What's up with the MACUL Board policy changes?

[Michael Partridge]

I noticed that the board has proposed changes to the by-laws that will eliminate term limits, as well as change the date for board candidacy. I'm not sure this is such a good idea. If I understand correctly this means that our current situation allows an individual to serve on the board for eight years. After that amount of time aren't we risking getting "stuck in a rut" of thinking about teaching and learning and leadership in technology? Isn't it a good thing to get some fresh ideas in there?

Perhaps there should be some term limits on SIG officers too...

Just a thought.

P.S. I don't care for the categories I was offered - could there be a "Questioning Authority" category added?
;-)

[Ben Rimes]

ROFL, sure I'll add the "questioning authority" category right after I add the "civil unrest" category :P

Joking, joking, but in all seriousness, I'm glad you brought it up Michael. I was hesitant to, seeing as I'm on the board and all, and didn't want to appear to be biased on this. The current setup we have is not term limits, but rather consecutive term limits; that is, after you've served for 4 consecutive terms, you have to setup down for at least one election cycle before you can run again. I believe this was a compromise put in place before I was on the board to balance the need to retain some institutional memory, while at the same time making way for fresh people without massive turnover every 8 years or so. I could be wrong, as i wasn't there, this is just my take on it.

P.S. You could always add a "questioning_authority" tag :)

[Frank Miracola]

Hello Michael, I agree with you. I am unable to attend the conference this year due to a medical issue. Plan to be back next year. If you attend the annual meeting you will hear my letter to the Board that agrees with your opinion. It is signed by myself and 13 other MACUL Past Presidents.

In reply to Ben's reply, the Past Presidents are offering their collective memories on any issue the Board may have, that should be enough "institutional memory" to fill the need. Quite honestly, this issue should be a mute point. It was an unwritten rule that members would leave after three terms. One Board member chose not to honor that implied rule and the bylaws were amended however, the Board opted to add a grandfather clause.

Michael, you should ask to know how many years people have been on the Board and you should ask how many are retired or collecting a pension. You will be surprised. Fresh opinions, practicing teachers, educators with the pulse of the profession who are in the teacher's lounge everyday are what MACUL members need to represent them and move the organization forward. If you need to know what happened in the past, just ask us, the Past Presidents, we will be happy to help in anyway.

Frank

[Ben Rimes]

I'm sorry to hear that you won't be able to attend the conference Frank. It's always nice to see you, and I hope that your health improves soon :)

Going back to Michael's original comments; in a way, I think that term limits applied to all leadership would make sense. Why set one standard for the board, yet not for the SIG leadership.

Frank: Even though I'm still very naive when it comes to both leadership and the organization of MACUL itself, or rather it's history, I think we're at a very anxious time for a lot of individuals. There is a quite a large generational leap to be made among leadership not just in our organization, but across the state and country. I watched in the 90s as Boy Scout troops in my area consolidated due to lack of leadership, churches have lost significant congregational numbers as families leave for younger, more youth oriented places of worship, and MANY educators my age or younger are entering into an educational landscape never before seen; charter schools, public schools, private schools, all competing fiercely for students and dollars, wanting to hold onto experienced leaders and educators that can "perform".

I don't pretend to be a prognosticator, nor would I consider speaking for the other members of the board, but without my youthful optimism I could see how any person in a leadership role in these difficult times would be apprehensive about the future and longevity of ANY organization (our membership and attendance would be significantly reduced without the windfall that is the MI Champs program). I can only begin to imagine the bleakness that many on capital hill or wall street have experienced with the loss of significant and established financial firms, which has in turn lead to the closing of many smaller, long-established businesses. While our concerns now are not primarily financial, I see signs/pitfalls/challenges that should we choose to ignore or handle poorly may face a problem for the organization.

Just yesterday a MACUL member pointed out to me that ISTE is charging 50 dollars a person for a one hour webinar on Moodle (with room for 400 attendees). I was able to attend an hour and a half session on Moodle with a real live person last year for less than 6 dollars (35 total for the other sessions over the 2 days I was there). Now, does that signify a lack of leadership, or leaders that are out of touch with the reality of the everyday teacher? Not necessarily, as there are many factors at play which would affect how ISTE charges for it's services. However, it does give the the impression that the leaders are not working their hardest to benefit their members.

I believe that however this vote turns out, there should continue to be a strong effort by all MACUL leadership (whether they've been long serving members or newbies) to continue their dedication to providing decisions and opportunities on behalf of our members' best interests. We are facing an increasingly challenging amount of obstacles to retain relevancy when so much of the educational field is finding ways to connect, collaborate, and share resources without the need for more conventional professional organizations. I don't personally feel that MACUL's purpose is headed towards irrelevancy (quite the opposite in fact), but I can sympathize with those that would hate to see an organization they've worked so hard to improve falter and become diminished due to a lack of newer, "fresher" leaders.

