Let's Talk About Term Limits, Part 1

"We can't find anyone who wants to serve on the board."

"Mary is a major donor. We're afraid she won't give if she's not on the board."

"Our team is working together well. Why would we break it up?"

In my years working with nonprofit boards of directors, I've heard all kinds of objections to implementing term limits. The mere mention of the subject genuinely irritates many board members I've met. At the same time, it's not really controversial among people like me who study best practices in governance: every board should limit the number of years a person can serve as a board member or officer. No exceptions.

So why the disconnect? In my experience - mostly with very small, unstaffed organizations - it can take years for a person to get up to speed with a new group. Boards with big budgets and professional staff tend to have orientations, access to documents, and ongoing training. This is often not the case for smaller groups in which board members run programs and day to day operations. There's little time left for governance, and as a result institutional knowledge is not systematically passed along to newcomers. Those with a long-standing investment in the organization therefore fear a new cast of characters will mess things up.

Every proponent of term limits, whether board, staff or consultant, has run into this resistance. So, how can we make our case to those who don't want to relinquish their board seat? Here are my top five arguments:

1. It's in the Bylaws. Well, it is probably in the bylaws, at least for officers. If you haven't seen those in a while, you should check. Being in compliance with the organization's bylaws is not optional. If there are provisions for term limits in your bylaws you must make a plan to implement them or amend the bylaws. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
2. No Organization Should Be Dependent on Individuals. Too often boards make the mistake of believing there is someone who is indispensable, that if this person were to leave the board, the organization could not function or at least not function as well. This is always a bad place for a group to be in. Better to plan and organize to fill out the depth chart than to risk the sudden loss of someone so pivotal. A commitment to term limits forces the group to do succession planning, engage in effective recruitment and orientation, and spread the workload around.

1. Racial and Generational Equity and Inclusion. How can a group diversify the board of directors and be part of ensuring equitable distribution of power when board members hold on to their positions for years and years? Adding a few newcomers to achieve a diversity goal while the same few long-serving people retain their out-sized influence is not a winning strategy. In fact, it's a rotten thing to do to the new recruits, and they likely won't stay long.
2. New People Bring New Perspectives. Even the hardest working, most vision-centered boards can lose sight of the forest when they are among the trees. It is always helpful to have a fresh set of eyes on things, to help the group see how it is perceived, and to challenge long-held assumptions. Without regular turnover boards stagnate, which ultimately means they are not able to achieve as much as they could have. Experience is indeed a beautiful thing, but it must be balanced with fresh perspectives. It's the dynamic exchange of different views that leads to real accomplishment.
3. It's Easier Than Firing Difficult Board Members. Or, to use BoardSource's phrase, term limits "provide a respectful and efficient mechanism for the exit of passive, ineffective, or troublesome board members." It is actually very common for people to hang on to their board position long after their helpfulness has waned. Nice people. People who have given a lot in the past. People we don't want to have to remove or even ask to step down. If their term is expiring soon anyway, the problem can take care of itself. The board president or governance committee chair can be spared the rough duty of engaging that person in a difficult conversation.

A few years ago I agreed to join a nonprofit board. Prior to my first meeting, they amended their bylaws to do away with term limits. "We have a great treasurer," they said, "we don't want to lose her." At my second meeting I was presented with a draft budget I didn't understand. With no time left for questions, I made a short statement explaining my decision to abstain from voting on it and asked for an orientation to the budget and financials. The treasurer, very widely respected in the community, angrily asserted she didn't have time to conduct such a training for the other rookies and me. Didn't have time for a board colleague with a demonstrated interest in learning. No wonder they'd eliminated term limits. The treasurer had made herself indispensable. There would never be a qualified successor.

In Part 2, I will spell out some strategies for implementing (or reimplementing) term limits. Until then, if you have any questions or would like to talk your situation through, please don't hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or set up a call or video chat at https://calendly.com/cathytheboarddoctor/free-consultation