Question for Candidates - term of office?

[Batchpad]

What are the candidates opinions on the length of term of office for the GAGB Chairman and Committee?

Would the GAGB not be better served by a longer term of office to allow for greater continuity?

[Fudgeman]

I believe that a 3 year term would give the committee the opportunity to follow through on projects started. A year is not a long time, especially as they have lives outside the GAGB. The election process is time consuming and may prevent other essential work being done.

[richlay]

This year has flown, that's for sure. I think it is important to keep things fresh and vibrant and I think it's important that people don't get complacent and rest on their laurels. I like timescales and working to a deadline but perhaps 18 months or 2 years would be more realistic. I believe that would be a constitutional change though which would mean taking time out to change something that has worked ok for ten years potentially at the expense of fixing something else.

To summarise, yes a year is short but I don't think now is the right time to change it.

And it gives the membership plenty of opportunity for change if they are dissatisfied.

[*geocass*]

Just my opinion, but to me a year feels just right. If the current committee are doing a good job then the members will vote for them again and they can continue doing that good work. I think I've achieved a fair bit this year and would like to continue doing so. :)

[UKCACHEMAG]

I also think a year i right - lots of new cachers take up caching everyday and many of them will perhaps have skills that are vital to the ongoing success of GAGB.

I know from another organisation I am involved with that keeping the old people in place for a long time can do more harm than good. With annual elections easier to get the wrong people out :)

[mollyjak]

I can see pros and cons for one year and two years - think three years would be too long.
I felt the first six months I was on the Committee was a big learning curve when the other longer elected Committee knew what they were talking about :) during on line meetings.
It may be something to consider to ask members to vote. Without checking it would need a Constitutional Review and amendment.

The voting process does take quite a lot of time which would be reduced if over two years!!

Overall opinion - let the membership decide - as they will if they vote you back in for another year:)

[daddyanddude]

There are pros and cons for this a year is maybe to short but three is to long.
a good start would be to make the chairperson post 2 years allow them to accomplish more.
In reality the posts are only 10 months long by the time you factor in the election and getting a new committee up and running.

[JackieC]

I prefer the annual system, it keeps everything moving and if someone decides its not for them then they haven't made a long term commitment.

Some committees have some members on longer terms than others, to give some continuity, but they tend to have the new members selected by the existing committee, and not voted for.

[Sharon - Sharant]

There are pros and cons to a one or a two year term. One year terms keeps the committee fresh and still allow members to restand if they wish to continue for a longer term. Yearly elections also allow our members to choose whether each committee member has done a good enough job to be re-elected. Two year terms means less wasted time for members to settle in and to complete larger projects, but may also reduce the amount of members that wish to stand for election because they cannot commit to a longer term. It maybe worth polling the GAGB members after this election or a discussion at one of the first committee meetings since it probably would mean a constitutional change.

[Poole_Man]

What are the candidates opinions on the length of term of office for the GAGB Chairman and Committee?

Would the GAGB not be better served by a longer term of office to allow for greater continuity?

I believe that a two year period would be good for the Chairman and Committee positions as this would allow continuity in the larger projects that the Chairman and Committee have to undertake.

A prime example of a project that takes more than one year is that which Cass has undertaken in the redesign of the GAGB website. For a project like the programming of the new website an interruption and change of post holder could cause major problems. The coding of a website would not be easy to handover.

There are all sorts of other jobs within GAGB that would need more than a year and its very important that we give the Chairman and Committee the full opportunity to do their job to a successful end.

In suggesting a two year period I would also suggest that every year there should still be an election with half the Committee posts re-elected/elected so there is always a group of more experienced Committee members still available to help the new members.

Of course any change like this would need a change in the constitution of GAGB and I believe that this should be done with a full consultation of the membership of GAGB as it is a major change from current constitution.

Paul

[Cache on Wheels]

There are lots of valid points for pros and cons of 1 & 2 year terms.
Once the revision if constitution and polling is dealt with, perhaps candidates could choose if they would like to stand for 1 or. 2 years.
A con of this: This can make it a bit awkward when it comes to elections.

However it seemed to work ok when I was on the PCC. Some committee members were on for 1 or 3 years.
Each year they would just list which posts were available.

[countrymatters]

The most effective term of office is 3 years, with one-third retiring each year. This is the only way to build in continuity, which is something we risk losing. At the moment, you're elected, spend two months wondering what's happening, then get stuck in, then prepare for another election. A lot of commitment is lost under this system. The chairman should be elected for four years to provide overlap. Should anyone not want to complete their full term, they can step down. The constitution provides for filling a casual vacancy.

[abiherts]

I think that two years would be a good length. It would give members time to learn their roles and carry out any important tasks efficiently such as Cass's job with the website.