HOW LONG?

[everetkhorton]

We keep hearing that NAFA need new blood. Lets say there is a good Director, doing a good job. How long should he/she be in office before he/she should be replaced. Suggest the number of years. You do not have to justify your answer. Just so many years. Lets not get into any discussion well if he/she is doing a great job. Look at the number of years that have been in office.

[goshawks00]

Good morning Ev!!

I do believe in term limits FOR ALL POSITIONS...
Maybe something like 4 years on then have to wait 1 year before they can hold another ( position or office.)
AND for GOD"S sake the president of the whole organization should be elected by the members of the organization.
Barry

[FredFogg]

Good morning Ev!!

I do believe in term limits FOR ALL POSITIONS...
Maybe something like 4 years on then have to wait 1 year before they can hold another ( position or office.)
AND for GOD"S sake the president of the whole organization should be elected by the members of the organization.
Barry

I agree, this not only applies to NAFA but to our government. But as far as NAFA goes, term limits are definately needed. Maybe 5 years as a NAFA director, have to be out for 2 years and then you can run again. And I too agree, the president and vice president should be voted on by the members. Time for some by-laws to be changed to make this happen.

[Tony James]

I agree, this not only applies to NAFA but to our government. But as far as NAFA goes, term limits are definately needed. Maybe 5 years as a NAFA director, have to be out for 2 years and then you can run again. And I too agree, the president and vice president should be voted on by the members. Time for some by-laws to be changed to make this happen.

Hi Fred,

for what it's worth, my advice when changing those rules would be to insert the word 'normally', as in, 'a director would normally be expected to serve no longer than.........', or else it's very easy to disqualify talent when you desperately need it.

Best wishes,

Tony.

[outhawkn]

Good morning Ev!!

I do believe in term limits FOR ALL POSITIONS...
Maybe something like 4 years on then have to wait 1 year before they can hold another ( position or office.)
AND for GOD"S sake the president of the whole organization should be elected by the members of the organization.
Barry

Exactly.......

[joekoz]

Good morning Ev!!

I do believe in term limits FOR ALL POSITIONS...
Maybe something like 4 years on then have to wait 1 year before they can hold another ( position or office.)
AND for GOD"S sake the president of the whole organization should be elected by the members of the organization.
Barry

DITTO!

[goshawks00]

Ev, maybe I should also add that if elected to a position it's for 2 years, with 4 years max that being if they are re elected to a second term

[Ron Clarke]

We keep hearing that NAFA need new blood. Lets say there is a good Director, doing a good job. How long should he/she be in office before he/she should be replaced. Suggest the number of years. You do not have to justify your answer. Just so many years. Lets not get into any discussion well if he/she is doing a great job. Look at the number of years that have been in office.

If someone wants to work to change the NAFA By-Laws, by all means, go for it, but there ought to be a justification for the plan. Why would we implement an arbitary term limit without a clearly stated justification? In a small organization such as ours, the talent pool is already limited. Why narrow it further without a good reason?

If someone has the time, talent, and inclination to serve NAFA, I have no problem with that person doing so as long as he/she wants to. As long as there's an election for directors every two years, we already have a form of term limit. Case in point: we've seen an almost wholesale replacement of directors and officers in the past few years. What's the systemic problem to be solved by instituting term limits?

As long as we see directorships go uncontested in every election, I don't see the need to artificially limit someone's service to NAFA. To the contrary, the experience and institutional memories of people that have been around a while can be invaluable.

[Dirthawking]

Ron, very well said, and I have to totally agree with you. If somebody was not doing a good job, they would not get re-elected. Sometimes, the old blood is the good blood.

[Tony James]

If someone wants to work to change the NAFA By-Laws, by all means, go for it, but there ought to be a justification for the plan. Why would we implement an arbitary term limit without a clearly stated justification? In a small organization such as ours, the talent pool is already limited. Why narrow it further without a good reason?

If someone has the time, talent, and inclination to serve NAFA, I have no problem with that person doing so as long as he/she wants to. As long as there's an election for directors every two years, we already have a form of term limit. Case in point: we've seen an almost wholesale replacement of directors and officers in the past few years. What's the systemic problem to be solved by instituting term limits?

As long as we see directorships go uncontested in every election, I don't see the need to artificially limit someone's service to NAFA. To the contrary, the experience and institutional memories of people that have been around a while can be invaluable.

Hi Ron,

that's a well considered stance on the issue in my opinion.
Although it's possible for a long term incumbent to overstay their welcome, it's certainly counterproductive to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Best wishes,

Tony.

[jfseaman]

We keep hearing that NAFA need new blood. Lets say there is a good Director, doing a good job. How long should he/she be in office before he/she should be replaced. Suggest the number of years. You do not have to justify your answer. Just so many years. Lets not get into any discussion well if he/she is doing a great job. Look at the number of years that have been in office.

Learn, contribute, move on.

As for loosing experience or institutional memory, ex-directors/officers are out of office, not dead, unless term limits has a clause I don't know about.

Past directors/officers can still assist or advise new ones

[RyanVZ]

There was a vote a few years ago to change the bylaws to vote for president of nafa. It failed by less than ten votes and had a VERY poor turnout of members voting if I remember correctly.

