Recommendations for Frequency of Elections for Officers/Terms of Office

[Guest Jackson]

I would like to know if there is a recommendation for the length of a term of office/how frequently elections should be held.

I work with several boards in one capacity or another. Each of the boards has different lengths of terms for the officers.

One is annual for all positions.

One is bi-annual.

Another is ... odd. The office of president is a two year term with an "optional" additional year. (The bylaws do not specify who can exercise this option.) The vice president, per the bylaws, automatically becomes president--no election. I find the bizarre and concerning.

The office of president is effectively tied up for 4-6 years, er...longer I suppose.

Currently, neither the president or the vice president are doing well in their positions and I am concerned for the board that they are "stuck" with incompetence for years. In fact, years that actually exceed the length of appointments of the members.

I would like advice or opinion on this issue whether it be RRoO, or opinion from experience.

I am of the opinion that every board should have annual elections for every position. This way, either the current officers are affirmed in their positions or they can be easily replaced if the board is not satisfied with the job.

[jstackpo]

RONR makes no recommendations about this, other than (implicitly) suggesting that annual or some multiple of annual for the election period is appropriate.

RONR does describe a "president-elect" position with automatic succession, but it is up to you and your bylaws to implement it, if you like the idea.

There is indeed a variety of opinions as to what works or is "best". You are welcome to add yours to the debates in your organization -- not here please.

[David A Foulkes]

No matter which way you go (annual elections all offices, bi/tri-annual with rolling terms, four-year term with one possible second term a la US President), there will always be the possibility of A.) getting an incompetent person into office, and B.) not being able to get them out fast enough. Ultimately, the organization decides, through bylaw amendment, what they think is the best arrangement. It might take a couple tries to get it right. There is no one-size-fits-all formula.

[Guest Edgar]

I am of the opinion that every board should have annual elections for every position.

Then you should propose the appropriate amendment to your bylaws. And prepare to defend your opinion against those who would cite the wisdom of our Founding Fathers:

U.S. House of Representatives: Two-year term.

U.S. Senate: Six-year term.

U.S. President: Four-year term.

Personally, I favor a nine-member board with three-year terms staggered so that three seats become up for grabs each year. That way you preserve some continuity while allowing for the injection of "new blood".

In the end, it's up to each organization to determine what works best for its unique circumstances.

[Rev Ed]

The length of office can be whatever length the membership is willing to accept. Some associations will only elect directors, and the directors appoint/elect the officers (in my experience this normally occurs when there are staggered terms, such as what Edgar has suggested) or the members elect the officers and the directors.

[g40]

Remember that if (check the bylaws) officers are elected from the board members, that the officer terms should not (and, in fact can not) go over the term end as board member. In this case, keeping the officer terms annual (1 year) prevents that problem. In this case, the election of officers ahould happen at the first (or organizational) board meeting after board members are elected.