Term limits: only dysfunctional boards need them. (Nonprofit Boards).

The exemplary nonprofit board of directors requires stewardship similar to a well-tended garden, with life cycles that include blooms, pruning and rejuvenation. A perfect garden or board might include evergreens and perennials, as well as annuals.

A high functioning nonprofit board includes individuals, each of whom add value to the organization, and who may have become involved at varying stages of the organization. A board needs the freedom to identify; recruit and engage individuals who have the talents, resources, diversity and relationships that the board requires in order to fulfill its work.

Likewise, the board needs the freedom to retain board members who have these qualities and also have the benefit of experience and expertise in governing the organization.

At present, nonprofits are revising strategies to access funding and redesigning the delivery of services in response to changes in funding patterns and public policy. As leaders of the nonprofit sector, governing boards must be visionaries in reshaping nonprofit organizations. That means that boards must be composed of people with outstanding expertise and talents, as well as key relationships in the community, and a serious commitment to nonprofits.

Unfortunately, at a time when nonprofit boards need to be most effective, common wisdom suggests that boards should have term limits that require active and valuable members to leave the board at arbitrary cut-off points. This view, often cited as a "best practice," is simply wrong. Term limits are appealing only when a board is not doing its job. In fact, term limits are a symptom of a dysfunctional board. And if a board is functioning well, term limits are counterproductive, forcing a loss of key people.

Term limits can be attractive because far too many boards fail to develop a clear sense of their role and their work. When this occurs, board members often default to conducting staff work. Meetings tend to be unfocused, too long, and unproductive. Attendance is often poor, with people losing interest; committees becoming irrelevant; and staff is left to manage without the value of a strong and vibrant board.

In this unhealthy environment, term limits become an attractive solution to end uncomfortable personality conflicts and move "problem" board members off the board; this gives the nonfunctioning board a false sense that it is doing something.

If, however, the board is functioning, well-knowing and doing its work term limits are not only unnecessary; but they are an encumbrance.

A board becomes effective by discussing and understanding its role and clearly defining its work. The work of the board, together with the chief executive, is to lead and to shape the organization in pursuing key strategic opportunities and addressing critical challenges.

An effective board focuses its time, attention and meeting agendas on these key issues, and organizes board and board committee structure accordingly. Additionally, an effective board establishes clear expectations of board members and a system of accountability for performance.

Finally, an effective board composes itself purposefully, based on a thoughtful analysis of the individuals who have the qualifications needed. to accomplish the board's work, and thoughtfully plans for leadership succession for the board and its committees.

Imposing an arbitrary timeframe on a board member's involvement is detrimental to the well being of the board and its ultimate effectiveness.

Term limits allow the board to abdicate its most important role - tending to itself and its effectiveness.

Boards that are actively engaged in developing its members not only have no need of term limits, but would find such a policy to be an impediment to its responsibility to ensure the useful and appropriate involvement of people who have the necessary qualifications.

Ironically, proponents of term limits often argue that effective members can be invited back after a one year hiatus. Boards facing critical challenges cannot afford to lose key people even for a year. Moreover, if term limits are such a good idea, why do proponents so often propose circumvention?

Certainly there are ways to honor, recognize and include individuals who seek to have a role, albeit not a governing role. For example, individuals who wish to make significant financial donations can be honored and recognized on the letterhead as non-voting honorary board members. Another way to involve people is to establish an Advisory Council to draw upon those who have something to offer.

Board transition

Although term limits are counterproductive for high functioning boards, this does not mean that it is advisable to keep the same board members forever. Indeed, the board may re-elect only a few, select people who have special skills necessary to the organization. This will become an unwritten norm, but without the negative effects of a fixed term-limit provision in the governing documents.

It is important to have a dynamic board that engages new and talented members who will bring fresh and diverse perspectives and skills. This is especially important as the organization evolves and faces new challenges and opportunities.

There are many examples to illustrate this point. For example, in one case, a new board chair of a large social services organization -- a nonprofit facing serious funding threats and also exploring strategic alliances -- expressed concern that a small group of board members were doing all the work. It was the chair's view that several board members were involved only sporadically, if at all.

Board meetings usually digressed into long discussions about operational matters, and a number of committees were not meeting and had no sense of purpose. It had been suggested that board members who did not participate at all were deflecting the board's attention from a more meaningful agenda, and that the establishment of term limits would enable the organization to rid itself of "problem" board members in due course.

In this case, term limits make no distinction between productive board members and so-called dead wood. Rather than recommending term limits (which would have taken years to have an impact on the board), a process to guide the board in defining its work was facilitated. It focused board meetings on the organization's key financial and strategic issues, organizing a committee structure designed to address those issues.

A plan was developed for board composition that involved retaining board members who added value, recruiting new board members with the necessary skills and backgrounds, and thanking and wishing a fond farewell to those who were not in a position to make a constructive contribution.

In a few cases, board members were elected as non-voting, honorary board members in recognition of their past contributions as well as their interest in staying involved. These honorary board members are invited to a special annual meeting, rather than regularly scheduled board meetings.

If the board is clear about its role and its work, expectations are established and followed, and the board is composed by design, then the board can make a respectful goodbye to those whose involvement is no longer meaningful.

At the same time, boards can also choose, in appropriate circumstances, to retain board members for additional terms when the individuals bring value to the organization.

To face today's financial uncertainties and growing demands from the community, board chairs must have the courage to lead. First and foremost, strong leaders must address the quality, structure, commitment and focus of the board. Term limits, which are mistakenly perceived to be a quick fix, only impede the efforts of effective leaders.

Alice Korngold is president and chief executive officer of Business Volunteers Unlimited in Cleveland, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations.