TERM LENGTH FOR OFFICERS AND BOD

[Kerch McConlogue, Secretary]

Having seen what a president and slate of officers with two one-year terms can accomplish, I believe the terms should be lengthened to two years for officers and limited to three years for BOD members. I say this for the following reasons:

1. No office in government, that I know of, is only a one year term. That
really is not enough time to learn the ropes and get anything done.

2. Longer terms give more stability to the offices. For example, the office
of treasurer is one that takes significant amounts of time to become
accustomed to the duties. It is probably the most important job in the
organization, being responsible for every club members’ investment.

3. There is better continuity from one year to the next.

4. It reduces the time spent searching for, and “volunteering”, people for
the various positions.

5. It reduces the cost of time and money to print, mail, receive and
count the ballots.

6. More members may be inclined to vote since they will have more
opportunities between elections to get to know other members who
may be considering running for office.

7. I doubt that more members will enter the political ring, but there may
be some that are intimidated by the short terms, thinking there is not
enough time to make a mark.

When TT asked me to be editor, he said that you were looking for someone to make a two year commitment. Why should it be any different for officers and BOD members?

Any thoughts, comments, praise or pooh poohing of the idea are welcome.

Fred

[Author]

Posts