I’ve heard from a couple of members who generally support the proposed constitutional changes but have some concerns about asking the conference planner to serve for three years. I understand that concern, but I want to offer another way of looking at it.

I think our organization has changed quite a bit in recent years. Running the conference has become more streamlined, more support is coming from the executive director’s office, and moving away from hosting everything at a hotel has changed the workload as well. We’ve also gotten better at creating planning committees and distributing responsibilities rather than expecting one person to do everything.

I also think some people are simply built for certain jobs. Some people are great presidents and organizational leaders, while others are particularly good at planning conferences, tournaments, and events. For people who enjoy that kind of work, planning a conference can be challenging but also incredibly rewarding. I’m confident we can find people who see this as their thing, something they enjoy and are good at doing.

There is also a significant limitation in our current system that I think we need to consider. Someone who has successfully planned one of our conferences in the past cannot simply come back a few years later and do it again. To return to that position, they would essentially have to commit to the entire presidential track again. That means we are eliminating the possibility of bringing back experienced conference planners who already know the job and may actually want to do it again.

Experience matters. Once someone has planned one conference, the second and third should become easier because the plans, systems, relationships, and experience are already in place. The planner knows what needs to happen, what can be delegated, what worked the previous year, and what needs to be improved. That gives us a much stronger through line in both leadership and workflow.

That is also why I think a three-year term can be much more palatable when someone is doing the same job and building expertise in that position. I simply don’t believe asking one person to do four different jobs over four different years is the best or most sustainable model for our organization.

We already see this kind of continuity in other organizations and within our own. People successfully manage major tournaments and events for multiple years. Within ICTA, people also serve in positions such as treasurer and membership for multiple years. These are significant jobs, but experience and continuity make people better and more efficient at them.

Ultimately, I think allowing people to develop expertise in a position, rather than moving through a series of completely different jobs, will create stronger leadership, better continuity, and a more sustainable organization.