Board rotation/term limits

When I was due to become president of my temple board, I made a list of twenty things I wanted to accomplish during my two year tenure. I'm proud to say that eighteen of them happened. One of the two that did not was actually accomplished a few years later -- elimination of the election of honorary directors for life. (Incumbents, including me, were "grandfathered.") But legislated term limits still are not part of the temple's practice.

The connection between the two issues is close but not identical, and depends in part on what constitutes eligibility for the Life Director recognition. At my temple, the position was automatic for past presidents, and had become automatic for anyone who had served seven consecutive 2-year terms. Essentially these HDLs had full board privileges except being elected to office, although there was a requirement that they could not be appointed chairs of standing committees without the unanimous approval of the board.

The presence of a large cadre of HDLs is an assurance that the heavy hand of the past will inhibit change and innovation. Their two mantras are:

1. You can't do that. We've never done it that way.
2. You can't do that. We tried it 20 years ago and it didn't work.

The one plausible argument for extended service is that boards need to have access to institutional history. The two arguments against term limits that I remember hearing in the temple setting were that term limits caused the loss to the temple of good people and that it was not necessary to legislate them, because the Angel of Death would take care of it.

My position has always allowed for the return of a past director after a suitable lapse of time, typically either one year or one term. My HDL friend Ralph would counter this by saying that the interim allowed the individual in question to lose interest or to become engrossed in another organization. Since such people remain eligible to serve on committees and otherwise be involved, I found and find the argument spurious. I equally believe that good people are reluctant to make open-ended commitments. Moreover, well-written bylaws allow extended service for those who are elected to office and "go through the chairs."

My argument for term limits includes the recognition that they are a polite way to get rid of ineffective directors. My friend Sandy counters this by saying that's the job of the nominating committee. While he's right, my experience shows that, in the temple setting, failure to reslate someone eligible for reslating, who has made any kind of effort to participate, almost invariably leads to a departure from the congregation. Temples should not be in the business of repudiating people and/or fomenting membership loss.

I served the statutory number of years on one rotating board, accepted the ""time out," and then accepted the invitation to return. At my first meeting in the new cycle, I found the board discussing the creation of an Honorary Life Director category. When I suggested that the recycling which I exemplified was a better way, one woman, who had come on during my absence, suggested that recycling denied the board the opportunity to recruit young and vibrant people who would make a contribution. I guess I got told! It turned out that the intention was to limit the designation to people who had made truly significant contributions, who had not been and would not become president (which automatically conferred lifetime status), and that there were two specific candidates that the proponents had in mind. When I heard the names, I recognized the merits of so designating them -- and in the years that have followed, the designation has not been abused.

At the end of my second cycle in that organization, I received a call from the nominating committee chair inviting me to become assistant secretary, a title with no work attached, but which would make it possible for me to stay on the board, and then begin a new count as if I had been off the board. Here there was a conflict between my principles and my ego -- and my ego won. The next time around, I was allowed to cycle off, and I admit to a sense of resentment that they did not again invoke the legalism to keep me.


The bottom line: Limit terms. Create mechanisms for extended service. But have everyone play by the same rules - no-one is indispensible.