> > We propose that the posts of Chair, Secretary and Treasurer be
> > for a period of no more that three consecutive years. After
> > which they should not serve again in any post for a minimum of
> > one year.
>
>Rational: The three Committee positions listed are the only legally
>required Committee positions, other Committee positions are not legally
>required for the running of a Club.


I certainly feel that the best man for the job should be voted in for
whichever post he/she decide to stand for (or be cajoled into ;)) be it one
they have done for years or a new and exciting challenge. I have seen time
and time again people stand for and get voted into a post enthusiatically by
all concerned only to see them give it up after a year, and I'm not just
talking about the NFRS Gen Show Sec's post, which I have had to rescue on
two occasions now.

People do not realise that the general membership should feel pleased that
there are people who care. Care is the word that I want to repeat here.
Care. There are people who care about the great and good of the club and its
members. They care that the club is run in a fair and democratic manner. We
can all look elsewhere to other clubs and organisations where power
struggles ensue and the great and good of the general membership goes out of
the window. Where people join committees because it gives them a sense of
importance, of elevated power, these people do not last long. They
eventually realise that being part of a functioning committee means that you
have to do some work. You have to be answerable to every persons little
whinge, rant and question.

For some reason there are people who feel a sense of responsibility, who
want to nurture, who want to protect, who lay awake half the night worrying,
who spend their free evenings talking about, spend time at work doing things
to help - no not their children, their rat club. These are the people who
end up staying on rat club committees for a long time. Yes it becomes a way
of life for them and yes maybe these people themselves do not bring a fresh
approach. But what they do bring is stabling influences, a knowledge of what
has been tried and done before (and mostly not worked) and of course they
care.....

I agree that all committees need fresh, new people. I do bemoan the fact
that the NFRS committee is so large and to recruit suitable people into all
these jobs is often a hit and miss affair. But it does enable us to have
solid, wise backbone people like Ann & Paul around and pesky youngsters like
Tina and Jon, and believe me we do have lively meetings and we do have lots
of new ideas. I am a person who doesn't believe in change just for changes
sake and have to really be convinced that a new idea is a good idea. Suck it
and see with a plan B is often my choice, and guess who is the one always
holding the stings on the safety net :)

Do not get rid of valuable committee members just because they've served for
3 years. Would you sack a valuable employee just because they've come to the
end of their contract. If you still had that job available and they still
wanted it - then you'd renew their contract, you wouldn't spend the next 6
months watching someone new learn it all.....

L x