The People vs. Moses
view counter
The Case For Term Limits In Jewish Life
Tue, 09/07/2010
Special To The Jewish Week

As we anticipate the beginning of the New Year it’s a good time to reflect, take stock, and think about life and mortality. Not just personally, but communally as well.

Perhaps its time to have a conversation about term limits in Jewish organizations.

Term limits were instituted in the United States as a way, in part, to prevent someone from holding office for life. While they are an important part of our political system the concept can be traced back to ancient Greece with respect to service on the citizen’s council. In 1951 the U.S. Constitution was amended to limit the number of terms the president can serve, and many states impose similar limits on their governors and legislators.

Why term limits? The motivations were complex but there were twin elements: the notion of the citizens who came to serve, representing their neighbors, and then returning to live among those neighbors. Second, there was the fear of incumbency. It’s difficult to vote someone out of office, even if their productivity is waning. Americans worry when politicians are more focused on their associations with each other than on their dealings with their constituents.

Term limits for heads of Jewish communal agencies (public charities) would offer several benefits. First, it would breathe new creativity and vibrancy into our agencies. It’s far too easy to fall into a rut, into a certain way of doing things, of thinking, of acting, after being in any job for too long. Where is the passion and where is the motivation for risk- taking if CEOs knows that they are retiring in the job that they are holding, even though that retirement may be 20 years away? Where is the fear, the tension, the lack of comfort that breeds edginess?

The corollary benefit is that we can move those years of experience and expertise into another agency. I’m not suggesting that all of these CEOs retire from Jewish life. Term limits will allow a greater opportunity to import talent from agency to agency where it is merited. Ultimately, CEOs serve as stewards for the Jewish people — accountable to them. It is sometimes hard to feel that accountability if there is no longer any danger of being held accountable. It is for this reason that my one exception (though I know I will be accused of being self-serving) would be private foundation CEOs as they are, for the most part, accountable to a single family at whose pleasure they serve and not as stewards of the Jewish community in which they reside.

The second benefit of term limits would be among lay leadership. CEOs often (but not always) surround themselves with like-minded lay leaders, people they may have long-standing relationships with members of the “club.” A change at the top makes room for a new CEO to recruit new senior lay leadership, opening up space on boards that may not have seen enough diversity in background or in thinking. And a new CEO would have to negotiate with the current lay leadership as well, persuading them to consider new ideas but encountering their push back as well. Our agencies could benefit from a “loyal opposition.” Additionally, term limits would force lay leadership to deal with an uncomfortable topic — succession planning. The long-term health of our agencies could benefit from a more sustained focus in this area.

Third, one of the most neglected sectors in Jewish professional life is middle management. They work hard. They are creative, passionate and hungry. We don’t invest in them, we don’t train them and we put them on a career ladder that abruptly stops in mid ascent. Too often their ambitions are thwarted by a lack of mobility and a lack of vacancy in the executive suite. By clearing out that office we may see that some of these cloaked stars can really shine. And we may find more opportunities for women to fill what have traditionally been male dominated roles.

Fourth, we’ll save money. CEO salaries rise over the course of their tenure and well they should. They work hard, and they are deserving of good pay. But sometimes they rise faster than the market, either because the board is afraid of losing them or because they are too involved in matters of their own compensation. Term limits will allow agencies to adjust CEO salaries to current market conditions as they employ new and often younger candidates, freeing up resources that can be invested back into personnel training and benefits.

Too many agencies are becoming extensions of the CEO — their personality, their ideas, their friends in the lay leadership and like-minded professionals in senior positions. Yes, there are exceptions, but if government has taught us anything it’s that we should not legislate for the exception to the rule.
I realize that the analogy is not a perfect one as we have elected (I use the term loosely) officials at the heads of our agencies who often have term limits — our volunteer lay leadership. But that analogy is imperfect as well. The elections that placed those lay leaders in their positions don’t often enjoy wide participation. And our professionals usually enjoy far greater power and authority than a bureaucrat serving an elected official. Think of five major national Jewish agencies; can you name their top lay leader? (I didn’t think so.)

How long is too long at the top? I’m not dogmatic, but eight to 10 years feels like it’s enough. While it may seem a short time, it should. We should feel a pressure to achieve our agenda, to affect change.

Jewish communal service is a privilege and being CEO is a remarkable opportunity. But it’s not a right. While we should respect seniority, institutions function better as meritocracies. Our community deserves nothing less.

Mark Charendoff is president of the Jewish Funders Network and promises not to stay forever.