[Tony James]

Learn, contribute, move on.

As for loosing experience or institutional memory, ex-directors/officers are out of office, not dead, unless term limits has a clause I don't know about.

Past directors/officers can still assist or advise new ones

Hi Fred,

it's wise to foster a spirit that values institutional memory and makes proper use of those 'in the know' while still in office, as they'll have plenty of valuable information to pass on.
If any new boy want to charge in with a stiff broom, without first learning the background to how things got to where they are, any sweeping is likely to be counter-productive --- and if past directors have 'learned, contributed, and moved on', there'll be nobody around to teach the new blood and the organisation will suffer for it.

Regards,

Tony.

[jfseaman]

Hi Fred,

it's wise to foster a spirit that values institutional memory and makes proper use of those 'in the know' while still in office, as they'll have plenty of valuable information to pass on.
If any new boy want to charge in with a stiff broom, without first learning the background to how things got to where they are, any sweeping is likely to be counter-productive --- and if past directors have 'learned, contributed, and moved on', there'll be nobody around to teach the new blood and the organisation will suffer for it.

Regards,

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Sorry, I'm not buyin it. If it were true the result of the USA presidency 2 term limit would be a collapse of the government. Same for every local, regional (county) and state position.

For non-term limited government positions what we and the UK have is endless job protection. Power, whether real or perceived by the office holder corrupts.

Very similar to what goes on with the NAFA and HB boards, almost any organization for that matter. Remember, I've been to HB meetings, know Jim Chick, Nick Fox, Nick Haverman-Mart. I know what happened to Geoff Dalton.


What is important is the office not the office holder. The office holder has the mandate to do the best justice to the office she/he can. Same as we with our hawks, to do the best justice we can.

If we elect a president and vice president, then candidates for those positions can in their campaign, show how they benefited the organization with contributions of effort and management skills instead of getting the position by behind the scenes old school, old boy networking.

I agree with your 'usual' clause though. If a president/director/officer says "but I'm not done yet" on some project to improve the organization then fine, extend their term so they can get the job done.

As for new boy, charging in with a stiff broom to change the world to her/his view in one go, can't happen. The government of the organization has some semblance of a representative democracy.

If past office holders stop contributing because they are out of office then they are probably of a character that we don't what in office in the first place. To put that in terms of myself, wheter I am a director or not, I will continue to look for and do anything I can with in my scheduling and personal capabilities to assist in furthering falconry and the mission of NAFA, pre or post office holder time frame.

[Ron Clarke]

Fred, I suspect most of us stateside are unfamiliar with the UK Hawk Board, much less who Geoff Dalton is or what happened to him. Do tell!

[jfseaman]

Fred, I suspect most of us stateside are unfamiliar with the UK Hawk Board, much less who Geoff Dalton is or what happened to him. Do tell!

The Hawk Board is the UK equivalent of NAFA. Different incorporation structure but same basic goals, preserve falconry.

When the UK banned fox hunting the traditional way, a loop hole was found by the fox hunts. The loop hole allowed the hunt to continue if the dogs were used to flush for a bird of prey. Golden Eagles and European Eagle Owls were snapped up by fox hunt clubs and horrendous prices. Other members of the hunting (all hunting) community ignored or mildly complained this exploitation of the laws allowed for falconry. Geoff Dalton pointed out that neither the loop hole or the laws allowing dogs to be used to pursue and flush for trained raptors mattered. What mattered was the welfare of these Eagles and Owls at the hands of inept fox hunt clubs. Geoff's concern for the welfare of the raptors was inferred as support for the fox hunts activities (which it was not) and he was ostracized by the old boys club.

[Tony James]

Hi Tony,

Sorry, I'm not buyin it. If it were true the result of the USA presidency 2 term limit would be a collapse of the government. Same for every local, regional (county) and state position.

For non-term limited government positions what we and the UK have is endless job protection. Power, whether real or perceived by the office holder corrupts.

Very similar to what goes on with the NAFA and HB boards, almost any organization for that matter. Remember, I've been to HB meetings, know Jim Chick, Nick Fox, Nick Haverman-Mart. I know what happened to Geoff Dalton.


What is important is the office not the office holder. The office holder has the mandate to do the best justice to the office she/he can. Same as we with our hawks, to do the best justice we can.

If we elect a president and vice president, then candidates for those positions can in their campaign, show how they benefited the organization with contributions of effort and management skills instead of getting the position by behind the scenes old school, old boy networking.

I agree with your 'usual' clause though. If a president/director/officer says "but I'm not done yet" on some project to improve the organization then fine, extend their term so they can get the job done.

As for new boy, charging in with a stiff broom to change the world to her/his view in one go, can't happen. The government of the organization has some semblance of a representative democracy.

If past office holders stop contributing because they are out of office then they are probably of a character that we don't what in office in the first place. To put that in terms of myself, wheter I am a director or not, I will continue to look for and do anything I can with in my scheduling and personal capabilities to assist in furthering falconry and the mission of NAFA, pre or post office holder time frame.

