Q. "My board has never had term limits, and many of our directors are resistant to the idea.  Are term limits always a good idea?"-- Anonymous

A. Leyna: I’m a big believer in term limits. In fact, I’m a bit of a term limit fanatic. While I can think of a dozen reasons to implement term limits for your board, here are my top three: First, new board members bring fresh ideas, new perspectives and the ability to ask an essential question for any board: Why? Second, after serving for 5 or 6 years, a board member has most likely exhausted their list of potential friends, donors and advocates. New board members bring new connections and networks. Third (but not last), term limits provide an exit through which inactive, difficult or mismatched board members can be gently escorted. Hooray for term limits!

Liz: I couldn’t agree more with Leyna. Term limits are an executive director’s and a board’s best friend. So what do you do about a board that is resistant to the idea? Well, you can start by gathering all the data that says term limits are a best practice, and there’s plenty of that available. (Check out BoardSource for more information.) Chances are, not every member of your board believes that term limits are a bad idea. Some, if not most, probably support the idea and will feel validated when they see it’s a best practice. On the other hand, data won’t break through resistance which has at its core a tangle of emotions that don’t speak data. Assuming that your board chair is not one of the resistant ones, the task of facilitating the board discussion falls to her. That’s the good news.

Personally, I would start the conversation by naming what’s going on: “This board currently has a policy of no term limits. That policy is not considered a best practice, and more importantly, it really isn’t serving our organization. But before we even get into a discussion about changing the bylaws, I’m aware that there is some resistance on this board to the idea of term limits. I’d like to surface just what that resistance is about.”

It is really critical that the board chair “hold a space” for the discussion that is respectful of the feelings underlying the resistance, while at the same time being intentional about not being held captive. (I use a flip chart to record what emerges. It helps visual processors and makes what is said more concrete.) Most of the feelings will be fear-based, such as "we won’t be able to attract new board members," or "we work well together so why change?" or motivated by self interest: "this board is my life." The key to dealing with the fear-based concerns is to remember that they are perspectives, not truth. For example, another perspective might be that we will be able to attract new board members and, in fact, we will probably get quite good at it eventually since it is going to be an ongoing process. Self-interest is a little trickier. Some organizations have advisory boards on which they place their emeritus board members – visibility without clout. Others encourage the board members to stay involved as volunteers. You and your board chair probably know which board member is protecting herself by fighting term limits. You may want to figure out how to have a private conversation to allow the feelings to surface in a safe space. Finally, realize that you don’t have to have all the answers. Ask the board member how she would like to serve the organization once she is off the board and then be prepared to negotiate a little so that she doesn’t continue to hold you captive.
 
And if the board chair is part of the resistance, you’ll probably just have to wait to tackle the issue until he steps down... or moves to Arizona.