Firstly I want to thank the committee for all their hard work, especially over the last difficult year and as they handle issues with permissions and restrictions on events going forward. It is an often a joyless job, but we could not orienteer without them.
The AGM 2021 is taking place virtually this year (for obvious sensible reasons) - but it is a shame there is no opportunity for members to discuss any of the items on the agenda together especially the proposed change to the constitution.
The proposal is to remove the restriction on the number of years the chair can serve, as described by Alasdair at Constitution Change 2021 - YouTube
I have no issue with our existing chair (or committee) at all, but the principle of a restriction on term length is important for a healthy democratic club. Sarah has recently been involved with two committees - in one she was unpicking fraud where one of the follow-up suggestions was to limit the term of office of key positions, and a second committee which added this clause into their constitution due to a significant over-reliance on a single long-standing committee member, which was problematic.
I understand the argument that members can always vote out an existing chair, but in reality, any member who wishes to run against an incumbent chair is fighting an uphill battle.
I am completely sympathetic to why this proposal is being made, but can we instead encourage more interest in joining the committee, perhaps with new specific adhoc roles or even instigating a deputy chair role to overlap with the chair so a potential future chair can gain experience before switching with the chair to maintain some consistency (all approved by members). Perhaps as well the maximum term can be extended rather than removed?
As it stands, for these reasons, I reject the change to remove this clause from the constitution and urge other members to do likewise.