I would like to hear from others about their thoughts on term limits. I like the idea of the proposed three year terms which are being voted on in January, but the concept of impossing term limits has always disappointed me. I dont like them for the following reasons: If someone is doing a great job, she or he should be allowed to continue with the will of the voting population. Good leaders are sometimes hard to find. They may be involved in a project with a time frame longer than their term, and would be unable to complete it or may not initiate it for just that reason. If someone does get elected and is really not performing their duties, there is no way an established group of leaders could keep them in office with our ability to vote them out, granted they would stay in position one year longer than in the past. If people are concerned about the lack of new leadership in the officer ranks, find a candidate, talk them up and get them elected. It really isn't more complicated than that. Am I crazy to think this way? I have been a member for less than ten years and have never felt that the current group of leaders has had anything but the best interests of the group in mind. If these proposed term limit changes were in place, I imagine some of our leadership would have already been in office longer than would be allowed. I think that if someone had the interest and skills needed to be successful in these roles, they should be allowed more then a couple of spins in the Regional VP position followed by a couple of terms in national leadership. It strikes me as a waste of talent.