Laura Otten’s Response: It is not uncommon–say around 50%, perhaps a little less–for boards to elect a “president-elect” who serves one year in that position and then ascends to the presidency. Three year terms for the presidency, however, is uncommon, particularly if it follows a year as president-elect. And when an organization identifies a real role for the “past president” that is a term of service of only one year. The proposed terms your board is currently looking at puts someone in a position of “power” and influence for seven years! That is a long, long time.

This whole structure, however, regardless of the length of the terms, is fraught, and I’d suggest that boards be very, very clear as to why they are selecting this route. The purpose of a “president elect” position (whether it is called that or it is called “vice president” and that person automatically ascends to president) is to train the individual to be board president so that s/he can hit the ground running. Great idea, don’t get me wrong. But if life changes over the course of that training year, two things may happen: one, the individual elected to president elect may no longer be able, for a variety of reasons, to step up to the presidency. (So, you absolutely need a contingency plan.) Or, more importantly, the individual may be able to step up, but the situation of the organization has changed and the skills that the president elect is bringing to the table may not be the ones the organization really needs now. And when you add to this picture that, with your proposed term limits, the person would be a president with the wrong skill set for three years, the organization has been done a huge disservice. And we know that boards are notoriously bad at removing officers or board members who are no performing well. Finally, the whole idea that a past president is hanging around with some official role (other than just “regular ole board member) can be potentially very damaging. If the individual turned out to be a bad president, why would we want him/her being able to continue to exert extra influence by having the honorific position of past president? (And there is a difference between being a past president and granting that position official status and power.) It becomes much more difficult for a new president, filled with ideas and energy that may not be in sync with the past president, to establish her/his own style, own dynamic, etc., when the past president is hovering there in an official capacity. Finally, in your particular, proposed structure–a president elect, president and past president all having official roles/responsibilities for seven years–you are creating a dynasty, not a responsive, skilled-based leadership structure.

Boards need to give this serious thought not just to who they bring on to the boards and for how long, but who they put in leadership positions and for how long.

What is your opinion on term limits for board members and officers?

Laura Otten, director of The Nonprofit Center at La Salle University, says: “The debate on term limits has been waging for decades, if not centuries. So, there is no “settled” …