Get The Jewish Week Newsletter

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.


I agree with Mr. Charendoff, at least in regards to lay leadership. So often, we see governing rules manipulated to keep boldfaced names on the board, even if the rules limit terms; smaller "executive committees" usurp total authority of a much larger board; and nepotism, especially when motivated by historical giving, take precedence over new blood. All of this, in many cases, is done with the consent of, or at direction of, the top entrenched professional leadership (the same could be said for corporate boards, for that matter). While I find it hard to mandate term limits for skilled professionals, keeping boards fresh would help end the circle of stale leadership.
I love reminiscent of the Woody Allen moment where Woody grabs Marshall MacLuhan out of the curtains to disprove a braggard who is pontificating on his knowledge to impress another about MM's theories. Well done Charendoff !! It is so rare to find anyone who walks the walk after talking the talk. But you have once again proven yourself and I congratulate you on the bold steps. Thanks for showing true leadership, and all the best to you in whatever venture you move to. From the tribal homeland of the tribe of Menashe in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish People Shana Tova
While the notion that talented, productive CEOs should leave for the sake of meeting their time limit is not particularly palpable, I think a lot of these comments don't consider very well the unfortunate realities of what big honchos become over time. Having worked/given/consulted/befriended/followed some of our top organizations for decades, I see insane salaries, completely inappropriate personal dealings with lay leaders, and demagogues all over the place. They fancy themslves the glue of community and purpose. They've risen or stayed at the top because they have managed to please (or to not displease) the most generous and vocal among us. Mixed with the sad reality (and I do believe it is sad) that federations - the prime breeding ground for this problem - are fighting to remain relevant and something more than overhead, someone has got to challenge the old guard and old way of doing things if our institutions are going to remain strong, and if the important work they do is going to continue. Mr. Charnedorff was brave in his assertion and lost his job, but I hope we can all recognize the valuable morsels in his argument.
Congratulations to Mark for his many accomplishments at JFN; his departure certainly is a loss for the organization and for the cause it leads. Mark and JFN have been leaders in the post-meltdown/post-Madoff philanthropic/nonprofit soul-searching; this may be one more place where he and the organization can define and model good practice. Unfortunately too many organizations do not have good governance in place, nor boards that genuinely are equipped to address core needs and goals -- and too many well-meaning boards and CEOs/EDs do make poor choices with few consequences. As the philanthropic & nonprofit sectors start to rebuild post-meltdown/post-Madoff, this conversation about leadership succession and leadership renewal -- which is the larger issue, rather than term limits per se -- is both timely and appropriate. Term limits may make sense for executives, even if not always for legislators. More frequent rotation at the top would make career paths in Jewish nonprofit sector more appealing to promising new leaders as well as to accomplished executives whose experience outside the Jewish community would be a real asset. It also would give organizations more, rather than fewer, opportunities to benefit from the experience and skills of seasoned executive leaders. To be sure, 8 to 10 years may be too short a tenure in some cases, where transformation & innovation are long-term projects that may not really get started for a few years (after a new CEO/ED builds her authority & alliances in an organization). There also may be cases where expertise is so specific that frequent turnover would be disadvantageous. Still, there is no reason not to think of 8-10 years as a standard to which there always would be exceptions.
BREAKING NEWS ----- The Jewish Funders Network has announced that after nine years as President and CEO of the organization, Mark Charendoff will be leaving the organization as of December 31, 2010. As of now, Mark has no plans post-JFN. The search process has already begun.
I agree with Aaron. Why would anyone suggest that people who need to develop the experience and skills necessary to bring their organizations forward, leave once they get really good at it. If the problem is that Boards don't fire bad CEOs then someone needs to get rid of the Boards too. By the way, is he also suggesting that the Jewish Week ask Gary Rosenblatt to leave too? I guess Mr. Charnedorff is afraid to say that since it's those same board people who pay his salary.
Talented and visionary CEOs who bring enormous benefits to our community should not be term limited and those who should be fired, should be fired. Let Mr. Charendorf volutnarily resign himself and term limit himself. Each organization should have good governance in place and address its needs and goals. If they make bad choices, the organization will suffer and new leadership will have to be brought in on the board and staff level. Incidentally, term limits does not work in government. It is a failed Newt Gingrich era experiment that is popular with angry right wing voters who want easy solutions to "fix" their problems. "Throw the bums out"" may work briefly in politics. It is D-U-M-B to think it would work in the Jewish communal institutions.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.