Nonprofit Board Term Limits: Why to Get Rid of Them
In the nonprofit sector there’s a lot of “conventional wisdom” that people say and then repeat and then repeat again until it becomes lore or even a “best practice” — all with little evidence to back it up.
Today I want to talk about nonprofit board term limits and why I am (generally) opposed to them for most nonprofit boards. Keep an open mind, please!
Term Limits for Nonprofit Boards: The Context
There are at least 1.5 million nonprofits in the U.S. and the vast majority have small budgets, small teams, small boards, and small bank accounts. In short, most nonprofits don’t have the capacity they need or the current ability to reach their mission.
Other than fundraising, the single biggest challenge facing small and medium-sized nonprofits is finding quality board members who are engaged in their responsibilities.
A ton of blog posts, books, courses, and webinars have been created to help nonprofits build better boards.
Much ink has been spilled telling people how to recruit, retain, and remove board members. And yet we keep shooting ourselves in the feet with bad advice that undermines board development.
What Are Board Term Limits?
Let’s break down the term “term limits.” It sounds obvious, but there is a lot to it.
The idea of term limits (I think) originated from politics. In the world of electoral politics, government, and democracy, term limits are an innovation.
The thinking goes that if an elected government or official is in office for a long time, they can become corrupt, lazy, or consolidate too much power. In order to make sure that politicians are serving the public interest and not personal or special interests, term limits were proposed as a solution.
Elected officials aren’t royalty. They are elected for terms that must be renewed by voters. You must earn public service. Making laws makes you powerful.
By setting limits on the number of terms a mayor or legislator can serve, the public attempts to safeguard against corruption or laziness. Our democracy has a way of benefiting incumbents. Most elected officials are returned to office. Nonprofits can also have the same dynamic.
Having set “terms” make sense. Even for nonprofit boards. Limits sound like a good idea. But term limits (an arbitrary limit to how much public service someone can offer) are a bad idea. There are ways to limit bad behavior in government and in nonprofits without forcing good people to step down.
Unintended Consequences of Nonprofit Board Term Limits
For nonprofit boards, term limits are like using a sledgehammer to sink a cork in a pond.
It’s overkill and has unintended consequences. For example:
“Lame duck.” Once it’s been determined a politician or a board member can’t serve another term, they aren’t as accountable. It may be cynical, but lame ducks may be more prone to corruption, laziness, conflicts of interest, or power-hoarding in the window of time before they leave the board.
It’s undemocratic. Term limits remove qualified people from being available for board service. It limits choice. I want more choices when I’m choosing people to lead my nonprofit.
It may limit careers in public service and positive social change. If you want to dedicate your life to public service, term limits force you to choose other paths. Forcing people off your board may limit their options for helping out. You may lose them to another organization doing similar work. I’d rather have Jane Smith contribute to my organization than take on other initiatives. If someone wants to make change in the world and public service allows them to do it, why not let the person serve? Make them earn it, but give us all the choice.
We weaken our institutions. If someone is doing a good job, I want them to stay on the job. Term limits rob me and you of better charitable institutions.
In government, by forcing politicians out too soon, you make the lobbyists more powerful. It takes years to govern well. You must learn the art of governance and build essential relationships. That takes time. For nonprofit organizations, some board members hold the historical context and memory that makes the organization stronger.
Nonprofits are in the public sphere. We are granted special tax status and have rules around transparency because we are accountable to the public. We are entrusted to govern well. This means we should have the best board members we can.
We spend a lot of energy telling nonprofits how to develop their board. But then we turn right around and say, “Oh, and after all that work you put in finding, orienting, training, and developing a good board member, you must shove them out the door in 6 years.”
Holding Onto Good Nonprofit Board Members
The vast majority of nonprofits are struggling to find solid board members. If you have a board member who is:
Attending all the meetings
Raising money
Expanding the organization’s profile
Doing committee work well
Recruiting new people to the organization
Contributing in every way
Providing due diligence
Then why the heck would you push them out?
People always say, “Well, you need new blood. Organizations can get unresponsive or outdated in their ways. It’s good to get fresh blood in there.”
Leaving aside the ageist overtones and dismissal of wisdom and experience (and as I get older, I spot it more), organizations have a million ways they can be responsive, innovative, current on all trends, and transparent without forcing good board members to the curb.
Nonprofit Board Terms vs Limits: Making the Distinction
My position is that term limits are mostly bad. If you have an established organization that has an endless list of good board candidates, then fine. You may decide to use term limits because you are in the small minority of organizations that have created value around new energy and ideas.
My position is that terms are good. Board members should serve terms ranging from one year to three. Some boards “stagger” terms so you don’t lose a bunch of people at once.
At the end of every term, the chair, the executive director, and the board member should sit down and collectively decide if another term is in order.
See how easy that is.
I strongly recommend using a board agreement so that these conversations are easier. If a board member isn’t honoring their agreement, it will be obvious to everyone. They need to go or commit to improvement. Leaving the board doesn’t mean they are fired. They just might be a better fit on a committee or the board of advisors. Your board should be saved for people good at governance and who are engaged.
Before you reflexively adopt term limits, remember: You are here to solve a social problem. You are here to achieve your mission. Your job isn’t to adopt silly rules. If a solid board member is helping you reach your mission. Keep them! It’s as easy as that.
