Should we change the duration of board member terms to three years?
- Stick with two-year terms
- Change to three-year terms
This topic contains 17 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by 
chevyole 2 years, 6 months ago.
-
Posts
-
The WGA Board is working on some changes to the organization bylaws. One of the items we are considering is a member suggestion to change the length of board member terms from two years to three, with three of nine board member positions being filled during each annual election. Board members are currently elected for two years at a time with four or five open positions during each annual election.
Here are some of the arguments in favor of each approach.
- Under three year terms, the maximum number of board members that would turn over in a normal election would be one third which could lead to better continuity from year to year.
- It may be easier to recruit people to run for the board in the first place if the commitment is only two years instead of three.
- Three year terms may give board members more time to get comfortable in the role and do their best work before they have to make a decision about running for re-election and a fresh term commitment.
- A lot can change in three years. Someone who was fully able to serve on the board in the first year could be unable to continue doing so by year three and might need to step down. Filling vacancies more often could be as disruptive as larger turnover during regular elections.
So what do you think? We’d love to hear your thoughts!
My comments are mine alone and may not necessarily reflect an official stance of the WGA Board of Directors.
We, at first glance, favor the three year terms for the simple reason that that turning over so many Board members every two years seems inefficient, destroys continuity and begets begging for candidates sometimes.
That being said, the Board should also specifically poll former Board members for their opinions on whether a longer three year term vs two years is feasible and doable. Would they have served if expected to serve three years(after all they are volunteers) and does the present system of two years interfere with long term planning, committee continuity, etc. They would provide the most valuable info to help make the decision.
Myself, being a current Board Member would favor 3 year terms. In my personal experience the first year is learning. My first year just happened to be when the COVID pandemic began. That alone was a different kind of year while learning. So, here I am on year 2 and I have learned so much more what it really means to be a Board Member. So, now am faced with the election coming up very soon. I have thoroughly enjoyed serving on the WGA Board and plan on running for the Board again.
Being a past BOD member, this has been hashed and rehashed for many years. I prefer 3 year terms from state wide elections, followed by splitting the state into thirds, with 1 Director from each District. The transition is tricky but doable.
The problem (in the past) was the uneven population density in Wisconsin. The WGA is supported by it’s members without collecting dues or fees. When Events are held in higher population areas, they are better attended by the members, generating more financial support for the Association.
You need not fear a Director being unable to finish a 3 year term, as the BOD can appoint a temporary Director to finish a term by suspending the rules in the form of a motion. (Roberts Rules of Order)
I agree with the better continuity idea, to give the Directors another year to make an impact, as well as mentor future members to be BOD candidates.
There are pros and cons to both options. As someone who is considering running for a position on the board, an extra year commitment could affect my decision. But I also agree with the continuity and the learning curve that would come with the position. A first time member would be mostly in a learning phase for at least the first year.
As a past director, I had brought this term change to the board for consideration. Having served on other boards for different oganizations, the term makes a large impact on what a director is able to accomplish during said term. It has been mentioned that the first year is a learning year and is a time to get your feet wet and to find your niche in the group. While some find their niche quickly, others may need that entire year to get comfortable. The following year/s allow the director to make an impact on our organization.
May there be those whose situations change during their terms, sure, but as Jim mentioned, the bylaws account for filling vacancies.
As the sport changes, it is even more important the WGA stays afloat. Having served as an election official, I have seen years when we have had an abundance of members willing to run for a director’s seat and years of hoping that we had at least one more nominee than seats available. Sadly, what I have seen is some who have been members for many years, have no desire to serve. Hopefully, this has changed a bit in the past few years with new cachers finding the WGA. That being said, all the arguments that have been made on both sides of the term question are still valid.
Will members commit to three years?
Will fewer open seats allow better continuity year to year?
Will fewer seats produce a higher interest in running?Having looked at this before, the one thing that will take two to three years to institute is getting all directors on three year terms. How you get there is the difficult part.
The biggest problem the way it is with two year terms is the 4 or 5 seats available for turnover each year. I know we have had directors run for additional terms because of a desire to maintain continuity where a 50% turnover could be detrimental to the group.Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.
I completely agree with labrat_wr and JimandLinda for all the reasons they have stated. If we can make this decision quickly and it does go to three years, it could look like this to ring all terms into the three-year rotation
Five BOD members have terms expiring in 2022. For the five candidates elected in 2022, the top three vote getters will be elected for three years (2025) and the remaining two for two years (2024)
During the 2023 election year, there will be four BOD members who will have terms expiring. Top three vote getters get three years (2026) and the fourth elected will get a one-year term (2024)
By 2024, there would be three members whose term expires each year.
The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.
If the Board decides to go for the three year term, Lacknothing’s plan for accomplishing the switchover in a timely and fair manner works well (accomplished by 2024). This would be the minimum time period needed as, ethically, the current Board cannot just adjust their own terms of office.
