Do board term limits matter? Yes, this is a real question and despite the fact, in my experience, many nonprofit boards sidestep, ignore, or even forget that they have term limits, there are as many boards who do not recognize as do recognize what their bylaws have to say about how long an individual can remain on the board. In a Washington Post article on the debacle continuing to play out at the University of Maryland Medical System board, there is rumination on the value of board member term limits.
According to one state legislator: “If members were allowed to essentially stay on the board in perpetuity, it’s a direct threat to the independence and accountability of the board,” he said.
But then the Post notes: There is debate about term limits on nonprofit boards, but most commonly they are recommended, even though dedicated board members with institutional knowledge are sometimes forced out.
And, A national health-care survey released this week by the American Hospital Association flagged among “opportunities for improvement” that almost a third of organizations reported not limiting how long board members can serve.
But then the American Hospital Association says “Board term limits offer a formal process for longtime trustees to conclude their service, while also providing a way for members to leave a board who may no longer be a good fit for the organization’s governing body,” Debra Stock, an AHA vice president, said in an emailed statement. “Hospital and health system boards must balance the value of experienced trustees with the opportunity to bring fresh thinking and new competencies to the board.”
Me, I believe in term limits. They can accomplish everything described in the Post article. They strengthen a board and actually ensure a board reflects the times - something long-standing members may not do. They also set the stage for achieving additional goals like diversity. But term limits begin with by-laws. And this is where a good Governance Committee can step-in and be of service.