Effective board members are precious. There is a cost to having a good director rotate off the board. According to the 2017 BoardSource Leading with Intent survey, 61% of nonprofits have 3-year terms for board members. Most of these (42%) have a limit of two consecutive terms. Many boards require that once a director rotates off the board, they are not eligible for re-election for a year or more.
Three-year terms work well for individuals and organizations. For the individual, three years is a reasonable commitment. For the organization, three years allows for a learning curve with plenty of time for in-depth contribution. For both the individual and the organization, three years is long enough to know if the match is a good one, and if not, to allow for a graceful exit. Enforcing a “rest period” after a board member has completed the maximum consecutive numbeer of terms is also wise. This hiatus helps build “bench depth” in the pool of active and prospective board members, helps avoid having individuals or the board become to closely identified with each other, and adds a natural, expected exit strategy to off-board who may need or want to pursue other interests.
3 Reasons to Extend the Terms of Board Members
As rare as the need may be, here are three reasons to extend the terms of board members:
A limited number of people care about the mission: Among the non-negotiable criteria for selecting board members is an affinity for the organization’s mission. For some nonprofits, the focus of the mission is very narrow. If there is only a handful of people who care enthusiastically about your work, then that reduces your options for new board members.
Limited access to qualified directors: Some organizations find themselves in locations where the need for services is as great as the population is small. Directors may cycle through more frequently, and the board to be smaller than average. For a growing number of boards, five to seven members is the new normal with no loss of effectiveness.
The board requires specialized skills that are in short supply: In very rare cases, a board may require specialized skills or relational connections in one or more of its directors. These skills may not by readily available in the community, so directors that possess them may be asked to stay on for additional terms. This does not mean the board should give special extensions to individuals simply because they may offer legal, financial, investment, or other professional advice.
A Word of Caution
Don’t compromise the effectiveness of the board by allowing a board member to serve an unusually long term without real justification. In most cases, even rare skill sets the board may require are available as needed through consultants, professionals, or advisory panels.
10-minute Board Discussion
Does our term structure make it easier or more difficult to attract and keep good board members?
Image courtesy of iStockphoto.com/Yuri_Arcurs
Disclosure of Material Connection: I have not received any compensation for writing this post. I have no material connection to the brands, products, or services that I have mentioned. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Our Charter School by-laws say that a board member may serve a term of three years and have that term extended an additional three years upon other board members approval. However, it also states that at the end of those six years, the board member must step away from the board for a period of at least year before rejoining, if approved. Is there a way that this by-law can be amended that would allow the member to rejoin after completing the six years? And, if the board member does continue, is there a recourse other board members can take to help resolve the issue of over extending terms?
Thanks for the great question, Franklin. I haven’t read your bylaws, and you don’t state who elects or appoints members of the Charter School board or the processes for qualification, nomination, and election. What you describe sounds typical of responsible term limit policies. By this, I mean there is a stated length of term, the board may re-elect or re-appoint a member to a second consecutive term if it so chooses, and that an individual must take a hiatus from the board of at least one year before being eligible to be elected/appointed to the board again for a third term. (Some boards also cap the total number of years or terms an individual may serve. This cap is usually equal to the length of three or four terms. Using your board as an example, this cap would not permit an individual to serve more than a cumulative total of nine to twelve years.)
Is there a way the board might amend the bylaw so as not to require the one-year hiatus before an individual may be considered again for election or appointment? Sure — bylaws typically have provisions for how to amend them. My question would be, why would the board want to? Please feel free to email me at ClientServices@SCGnonprofits.com if you’d like to discuss confidentially and in more detail the specific issues facing your board.