Two-Year Terms?

Where would we be able to see the referenced survey that 80% of respondents said they favored 2 year terms?

Milt,

The survey was a 5-Question Phone survey that was launched at the International Convention.  The results of that survey was included in the August 10th Edition of the Kiwanis Insider which just went out today.  If you did not get a copy, let me know by e-mail and I will send you one.  The question that was asked was this:

Do you think it would be a good idea to extend the terms of some key leadership positions from one year to two years?     Yes:  80%   No:  20%

I was certainly surprised that such a large percentage of the respondents favored the consideration of 2-year terms, which is why I suggested more input and discussion.  I have no idea if this is something that should be pursured, but it is interesting that so many leaders felt this was worth considering.

Rob

As a Lt.Governor,my first year,I really didn't know much about the duties,but now

starting my second term,I feel more confident,and can what I started during my first term.

The Clubs that have two-year terms are usually the clubs that

have a problem getting members to be a leader.

I believe one-term for club officers is important so that other

members can understand reporting requirements and performing

the task will help.  The membership recruitment of busy people

and keeping the members wanting to be a part of the club, I believe one year is enough.  We are recyling leaders now, it is good to give

officers a break and change is good.

This is a volunteer organization and the opportunity of education in helping the community is important.

Not sure how other clubs do their election of officers, but when you are elected to vice president in our Club  you already have committed to 3 years of officer services -- as VP, Pres Elect then President  with the idea that over that period of time you acquire the knowledge and leadership skills needed.   The success of the setup depends on the person in this position willing to take on their responsibilities and the structure allowing them the opportunity to pick up the needed skills.  

In the old Division Seven, Capital District we had one club which elected it's officers for two years and it was not pleasant to the officer holders.  It was too much concentrated effort, responsibility and obligation.  Whereas, like many Kiwanian officer holders, it seems as if one just learns how to do the job as one's term ends, two years is much more than too much.  That club died, by the way.

I find it troubling that MANY Kiwanians repond that they are

just learning how to do their office at the end of their first year.

(this article isn't the first time I have heard this comment)

To me, this points to a problem with member and officer education,

not a problem with length of term of office. In our sponsored leadership

programs, youth can and do learn their job and do it effectively

within their one year.

Let's fix what is broken (education and motivation to do it right the

first time).

We also are supposed to be about developing leadership and

leadership potential. How can we do this if we keep the same

people in office for multiple years? For young professionals, this

makes the organization too static and we can and do go elsewhere

for leadership opportunities.

                                 Mariza

                                 University City Kiwanis

In some instances, I favor the 2 year term.  However, we are looking for younger members to take over in leadership responsibilities.  I have been fortunate in my career and with good staff to be able to take extended times away from my business and earn enough to support my volunteer habit.  In some roles such as Governor, I believe with all the time away from the office to be able to fulfill the obligations of that position, would be harder for younger professionals to take the office if it would require a 2 year commitment.

In Service,

Shannon

I agree with those that say a three year commitment is long enough for line officers to learn the job and execute it properly, and I would further suggest that term limits are appropriate at the club level; however, leadership positions further up the chain might indeed be better served by longer terms.  In those positions the travel restrictions are disincentives to "learning" the job from predecessors, and the training is so personality driven.  

Two year terms for club and Lt Gov positions is a dual-edged sword - if someone is good at it, great, but if someone doesn't "get" it, or doesn't  "do" it, all suffer.

I am thrilled to be serving a two year term though it is two one year terms. As I mentioned to you earlier, most Lt. Governors want to genuinely make a difference in their office and find themselves behind the learning curve at the beginning as well as frustrated about the time it takes for the division to get used to them and open to new ideas. To make this more acceptable, I have some suggestions. They are:

(1) Change the required club visits for the 2nd year as most of the visits the 1st year are for the Lt. Gov. to get to know their clubs and vice versa as well as establish a relationship with them. The 2nd year they can instead focus on membership, officer training, and marketing of Kiwanis.

(2) Look at different criteria for Distinguished Lt. Gov. for the 2nd year term as their focus will be more on service, growing their division, and implementing the ideas established in the 1st year.

(3) Remove the Lt. Gov. training for the 2nd year if they were trained in the 1st year. They should not need a refresher course in only one year and it will save the District expenses to bring them in for training.

