Term Limit Discussion

Since this is a double issue (July/August), Editor Nick Edson challenged me to come up with a topic that would “stick” for a couple months. I returned the challenge by asking him to let me get “mildly” political by addressing a topic that came up during the recent board elections. The topic is term limits. Should the Cherryland Electric Cooperative board of directors have their terms limited to a specific number of years?

I have always been personally and professionally opposed to the idea of term limits. So, everyone needs to know that going into this article and view my comments accordingly. Everyone also needs to know that these are my thoughts and don’t necessarily reflect those of the present board.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously whether it is a cooperative, township, state or federal election. We live in the best democracy in the world and voting is the bedrock of the foundation that makes it so. When I can’t vote for a candidate of my choosing because he or she is “term limited”, I have lost part of my right as a member of a democratic society because my vote is being directed toward a defined field of candidates. While I do respect and abide by past term limit decisions that restrict my voting rights in such cases as the President of the United States and Michigan’s legislature, I still feel that those elections are less democratic than originally intended.

Experience is another factor that is important to me. Last year, Cherryland members approved a bylaw change that would allow the board to be reduced to 7 directors. Presently, we have reduced the board to 8 directors. The experience and education of the board makes this reduction in size work most efficiently. Don’t take this to mean that board candidates without cooperative experience don’t have valuable experiences that could be utilized if elected as they most certainly do. It simply means that one has to more closely consider the experience and education of each member as the board size gets smaller. I believe the membership can do this without restrictions added.

Term limit advocates maintain that turnover brings out new ideas. I believe that an electorate that takes the time to become informed and elects the best candidate for the position will get these new ideas. In just the last three years at Cherryland, members have seen the start of automated meter reading, mail-in ballots and a smaller board. Each of these was a new idea that didn’t require term limits. Contrast this with the State of Michigan which is in need of some new legislative ideas but not finding many.

Another argument is based on the premise that politics at any level should not be a career and others should have an opportunity to serve. There were 11 candidates in the last Cherryland election. This was one of the largest fields ever and I believe each candidate had an equal opportunity to serve. Prior to mail in ballots, I could argue less that there was an equal opportunity as the voting took place only at the annual meeting for a couple hours on one day in June. Today, every member gets a ballot and can vote from the comfort of his or her own home. This tells me that your board is looking out for you the member and concerned less about making a “career” out of their positions.

All this said, term limits are possible at Cherryland. The current board simply has to bring an amendment to the bylaws before the membership for approval. If that would happen in the future, I would certainly respect and abide by that decision. Now, at least, you would not have to ask how I felt about it.