I can see a potential benefit of having two year terms so the election of directors can be staggered. The whole Board would not turnover at any one time which ensures some degree of continuity. On the other hand, would every candidate want to commit to a two year term? If they become disallusioned by the end of one year, will their effectiveness be reduced because they are stuck in the position? If Board members are effective and would be in a position to provide continuity, won't they be re-elected anyway?

Whatever happens, I think the implementation of the transition is very important. I liked the idea of determining who gets a one-year versus two-year term based on top vote getters. If the change is made, we will have made a committment to two- year terms and the one-year terms is a one time occurrence. If you run the election to elect two distinct classes, you have all kinds of potential problems such as too many candidates for one class and not enough for the other. It would also be one last chance for a candidate who does not want to commit to a two-year term to be elected for a single term without any intention of running again.

I beleive that under the current scheme the good Board members will run for re-election and a motivated membership will vote to replace ineffective Board members.

Considering that it would take 152 votes (67% of 226) to pass the required ammendment, I am not sure it is worth the effort to pursue it, but I am certainly interested in generating a discussion of the issue.

By Stewart Sexton