(4) Assign them a (new) Lt. Governor to communicate with to share what worked their 1st year and what did not work the 1st year to save the new Lt. Governor from making some of the same mistakes they made. This could also be done with returning Lt. Governors who are not doing a 2yr term but have been Lt. Governors before.

(5) Look at making the 2yr term a preferred term by the District but not a required term. I know it is becoming more and more difficult to get Lt. Governors and I do not want to be part of anything that will discourage someone from running. I do feel though as more Lt. Governors are able to accomplish more and enjoy their 2nd year, their enthusiasm may cause more individuals to want to be a Lt. Governor.

Again, I am open to be at service in any way that I am able.

Patrick Schibi

There is no need to "require" a more lengthy term since many clubs are already desperate to fill their leadership roles. If someone wanted to do a second term and is doing a good job, the people will vote and that person will continue their position.  Also, if we are truely desperate to fill our leadership roles, they why aren't more leaders already serving two year terms?  In point, if we are voting in new officers each year, doesn't that mean that we have people that are willing to run for election?

Maybe the question should be rephrased to:

    "Why do leaders not seek a second term?"

When I began my year as president I had the feeling that given the speed at witch things move along in our club I felt that I couldn't possibly acomplish anything in a single year. Now that my "year" is drawing to a close and I look back at what we  did t his year I am happy to pass on the leadership to someone else. I don't hink two years is required to meet ones goals. There is as someone else commented a three year commitment once you say yes to bring vice president.  

our club has rattled about this for some time and we always come back to:

1)  this is already a 3 year commitment as:  incoming, current and past

2)  if the person isn't doing a very good job -- or even a really bad job -- a club can tolerate that for just the one year - as long as the past presidents step up to buffer some of the weirdness....

and this also goes for our past lt governors group.....the same feeling was decided....

I believe as a Lt. Governor about to enter my 2nd year term that the role of a Lt. Governor is completely different than that of a club officer. Like many other Lt. Governor's; I was Vice President, President Elect, and President of my club before running for Lt. Governor. Each position was a training position for the next and it was effective.

However, a Lt. Governor gets a day of training, and off he or she goes. The training is good but nothing is better training than actually doing the job.  I too have witnessed ineffective Lt. Governors but never really understood why. It is a position that requires one to be a good speaker and communicator and maybe we should do more in that training.

Being associated with Key Club for 18 years, I have seen the leaders that we turn out every single year. And as it is correct that the Key Club President serves only one term, a high amount of Lt. Governors in our district serve two terms and for the same reason. They feel they are better qualified for their position and want to do more to make a difference to their division, their schools and communities. But they are not elected for two years. They are elected for one year terms two years in a row.

Maybe that is the answer. Encourge Lt. Governors to be willing to serve two on year terms, have elections every year, and if the Lt. Governor is doing the job that he/she should be doing, they will be re-elected. If someone else chooses to serve as Lt. Governor for that year, they can run and the division decide.

What I have heard is many members feel that the Lt. Governor position is wasted because they do not see them, do not see any changes in their year, and do not receive the communication from their District and International from their Lt. Governor and a two year term will not change that. Today, I am a firm believer that the benefits of a Lt. Governor serving for two years outweighs the disadvantages. It is all about service and dedicating our lives to truly making a difference in the lives of children and less advantaged.

I believe a three year commitment (4 if you count immediate past president) is enough.  You learn on the way up the line as well as through ongoing education.  As for Lt Governor, again I believe one year is sufficient.  If able to stay for another year and there is no replacement, I'm all for it; but not an absolute 2-year term for everyone.  In most cases, it's hard enough to get the commitment for one year.

Patrick Schibi makes a compelling case.  I am a three-year Lt. Governor.  No one wanted to be Lt. Gov in my division, and in fact, several folks made jokes about me being Lt. Gov "for life."

What a single-year Lt. Gov. never learns well, is that each and every club takes on the personality of it's president.  What is important to that individual will become important to the club as a whole.  I only began to see that effect as I ended my second year and went off to the third!