This was/is a terribly difficult decision for me, and will be at the general meeting, as I have a tendency to look at issues like this from both sides of the fence (to the best of my ability at least). I can see how a sudden lose of many experienced leaders might adversely affect the organization as a whole, leaving us with not enough experienced members still a part of the organization, however from the ISTE example above, I can see how some decisions made by leaders far removed from the classroom could be construed as not in the best interest of our largest member group (classroom teachers). I'm glad that this is going to be a secret ballot, as I can foresee many people taking this issue personally whichever way someone were to vote on it.

I love this organization, and whichever way the vote turns out, I will continue to lose sleep, over-caffeinate, sweat lesson plans, and bleed micro-chips for MACUL, whether I'm in a position of leadership or just on the sidelines.

[Frank Miracola]

Ben, you make good points and appreciate the fresh ideas you bring to the Board. I would propose that the Board only allow members to be active teachers and/or educators. The organization, TWICE, has it in their bylaws. As soon as someone draws a pension they must resign, even if that person gets rehired by a school district. Think about it, once they do they are now a vendor. I would also like to see at least three Board seats be filled by an elementary, middle and high school teacher. I think the Board needs to rethink how they recruit nominees for the Board. You have to remember, if they recruit really good ones they could be out of a position. So there is a bit of a catch 22 situation.

I truly believe you currently have good leadership, you could not ask for a better President than what you have in Diane. She is truly the best and I do support her and respect her opinions. She is not in this for anything other than to better the organization. The key is that poor planning by previous Boards brought on the current situation. With very little planning the situation that brought about the proposal to change the bylaws would not have happened. There are a couple of Board members that need to ask themselves why they are still there.

[Michael Champion]

I would also say that I would like to see at least three MACUL Board seats be filled by an elementary, middle, and high school “content area teacher”. This would be a classroom teacher who is not a Technology or Technology Lab teacher. Currently the MACUL board has two members who are classroom tech teachers. Ben’s holds that position in Mattawan. Another board member in a similar position is Gail Aldridge. She was a former middle school math teacher. Gail is now a technology integration specialist in the Delton Kellogg School system. Both are outstanding contributors and fine board members.
I am on the MACUL Board and I was a 4th grade classroom teacher for almost ten years. Currently, I teach 7th grade science, a position I have occupied for the past four years. So in addition to a couple of seats occupied by Technology or Technology Lab teachers, I would love to see more seats occupied by regular classroom teachers who integrate technology tools into their content areas. How this will happen I am unsure. Maybe, we could create three more board seats???? However it could happen, in my opinion, a larger content area teacher representation would be welcomed change in the organization.
Frank used to be a 4th or 5th grade teacher. He worked in a regular classroom when he served as the President of MACUL.
A footnote, the term limit clause would not affect me. I have been on the Board of Directors since 1999, and regards to term limits, I would be grandfathered in. However, I chose not to run again for my spot on the board.

[Jim Seitz]

My 2 cents!

Sorry to see MACUl might remove the restriction of Board membership to four consecutive terms. An organization as large and good MACUL does not seem to have any trouble finding exceptional board members, so I think its needs on the other hand encourage capable members to run with a reasonable chance of getting elected. Too much board stability can make it more difficult to make the needed changes to the organization as technology and the educational environments changes. I have seen that in the Credit Union board I have been on since 1993 and am still one of the newest board members. Eight years on a board like MACUL is plenty. MACUL is a very difficult board for non-incumbents to get elected to because frequently the "MACUL Math" has more incumbents running than there are open positions, which makes it very difficult for new candidates to be successful. MACUL consistently needs new and younger blood. There will always be enough experience in the room to help guide and channel the newer board members implementing their exciting ideas. This I have witnessed.

Because I am not longer employed in the educational world and for the above reasons, was why I did not continue on the MACUL board. I miss it and for my sake wish I was still involved, but I had look for the better good of the whole. For us old geezers and retirees, I am working on forming a "MACUL Retired" which would be there to give assistance to the organization. I am hosting a exploratory meeting on this at the Conference, Friday, March 20 in the Skyline Room from 1-2p.m.

I guess, when we have such outstanding board members, it is hard for them to see how life could go on without them, but everyone is replaceable.

Jim Seitz
Former MACUL Board member 2005-2008

[Diane Zoellmer]

You are correct in understanding that our current situation allows an individual to serve on the board for eight years. This was voted on in January 2002 by a simple board majority, not a 2/3 membership vote that we currently require to change the by-laws. The impact of that vote will not be experienced by MACUL until spring of 2010 when four board members serve out the second year of their terms.

I think that everyone wants fresh ideas for the organization. I believe that we can do that without term limits. We typically add two (or more) new faces to the board each year. We have been doing that without term limits for the last 30+ years. This year we added Mike Oswalt and Steve Schiller, last year we added Sherry McVay and appointed Scott Bryan to a two-year term for Advocacy. As Tim Kamps pointed out in Facebook/MACUL, "Of our 15 current board members, 6 are new since fall of 2005, so without term limits in place, we have 40% new in the last 3 cycles of elections. Additionally, of the 4 board members that were "Grandfathered" in back in Jan. 2002 and are exempt from term limits, two have or will step down after this year. That "refresh" is happening without term limits."

