Basically a good idea (IMO). But I think an "exception clause" would have to be considered. For instance: 1) what happens if after the official term, nobody will run against the current president, or want's the job? 2) What if a long term project is undertaken by the president that requires the "presidential mantle" to complete (corporate discussions, for example), beginning in the first year, but not completed when the term expires. In a case like this, it could be better if the current president (at the time) maintained their position (with group approval of course)...
Granted, these are extremely unlikely, and other methods can bed found to work around these situations (just because the person is no longer the president doesn't mean they disappeared - they can still be the contact person in some cases). Maybe the way to handle this is to say that if the person in question wishes to extend their term beyond the limit, this must FIRST be approved by the group at the AGM, before an official vote is held (or before they are acclaimed if no one else is running). (Sorry, that's the developer in me - always looking for a way to make something fail, so that I can address the problem before it ever arises...) My thoughts.... Shawn On Wednesday 09 February 2005 00:35, Niels Voll wrote: > Hi everyone, > > To give us a running start and make efficient use of the time at the > AGM, it might not be a bad idea to toss around, discuss and discard or > refine some ideas before the meeting. It hopefully would give everyone a > sense of what might be worth to put to a vote, and what is not worth > spending meeting time on. At the very least it will give the AGM > participants a chance to think about some of these issues before > speaking up and/or voting at the formal meeting. In that spirit here's > one: > > Background: CLUG is a grassroots type organization - at least I think it > is. As Jarrod and Shawn both have pointed out in recent postings (using > different words, but essentially the same message), CLUG lives and dies > with the active participation of its members. To achieve that, it would > seem logical, that leadership should be widely distributed and revolving > on a regular basis. Revolving leadership has the advantage of a > commitment to leadership not being overwhelmingly long and therefore > easier to make (I confess to being a bit selfish here!). And of course, > it would give a larger number of individuals a shot at the experience. > Because of these advantages, this concept is not uncommon amongst not > for profit groups. > > Therefore I was wondering, if we should adopt the concept of term limits > for at least some board positions. For example, what if we would > basically say, that the presidency should rotate on an annual basis? > There's really an implied second year (and therefore some continuity) > due to the concept of the "Past President" being part of the executive > board in the current setup. > > Of course the annual voting can take care of that without a bylaw. > However, it may not be a bad idea to essentially force the issue of > wider participation. If everyone knows, that we'll need a new president > every year, it gives potential volunteers and of course voters a nice > long time to think about it and get ready for it. > > I'd be curious to hear everyone's opinions on this, especially: > > a) is the concept of term limits fundamentally a good idea or a bad idea > (for clug)? > b) if it is basically a good idea, is one term for the presidency (plus > another year in the past president role) sensible? > c) if it makes any sense at all, would it make sense for the office of > vice-president, too (maybe a 2 year maximum)? > d) if it makes any sense, after how much time should someone be allowed > to run again? For example a 2 year break between being allowed to run > for president would create at minimum a 3 way rotation. > > Of course, if the answer to a) is NO, then the remainder of the > questions become mute points. But if the sense of the discussion leans > towards introducing term limits to the bylaws, we should try to craft > draft wording in advance of the AGM so that any discussion and > subsequent voting has a starting point to work with . Any lawyers or > future lawyers in the group, who know how to word these things? > > What do you think? > > ...Niels > > p.s. Hopefully this will liven up the western front a bit :) > > _______________________________________________ > 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