Hi Fred,

I was commenting on your words, "learn, contribute, move on", rather than suggesting any responsible person would act according to them.

Your response would concern me if I were a NAFA member deciding what to do with my vote, but as I'm not, what it reveals is of acedemic interest only.

Can I ask, do you currently serve on any NAFA committees, assisting in the furtherance of falconry or the mission of NAFA?
I suspect a history of such involvement would offer added credibility to your bid, and demonstrate an insiders grasp of current activity and the teamwork required to do the position justice.

Regards,

Tony.

[Hunter45]

The discussion on this thread has done an admirable job of describing the pros and cons of "term limits". They mirror a lot of what has been discussed in national and state politics. May I suggest another way of looking at this topic?

It has been my impression that new people don't run, or succeed in running, because of the inherent advantage any "incumbent" has. Let's level the playing field a bit AND make the process more informative.

1. ALL candidates may have their campaign materials emailed to the appropriate part of the membership (region's members or all for at large) on an ongoing basis during the campaign time frame.

2. How about a "debate" where questions are submitted in advance by the members and answers posted on a forum and have the ability to ask and have posted follow up questions to said answers?

I think Board members and Officers who are doing a good job (in members' eyes) should not be arbitrarily "term limited", but if they have become unresponsive or "imperious", the campaign process should allow a challenger a clear path to show why he/she would be the better choice.

Direct election of the NAFA president is certainly worth bringing up again for discussion and a vote.

And, perhaps most importantly, it would be appropriate if turnout in a NAFA election would total at least 75% of the eligible voters. Their own apathy is the biggest enemy any constituency faces.

[jfseaman]

Hi Fred,

I was commenting on your words, "learn, contribute, move on", rather than suggesting any responsible person would act according to them.

Your response would concern me if I were a NAFA member deciding what to do with my vote, but as I'm not, what it reveals is of acedemic interest only.

Can I ask, do you currently serve on any NAFA committees, assisting in the furtherance of falconry or the mission of NAFA?
I suspect a history of such involvement would offer added credibility to your bid, and demonstrate an insiders grasp of current activity and the teamwork required to do the position justice.

Regards,

Tony.

Hi Tony,

I started by asking Rich every year if he needed any help with the weathering. It took a couple years but this year I helped tear down. Haven't been able to penetrate any other groups. DAL nomination was the first I was asked to do more than what I've been trying to do.

Though I have offered to help FredFogg with web stuff but he figured it out.

[goshawks00]

[QUOTE=everetkhorton;134197]We keep hearing that NAFA need new blood. Lets say there is a good Director, doing a good job. How long should he/she be in office before he/she should be replaced.

Hi Greg,
Glad to hear you are recovering, just today, since surgery I have been able to walk w/o assistance.

How's about rather than "boiling down this discussion", Let's all answer the original question that Ev ask... It is a good question and deserves a direct answer. Which is How Long........

Now I am not saying the rest of this "stuff', in this thread isn't, hasn't been entertaining, and maybe even useful. In fact it should have it's own thread. Maybe called "But he said---"

Barry

[Saluqi]

[QUOTE=goshawks00;134469]

We keep hearing that NAFA need new blood. Lets say there is a good Director, doing a good job. How long should he/she be in office before he/she should be replaced.

Hi Greg,
Glad to hear you are recovering, just today, since surgery I have been able to walk w/o assistance.

How's about rather than "boiling down this discussion", Let's all answer the original question that Ev ask... It is a good question and deserves a direct answer. Which is How Long........

Now I am not saying the rest of this "stuff', in this thread isn't, hasn't been entertaining, and maybe even useful. In fact it should have it's own thread. Maybe called "But he said---"

Barry

Okay, a number? Ten years, most will burnout after 6 years.

[Flatwater Falconer]

Paul wrote:

"Okay, a number? Ten years, most will burnout after 6 years."

I would second both those numbers and the sentiment too.

[Lowachi]

[QUOTE=Saluqi;134473]

Okay, a number? Ten years, most will burnout after 6 years.

Not predicting your fate already are you?

I would guess you are not too far from truth though. You'd have to be into S&M to want to do more than 5 terms. If certain work remains undone, I'm sure there are committees that would benefit from such experience.

So there's my .02 worth

[Ron Clarke]

If someone were doing a good job for ten years and wanted to serve another term, we'd be lucky to have such a person and I would vote for him/her.

[goshawkr]

We keep hearing that NAFA need new blood. Lets say there is a good Director, doing a good job. How long should he/she be in office before he/she should be replaced. Suggest the number of years. You do not have to justify your answer. Just so many years. Lets not get into any discussion well if he/she is doing a great job. Look at the number of years that have been in office.

IF there were no corruption or inherint unfairness tipping the balance against the challenger in the process coloring the outcome of elections, there should be NO limits. As long as someone is pleaseing the members, they should be able to re-run.

However, I am convinced that at present neither of those cases are absolutely true with NAFA at present, although its certainly getting better.

Term limits are an interesting stop gap for actually fixing the unfairness of an election process - at least the rats will get kicked out eventually. The problem is, so will the "saints" that are doing a flawless job.