When I came onto the board, I was one of five new members (yes - five new members and we didn't have term limits!). Even though I knew the MACUL Board was a working board, I was pretty clueless about the amount of work done by the board members. At that time, since the other board members had their own work to do, there was no time for mentoring the five new members. It took me well into my second term before I felt comfortable with my committees' work, the work of the SIGs, policies and procedures, etc. This is not a board where you can take your time and "learn the ropes", instead you hit the ground running.

We have two member leaving the board this spring. If the language is left in the by-laws, term limits will force four more to leave next spring and three more to leave the following year. That is a huge turnover - and those numbers don't take into account any board members who might decide to leave on their own, not because of term limits. This will require even more work from the remaining members but also, and perhaps especially, from the office staff.

In our organization, we value diversity. Tim Kamps addressed this very well in his response to you in Facebook. I hope that he will copy that here in MACUL Space. Tim??

What I would like to see instead of term limits is an increased effort by the nominations committee. It is getting tougher to find individuals whose districts allow them time out of the classroom/office. I agree with Mike Champion that it's important to have teacher representation. I also think it's important to have representation from the other areas of educational technology. We need to look for candidates to run who would help us address all of the areas we need to address, to make sure that we have a voice from all areas.

I have made it very clear that term limits or not, this is my last term - for personal reasons. I ran for the board because MACUL had given so much to me and I wanted to "return" some of that. I can't speak for the other board members but I do not believe, as Jim Seitz states, that it's hard for me to see how the board could go on without me. I have not for one second ever believed that I'm irreplaceable. Throughout my time with MACUL, I have met and worked with incredibly dedicated individuals around the state. I know that they could step up and continue the work of the organization, especially under the guidance of Ric Wiltse, the Executive Director.

Thanks for bringing this up Michael! I appreciate the opportunity to give my 2 cents.

[Jim Seitz]

Diane brought up several good points, but with our large membership and the SIG officers to draw from, MACUL should have no shortage of potential high quality board members and most with previous non board MACUL leadership experience. No, I agree with Diane most of us never look at ourselves as being irreplaceable or even think others might look at us that way. However, my time on several other boards, I have seen this feeling by many as they look at the other great board members they serve with, including the now mentioned uncertainly about the upcoming unusual turn over coming to the MACUL board in the near future. You are all the greatest, but more than 8 years is a lot of time.

[Tim Kamps]

I've had a few conversations with folks about the proposed changes to the Board member selection process and term limits which were voted in 5 years ago. These were my thoughts that I posted to the MACUL group on Facebook and I thought I would share them here as well.

Let me give a little of my perspective to the term limits issue as a rather new board member. My understanding that the concept of term limits is to keep those serving in office fresh by limiting the number of terms that can be served. I completely agree with the idea of getting fresh ideas and perspectives, I just think that term limits is the wrong way to do that.

Of our 15 current board members, 6 are new since fall of 2005, so without term limits in place, we have 40% new in the last 3 cycles of elections.

Additionally, of the 4 board members that were "Granfathered" in back in Jan. 2002 and are exempt from term limits, two have or will step down after this year. That "refresh" is happening without term limits.

If term limits stay, another 4 board member will be forced to step down in 2010 and 4 more in 2011. Then it will be a number of years before that kind of turnover takes place again.

That will mean that a vast majority of the board members will be new in just a couple years. I don't think that is what they had in mind when the bylaw change was voted on in 2002.

As a new board member, I relied on the experience, wisdom and institutional knowledge of those who had been here for a number of years. My fear is that knowledge and wisdom is going to be spread too thin. It took me at least 2 years to feel comfortable and adjust to the work required of board members. I still feel like a "newbie". This is a working board and requires significant time and involvement and having the help of those that have been around a number of years, is a great asset.

The board also has the responsibility to strive for representation that reflects Michigan geographically (UP, LP, East, West) as well as different types of schools (public, private, large, small) and folks with different roles (classroom, district, ISD, higher ed). Having term limits, I think will make that job harder as it is already difficult to find folks who can commit to being out of their district as much as board members have to be gone. I would think that the SIGs would have that same difficulty in finding new officers if forced to. Finding classroom teachers whose districts will allow them 10 days out of the classroom a year, is getting to be a tougher sell every year. District staffing is being as to do more with less or lucky if the same resources and those folks have a harder time being gone as well.

I would love to dialogue with anyone regarding ideas for recruiting even more great board candidates to keep things "fresh", but with 40% new board members in the last 3 elections, it seems like we are able to refresh at a pace that does not require forced limits.

I think MACUL is a great organization, that can even get better. I just don't think term limits will guarantee improvements and could potentially be more disrupting than helpful.

If members want to improve the organization, get involved, volunteer at the conference, get active in a SIG, run for the board or at least vote for folks they think will keep the board dynamic and best serve the membership. That is the kind of activity that will make MACUL better, not term limits.

Thanks for starting the discussion!

Tim (Board class of 2005)