As an option, instead of making the three year vs two year terms during the adjustment a popularity contest, maybe the Board could consider allowing separate elections for those three and two year terms for the switchover period, and then, per Marie’s plan, every member would be on the three year schedule in 2024. Maybe that would work!!!
We also like Jim and Linda’s idea in some form to ensure each quadrant of the state has a minimum of one member on the Board. We selfishly loved it when our area, Northeast quadrant had at one time(we think) five, Board members, but admittedly that underrepresented other areas.
We also hope the Board would want to address the issue and make a decision and finalized plan in the October meeting, so it can be implemented for the 2022 election.
I have read this topic with interest. I can see both sides of it, pros and cons. I guess one thing that makes sense to me in favor of three year term is the simple math of it for elections. Once established, however that is done, it would be easy to follow. I think of the years where there were a lot of candidates and fewer seats open; and the opposite too. Did those who weren’t elected, often by small margins, run again when the field of candidates was smaller and/or there was another open seat? Everyone’s life circumstances change from year to year. I think midterm elections for those spots that open up due to someone having to leave BOD, or perhaps having alternate/runner up take over, would be options. I like hearing the perspectives of past BOD members. That helps frame the debate well. Thanks for opening up the discussion!
My thoughts on a 3 yr term. Good feedback would be to ask former members if they would have ran and volunteered if needing to do a 3 yr term.
2 yrs is a committment while 3 would be asking a lot of a person. If I was to go back in time and be deciding with my family if I could give three years I would not be able to do that. The time committment is too great.
Also, while we all hope that thise that are elected fully commit themselves to the WGA, it is known that few truly can be 100% in, thereby leaving you with high burn out rates of those 100% active. 2 terms would be 6 years. Outside of Renea and Pete, who has ever given that much time? Review the numbr of BOD that run for a 2nd term. Half? Less?
Changing to 3 yrs will kead to a decrease in those offering to run.
Again, ask those that served, would a 3 yr term change if they would have run? I belive most will sayd yes, they would have reconsidered.
Following the signals from space.
Finding 3 people a year for a 3 commitment seems easier to me than finding 4 or 5 qualified people every other year. Will increasing from 2 to 3 years defer some from running? Probably some. However, I look at this from the consistency of the board. With a turnover of 4 one year and 5 the next, if most board members leave, it makes it difficult to find enough passionate new board members to replace them. There is a loss of continuity in the board objectives and ideas.
For those that don’t know, a board member is asked to attend one 1.5 hour meeting a month and attend 75% of WGA events per calendar year (currently Spring Picnic, West Bend, Fall Campout, GIFF, Chili event) I personally don’t think that is too much to ask for. There are some that spend more time than this working on various committees and creating new opportunities for cachers because we enjoy event planning and creating new caches.
I am concerned about the apathy of geocaching organizations in general. Recently outside of Wisconsin, Minnesota recently stated they would vote to dissolve the organization if they didn’t get enough people to run. Geocachers of Northern Illinois (GoNil) dissolved a few years back.
We need people to step up and be passionate about the events the WGA hosts. What would you as a geocacher in Wisconsin like to see done differently? How could you contribute?
_____
Thoughts are my opinion and may not be the opinion of the WGA board as a whole.
Please note: my comments are mine alone and may not necessarily reflect an official stance of the WGA Board of Directors.
I agree with a 3-year term. First year you are just learning; seriously you have no clue on what you are getting into. From personal experience, I did not. WA looked at me that first year and asked if I was OK. I was like a deer in headlights! Told him yes, just absorbing everything.
Second year you find your footing. Third year it’s a come to Jesus moment and everything you learned comes to fruition. Fourth year you kind of get tired; at least I did. Just offering my opinion. Others may feel different and I respect that.
Regardless, I really enjoyed my time on the BOD and we did some really good things. I cannot thank the people I served with enough as well as all of the members texting and messaging me with thoughts and ideas. WGA is YOUR association. We need to get people more involved. Being on the board is not only an OMG moment “I got elected”; it’s a chance to make good things happen. Just because it’s always been this way doesn’t mean we can’t change it up . . .
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.
-Henry David Thoreau
My thoughts as a former BOD. I voted to keep it at 2 years and here’s why. I don’t know that i would have made the commitment if it was 3 years. However, I do understand the desire for more continuity from board to board.
I think the bigger issue of burnout is very real, and truly the issue here. Personally I got burned out after two years. I understand some have done longer terms, perhaps they are stronger than I. Either way, as WA mentioned above, how many BOD members sign up for repeated terms?
I’ve had a thought before and discussed it a little while I was on the board and it never went anywhere. Perhaps, I didn’t explain it well enough, so let me try again. Admittedly, this is just an idea, I haven’t thought it all the way through and obviously there would be bugs to work through.
While I was on the board, we had an event that we had some of the BOD from the Iowa Geocaching Association at our event. I may even be screwing up the states, and details here. I asked how they ran things and wanted to get some new ideas. I’ll try to recap what they do, and how they do it. This is my memory of my understanding from a 15 minute conversation from 3 years ago. If the details aren’t correct, my apologies, but listen to the idea in the end please.
