Staggered Multiple-Year Terms on BOD

Our community has always had them. As to how to transition, I would recommend something along the following:
Next year you have two members elected for three years, two for two years, and one for a single year. All future elections can then be for three year terms. If you are working with two year terms, then adjust accordingly.

I've posted this before, but the 'Term of Office' clause in our Bylaws is rather bizarre:

"Term of Office" - At the annual meeting of the Association, Members shall elect three (3) Directors. Each Director shall be elected for a term of one (1) year and at such annual meeting of the Association, the Members shall elect three (3) Directors, of which at least two (2) are incumbents, for a term of one (1) year.

So we all have one year term, which means that when we are trying to convince someone to run for the Board they only have to commit to one year at a time. But with the 'of which at least two are incumbents' statement, there can't be a coup (short of a full recall) where the whole Board is replaced all at once.

We switched to staggered terms in 2004 and our bylaws were ammended to reflect the change. This is what they now say:

All Directors will be elected for a two (2) year term. It is the intention of these Bylaws that a staggered Directorate be maintained. To implement and maintain a staggered directorate, the Board may hold seats in future elections open for one or two year terms, when necessary or appropriate. In order to provide for a continuity of experience by establishing a system of staggered terms, at the first meeting of the Board after the 2004 annual meeting, the number of Directors to be seated shall be seven (7). The four (4) candidates receiving the highest number of votes at the 2004 Annual Meeting shall be seated for two (2) year terms. The three (3) candidates receiving the next highest number of votes shall be seated for a one (1) year term. In the case of tie votes, or no election due to an insufficient number of candidates, the Directors elected shall decide among themselves who shall serve the longer terms, and absent the ability to do so, shall decide by lot. Thereafter, all Directors shall be elected for two (2) year terms with four (4) Directors being elected in even numbered years (2006. 2008. etc.) and three (3) Directors being elected in odd numbered years (2005. 2007. etc.). In such cases, those receiving the higher number of votes shall be elected to the longer terms and when no election is held.

Choose your poison.

The usual argument for staggered terms is to provide continuity. That is fine if the existing board is on the right track. But what if the existing board is on the wrong track?

If on the wrong track, new board members may inadvertently support the wrong actions because they don't have the opposing viewpoints to counter the "continuity" from the existing board members. Once new board members take the "wrong" actions, it becomes harder for them to adopt an opposing point of view. That tendency is made worse by the current board members insisting that the board speak with one voice.

My POA has three-year staggered terms. Many of the members believe it is on the wrong track. But the group think from existing board members captures the new board members. Change is almost non-existent.

My belief is that all board members should be elected each year. If the members are happy with the current board, then reelection provides the continuity wanted. If the members are not happy, a clean sweep helps to make the difficult changes.