On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:12 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One small aspect of this conversation struck me as needing
clarification. there is repeated reference to re-appointing incumbents.
In my view, and I think this is also the view the community has
expressed, there are significant differences among reappointing
incumbents who have served 1 term, 2 terms, and three or more terms.
While sometimes frustrating, I do understand and generally support the
bias in favor of reappointing incumbents who have done a competent job
and only served on term. In contrast, at best it indicates community
problems when we are reappointing incumbents who have already served
three terms.
I was around when the NomCom system was initially being formulated. As I recall, a 2 year term was chosen not because that should be the normal length of time an AD serves but as a compromise between the load on the nomcom, which argues for a longer term, and the amount of damage a bad choice could do, which argues for a shorter term. There is also the factor that a newly appointed AD who has not been an AD before has a learning curve to get up and should be more effective in their second and, if re-appointed, subsequent years.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
Yours,
Joel
