"It’s not unusual for Burke, the longtime chairman of the air board, to engage in prolonged discussions with environmentalists and other agency critics from the dais during public hearings. He has served for over two decades on the panel, which is responsible for cleaning the air and protecting public health across a four-county basin of 17 million people." (Washington Post)
This article is ostensibly about an issue that has advocates raising numerous questions as to whether the board is really serving the public's interests but more of the article is focused on how and the legitimacy of the way the board is conducting its business. But possibly connected, the chair has served as a member for at least twenty years and has also been the chair for an unspecified "longtime". These facts prompt me to ask: just how long is too long, for individuals to serve both as board members and as officers?
Now of course there is no reason to question the competency of the chair per se but when folks hold onto board positions for extended periods of time, I find there is little opportunity for new voices to be heard and for change that may well be in the best interests of mission to occur - not always mind you but perhaps what is going on with so many folks unhappy (and I don't know that there are a lot but that there are any speaks to me volumes - that anyone comes and is willing to organize and speak out on a board's work) may also be connected with a board that hasn't changed its membership for a really long time.
Board term limits serve a purpose - they reduce burnout; they make it possible for others to champion mission at the governance level; they make it possible to bring in new and different solutions - not that "old" doesn't have its value but these benefits are less likely when change never occurs. This air quality board may be a good example of why term limits matter.