Whether non-profit board members should face term limits is a hot topic, and we’re not all on the same page…

Last week, Simone Joyaux and I compared notes on the state of non-profit boards. Not surprisingly, if you know us, we agreed virtually across the board. No minimum gifts, no forcing board members to solicit their “lists,” better training for staff and board members alike, and so forth.

But we didn’t agree on term limits. Simone strongly believes in them. She sees them as a way to keep a board fresh and to help move out low-functioning members. She sees that as best governance practice. Though I understand her reasoning, I think term limits have two major drawbacks.

Goodbye to the Good Guys

I hate to see the good guys leave. A million non-profits, more or less, means we need tons of solid board members providing service. It’s not easy to find them, train them, and educate them, and I hate to see them go when they’re making a great impact.

Ostensibly we can keep them engaged in different ways once they step down – involving them in committee work, moving them to advisory committees, etc. However, in my experience, once they step down most of them lose a significant amount of their connection, especially if they move on to other boards. And with that loss of connection has gone some or all of their giving.

I’ve heard the reasoning that you can simply ask a board member to take a year off and then come back, but what does that actually gain anyone? It simply injects an element of the unknown. What will happen in the interim year? Will the board member stay engaged? How can we make sure s/he doesn’t leave? Personally, I’d rather not take that risk given all the other risks we already face in our field.

A Substitute for Good Board Management

What frustrates me most about term limits is they’re often used as a substitute for good board management.

It’s much less confrontational to let low-functioning board members ride out their terms than to address their shortcomings. If someone’s not working out, you just have to wait until their term is up. It’s easy, but it saps the board of its energy. No one wants to be on a board with no-shows and deadbeats, and when board leadership tolerates low-functioning members, it sends a message that this behavior is acceptable and the standard for board membership is low.

I strongly believe term limits would be unnecessary if a board has strong, well-defined policies and an active Governance Committee to oversee and enforce those policies. The policies – in the form of a job description – must be shared with potential board members in advance so they may agree to fulfill all their obligations if elected to the board.

All board members must then be held accountable for fulfilling those obligations through annual performance evaluations of each and every member. Those evaluations should include face-to-face discussions between board leaders and their peers to evaluate previous performance and agree to upcoming goals and objectives.

Sound like a lot of work? It is. But it’s critically important work. Serving on a board is serious stuff, and without standards and accountability that serious work cannot be completed and your non-profit cannot excel.

The work of the board is too crucial to an organization’s success to keep no-shows and deadbeats around until they cycle off, and send off the good guys when some arbitrary time limit has been reached.