Board members are scarce, but term limits are best practice
By John Flanagan
One finding of the Hawai‘i Community Foundation’s study on the state of the Hawai‘i nonprofit sector, “Hawai‘i Nonprofits: One Fabric, Different Threads,” was that nonprofits increasingly say attracting effective board members is a challenge. On a scale from 1 to 5 – with 1 “not a problem at all” and 5 “a major problem” – assembling an effective board received an overall rating of 2.9, compared to 2.6 in 2001.
A 2.9 rating is almost dead center of that range – signifying a real but not overwhelmingly difficult issue. However, recruiting good board members was ranked a bigger problem than attracting quality staff (rated 2.8), providing staff development (2.7), attracting or retaining volunteers (2.7), creating a supporting and rewarding corporate culture (2.4) or high staff turnover (2.2).
This finding led HCF’s Kelvin Taketa to suggest to nonprofits he briefed on the new study to reconsider term limits for board members. With good board members in short supply, Taketa reasoned, why force good directors off the board?
What’s current practice? Most nonprofits – nearly three quarters of those responding to a BoardSource survey – have three-year terms. Those that have term limits averaged a maximum of two terms before leaving the board. Staggered terms mean a third to a half of the terms expire each year, allowing new members to be chosen each year while maintaining a majority of experienced directors.
Disadvantages of term limits, according to BoardSource, include losing expertise and organizational memory, having to devote more time to recruitment and orientation and the necessity to work to keep the group cohesive. But without term limits, some board members might spend 20 to 30 years on the same board.
If term limits are commonly accepted best practice what are their advantages? Here’s what BoardSource has to say:
- Active community members who can devote only a few years to board service can serve.
- It is easier to build a diverse board.
- The board has a balance between continuity and turnover.
- It is easier to retire passive, ineffective or troublesome board members.
- Board members experience a better rotation of committee assignments.
- There is a regular infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives.
- The board becomes aware of and attentive to changing group dynamics.
- Retiring board members, if willing, can continue to serve in another capacity, enlarging the circle of committed supporters.
What’s more, there are significant disadvantages to not having term limits, such as stagnation, perpetual concentration of power within a small group, intimidation of the occasional new member, tiredness, boredom, loss of commitment and loss of connection to the constituency as demographics or environmental factors change.
As the title of the HCF study suggests, Hawai‘i’s nonprofit sector may be one fabric but it has many different, unique threads. One size does not fit all. In providing technical assistance to Hawai‘i nonprofits, our organization has experienced many cases of boards becoming dysfunctional, largely because of a lack of systematic turnover.
Flexibility is key. Nonprofits are wise to cherish the expertise of long-time, engaged, creative, supportive board members and find ways to keep them involved as members of ad hoc or advisory committees, volunteers, ambassadors and sounding boards. Bylaws often allow them to serve again after taking a year or two off the board.
Nothing worthwhile is easy. Recruiting and engaging effective board members is a challenge, but for most organizations it is still best practice. Board turnover brings in new ideas, constituencies, age groups, expertise and fresh perspectives. In an increasingly challenging nonprofit environment, those benefits are worth the trouble.
John Flanagan is president and CEO of the Hawai‘i Alliance of Nonprofit organizations. Write to him at jflanagan@hano-hawaii.org.