They require an annual membership to be part of the organization. First let me say that I don’t support that. I think having the WGA free to it’s members will be key to the longevity of the organization. I don’t recall all of the benefits of the membership, but I recall they have a formal dinner once a year for the members, food catered in etc. That’s not the part I support either.
But they do have this other side, that always intrigued me. They still have their annual events similar to our Fall Picnic and Spring Campout. However, they have members do most of the leg work for them. The BOD chooses a group of cachers, that are volunteers. These volunteers are responsible for creating a theme for the event, manning the event, creating a pathtag for the event if its needed, cleaning up after the event, picking a location for the event, etc, etc. The BOD has the ultimate say on any and all decisions, and the purse strings.
I think all of the above is what is causing the burner out for the BOD. It becomes more of a list of things that have to get done and a deadline for them, rather than free flowing ideas. I believe we have enough creative members that would excel as these “party planners”. I think the Fox Valley alone would spawn one or two of them. And all the folks down in the SE region, I can just imagine what would come from them. Long term, I envision the events building on one another, and the teams trying to out do each other. Which I think is a good thing.
The idea of being on the board again, going to the meetings every month, attending all the events (I know only 3/4 are required), setting up all the events, tearing down all the events, making decisions about how many shirts to order and what design, and coming up with a potential theme for the year, and crawling the internet looking for a park that accommodate our needs that hasn’t been used in the past, and working the tent at Cache Bash and missing out on so many cool caches, and all the other things… can be daunting. I’m not trying to scare anyone from running in the future. It can be fun, and rewarding, but it’s also a lot of work. My point is, we need to find some other way of getting help, rather than dropping it on 9 volunteer BOD members. If we can find a good long term solution to that, then we’d be a lot further ahead. And I think people wouldn’t mind being on the board whether 2 or 3 years.
I know my idea here would require a lot of thought, and logistics, and maybe it just won’t work, or just isn’t a good idea. Here’s another example, as many of you know Cache Bash is a big event every year, and usually has a lot of really cool caches, the people that are putting those out are volunteers, that just have some extra time, and really cool ideas, and are thinking outside the box. Imagine, if the Cache Bash was run by a group of people, that were forced (essentially) to set it all up, and multiple times a year? After a while, it wouldn’t be as good as it could be.
Rather than forcing someone to a 2 year or 3 year commitment, why not allow them to do one event or a year of events? Thoughts of the Mardi Gras/Carnival season down in New Orleans and those fantastic floats comes to mind. Those are manned by volunteers, although again volunteers that pay to be a part of the organization.
Anyway I look forward to your thoughts, sorry I bogarted the conversation, but I think it’s fitting.
The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.
Actually hamfam, your suggestion of getting member volunteers to do the planning/coordinating of Events is exactly how all of the groups I have associated with work. State associations (like the WGA) divide into districts and members from those areas are responsible for planning the Events in their area, NOT the BOD! We have a Member List/Map on our website that was initially set up for this purpose. The BOD approves the $ for the Events, as well as a few details. Directors should NOT be elected to run Events! It is counter productive toward getting members involved! I’m not sure when the “Directors must attend 3 of 4 Events per year” was added to the by-laws (if it was), but the BOD has enough on it’s plate during the year already! I realize that a few gung ho Directors from the past may have enjoyed the start-to-finish planning of each Event. That is exactly what causes Director burn out! Going to a 3 year term would be most productive if it included more member involvement. Knowing HOW to ask for members to volunteer is the real issue. Putting out a general “We are looking for volunteers to…” does not work. Directors need to use the Membership List/ Map To PERSONALLY ASK individual members to help with a certain task or 2. When we held the Campout at Interstate Park, we asked the whole Minnesota Geocaching Association to help (which they did!). It was less work for the Directors and we could enjoy the Event, as well.
Actually hamfam, your suggestion of getting member volunteers to do the planning/coordinating of Events is exactly how all of the groups I have associated with work…. Going to a 3 year term would be most productive if it included more member involvement. Knowing HOW to ask for members to volunteer is the real issue. Putting out a general “We are looking for volunteers to…” does not work. Directors need to use the Membership List/ Map To PERSONALLY ASK individual members to help with a certain task or 2….
Having the BOD letting go and delegating work and empowering volunteers on committees is a key to avoiding board burnout. Let the board of directors direct people. I just don’t see the BOD recruiting/engaging members effectively to help out. Recently the WGA website added a list of over 20 committees that members could potentially serve on. It’s posted in the WGA info section at https://www.wi-geocaching.com/committees/. I see very few non-board members serving on those committees. Get some non-board members on those committees (well, most of them, some are appropriate for board-only). Ask people to serve on a committee, label it as a committee, and you’ve just given a member some ownership of that area and a foothold on perhaps eventually running for the board themselves. Until that happens I feel the three year term is too big of a commitment for many.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.