Enviado por Gray Cardinal (no verificado) el 8 Noviembre 2008 - 10:47de la tarde.
It may be worth noting that there's more than one approach to limiting Board member terms -- one can either impose a lifetime limit ("no person may serve on the Board for more than [X]") where X is some number of years or terms of office, or one can impose a consecutive service limit ("no person may serve on the Board for more than X consecutive terms/years"). I'd think that in OTW's case, a consecutive-service limit would be most appropriate; that would act to limit the potential for burnout while ensuring that the organization doesn't eventually run into a situation where all its most knowledgeable candidates have been permanently grandfathered off the Board.
There are various ways to structure a consecutive-service limit, too. The simplest is given above: "No person may serve on the Board for X consecutive terms of office." Alternately, the limit can be framed as "no more than X years in any Y-year period" (say, 7 in 10). Or a rule may require both a limit on consecutive terms and a specified period on the bench ("a member may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive three-year terms on the Board, and does not become eligible for re-election to the Board for two (2) years following the expiration of the second consecutive term"). As Avi says, the idea here is very much not to penalize active and interested members, but to guard against burnout and also to ensure that the Board retains a balance of continuity and fresh blood.
An aside: it took me way too much spelunking in non-Election parts of the OTW site to discern that the term of office for an OTW Board member is, in fact, three years. This should be in the Elections FAQ; there should also be a statement specifying the number of overall Board members and the number of seats up for election. (I am assuming that the first Board set itself up with staggered terms -- one-third of its members each serving for one year, two years, and three years respectively; this, however, also ought to be clarified.)
It may be worth noting that
It may be worth noting that there's more than one approach to limiting Board member terms -- one can either impose a lifetime limit ("no person may serve on the Board for more than [X]") where X is some number of years or terms of office, or one can impose a consecutive service limit ("no person may serve on the Board for more than X consecutive terms/years"). I'd think that in OTW's case, a consecutive-service limit would be most appropriate; that would act to limit the potential for burnout while ensuring that the organization doesn't eventually run into a situation where all its most knowledgeable candidates have been permanently grandfathered off the Board.
There are various ways to structure a consecutive-service limit, too. The simplest is given above: "No person may serve on the Board for X consecutive terms of office." Alternately, the limit can be framed as "no more than X years in any Y-year period" (say, 7 in 10). Or a rule may require both a limit on consecutive terms and a specified period on the bench ("a member may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive three-year terms on the Board, and does not become eligible for re-election to the Board for two (2) years following the expiration of the second consecutive term"). As Avi says, the idea here is very much not to penalize active and interested members, but to guard against burnout and also to ensure that the Board retains a balance of continuity and fresh blood.
An aside: it took me way too much spelunking in non-Election parts of the OTW site to discern that the term of office for an OTW Board member is, in fact, three years. This should be in the Elections FAQ; there should also be a statement specifying the number of overall Board members and the number of seats up for election. (I am assuming that the first Board set itself up with staggered terms -- one-third of its members each serving for one year, two years, and three years respectively; this, however, also ought to be clarified.)