In the ideal situation, there's a point in the year when each division has a Immediate Past Lt. Gov, a current Lt. Gov, an Lt. Gov-Designate and an Lt. Gov-Elect.  This would sound like a team to you, right?  But the leadership team for a division is not recognized, promoted, or funded.  In fact, I doubt that the concept of a leadership team exists below the level of District Governor!

Here in WI, the body of law governing corporations says that the Board of Directors control the organization, not the officers.  Yet KI encourages Clubs to focus only on the officers and relegate their Directors, which are already serving multi-year terms, to the back seat!

So, after all this rambling, maybe the terms of office are ok right now, maybe the strategy should be to refocus the training/orientation programs in a way that recognizes some fundemental changes that need to take place:   (1) creating and managing leadership teams -- not just the individual president, secretary, & Lt. Gov; (2) helping those teams work over effectively over large distances (those teams with span clubs, divisions, & regions) with virtually no $0; (3) recoginizing that alternate funding is necessary: some level of reimbursement for expenses should be available!

You'll realize of course, that if you implement management teams at the division level, your one-year Lt. Governor term just became three:  one year as elect, one year as lt. gov, and one year as immediate-past.  Not unlike a club president or a district governor.

I'm getting ready to take on my second term as President.  I am looking forward to feeling a comfort level in my second year.  I do agree though that this should be at the willingness of the person to take on a second term and at the desire of the club to elect for a second term.

Gina Heath

President

Steel City Kiwanis

Pueblo, Colorado

Having served in all offices at the club level when I finally made it to the President position I was confident and capable to lead my club.  

Much like the Governor Elect position provides a year of planning and learning, a similar year would have been very advantageous when I took on the LT position.

I believe it is vital to the success of the clubs, districts and International to provide a two-year continuity to minimize the learning curve for the Lt Governor positions by adding a Lt.Governor Elect position in each division.  

This is consistent with other leadership positions,  i.e. the President Elect or Vice President and the Governor Elect positions.  This would provide time for the prospective Lt to gain experience via mentoring and on-the-job training.  It would provide time to establish the relationships with the clubs prior to taking on the roll.

The elect year would be for training, shadowing with the current LT and planning growth strategies and goals for the division for the coming year with the guidance of the current LT.  Once again, communication would be the key to making this work.   The Elects should attend board meetings (non voting capacity) and be included on all International and district correspondence so when they take over they are educated and can make informed decisions that will benefit the division, the district and international.  This format would contribute to continuity within the organization and allow each to serve 2 years in the leadership role.  

I like the proposal given by Patrick Schibi. The first year is a learning year and a club recognition time where the LTG gets to know the division, the leaders, and the operation of the job. The second year could be so much more fulfilling in that the time devoted to admin duties should be minimized with much more emphasis on melding the division into a coherent, close knit group of clubs. The position could be an option with two years the preferred term assuming the division has the man power to change LTG's every year. But there would have to be some great benefits to having a two year term with less admin requirements.

IFwe would follow the directions in most of our bylaws and IFwe did fill the pres-elect and v-pres offices and IF we worked together we would not need a 2 year position at the club level.  

Several years ago I quesitoned our then current president and pres-elect about our bylaws' requirement that stated their duties.  "...be one of the delegates to International and district conventions..." and "...attend district conferences and division meetings..."  Basically both said no one ever told them about those requirments and if that was expected of them, they would not take the position.  Basically what I heard from the president was something like "...I expect to attend and lead 52 weekly meetings and 12 monthly board meetings and you expect me to do more?"  

We all agree that we need someone to "lead" and as happens many times we will take anyone who is willing to "take the helm of the ship."  And for some of our clubs we still sail forward, but I wonder how much farther we could have sailed had our club leaders just attended one or two conventions along the way.

Now Lt Gov is another story but similar.  IF current Lt Govs would lead their successors along the transition would be smooth and great.  I for one was sort of thrust into the position after I accepted it.  The current Lt Gov was a "nice guy" but did not lead me or ask me to "learn" from him.  As I took office and had my replacement elected at that point, I immediately asked him to be my back-up from day 1.  We were a "team.'  The Lt Gov and Lt Gov Elect.  I had my style and he had his, but we worked together and when he took the helm the following year he has his replacement in step with him also from day one.  While I feel that it would be good to have a 2 year requirement, I don't think it's necesary if we use a "team" approach and work toegther.