarrod Major wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Niels Voll Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:36 AM To: CLUG General Subject: [clug-talk] [in preparation for AGM] term limits?
a) is the concept of term limits fundamentally a good idea or a bad idea
(for clug)?
One of the reasons we did NOT write term limits into the Bylaws was because we felt that it would be hard enough getting people to participate without kicking the people who do out of office after a term. We also felt that the group retained enough power to remove an individual who had been deemed a "loose cannon".
While I agree in spirit with the intent of this line of questioning, I think that what you are proposing is going about it the wrong way. In effect you are suggesting that if we impose terms that we will FORCE members of the group to be involved. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like the kind of group I want to be involved in. The job is tough enough without it being dictated that one has to vacate it or that someone else MUST step forward.
Having served two terms as President I felt that the duration was good enough for me. I also believe that if my leadership was in question then I would definitely have had challengers if I had decided to run again. That's what this whole democratic process is about.
Please do not mistake my intent here. I think your suggestions are not necessarily bad and worthy of discussion/voting at the AGM. These are my opinions and may not be shared by the majority of the group. I just felt that a little explanation of WHY we wrote the Bylaws the way we did and WHY we didn't include a term. It was discussed by the Executive at the time. I wanted you all to be aware of that. We were sensitive to the potential for abuse. As I have said, I think that there is procedures laid out clearly to combat anyone who might decide to make a career out of being CLUG President. If they were not doing what the group felt was required... see this is the problem, if they are doing a fine job then why should they be stopped?
This is a circular problem. Or no problem at all. Hmm, I'm getting a little too philosophical I think.
Jarrod
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
