Since others have not yet attempted to answer these questions. I will take a first cut.

1) What changes are allowed within the guidelines.

a. It has already been suggested that "Term Limits" are not strictly against the guidelines.
b. Allowing a liberal interprtation of the rules for resignation including age, stress, and just a general feeling that you have served long enough (say 5 or more years). This should no incur any sense of shame.

2) What can we do to enhance the incorporation of some of these changes.

a. First, the current administration needs to be made aware that extended service on a single administrative body or in any single position is not desirable.
b. Rotate membership on any appointed position. Service of 3 years would seem to be quite adequate. For example, the ATCs generally have 3 members, if each member served a 3 year term and then would be expected to serve in other functions for at least that number of years, it would provide a greater degree of visibility. It could also be implemented immediately by the RBCs and LSAs.

The casting the feeling that things are rigid as idol warship seems a bit strong. Over many years I have seen the situation actually become more rigid rather than more relaxed. I have become more aware of the tendency to re-elect the same people and the resistance to allow someone to resign. Perhaps that is my local community to some extent.

This discussion has taken a more negative slant than I would like to see. I have much greater faith in the Baha'i electorial system than any other I have seen including the US electorial system. It incorporates many features that I prize highly. In my original comment, I mentioned that change was desireable.

In light of this I would ask 2 questions as a transition to a more positive approach:

1) What changes are allowed within the guidelines.
2) What can we do to enhance the incorporation of some of these changes.

Baquia, Thank you for your comment.

I would disagree that other than term limits the US laws to encourage change are effective. Most of them really favor the incumbent.

I would have agree that term limits are not explicitly prohibited but they have been rejected by the administration on a number of occasions. I do not see that changing in the near future. I would like to see term limits implemented. My interest in this is not as only to force change as to allow those who are re-elected time-after-time to have a way out. I believe, that Baha'i communities tend to find someone willing to serve and never lets go of them independent of their desire to remain in office. The opportunity to serve on administrative bodies should be shared among a greater number of the followers and avoid burning out those that are elected year-after-year.

I would like to hear more about your comments concerning "idol worship" and how the structures and rules concerning Baha'i administration have changed over time. I am not sure I understand the implications and am not comfortable responding at this time.

I do not view the Baha'i electorial system being inherently supportive of incumbancy any more than the US electorial system. Regardless of the office they occupy, we tend to re-elect the same people to office from the federal level down to the local level. The electors only look for change when things are going badly in the eyes of each elector.

Term limits might be an answer but is not allowed. Retirement is allowed only it other issues are present. Death is allowed as an excuse.

The comment titled “NSA Elections In North America 2009” did not go nearly far enough. The election of incumbents is rapant. The problem does not end with the NSAs. It can be applied to the UHJ, Regional Councils, Delegates to the National Convention, and LSAs. I believe there were less than 20 new Delegates to the National Convention out of 171. Dorothy Nelson was a delegate for over 50 years and was a delegate again this year. But, this should in no way imply that those elected are not qualified. Rather we should be asking ourselves as electors at all levels: “Are these the only candidates that are qualified.”

First a little statistical information based upon multiple years as a delegate to the National Convention. The incumbents elected to the NSA normally receive 60+ votes with the highest number of votes being 120+ votes (sometimes as many as 150). This in information that can be obtained from the videos from the convention if not publically announced. Valarie Dada received 37. This number is nicely in line with the number of votes received by other newly elected members. Also announced was that there were over 200 individuals voted for in the most recent election. What may not be realized is that the first runner ups normally receive about 30 votes. By the time you get to the 20th runner up, the number of votes has dropped to 5 or 6.

In my estimation, the problem is not the incumbency itself but in educating the electors. Two years ago, the delegates were provided a deepening the clearly stated the guidelines for selecting people to vote for.

•First, we should make a list of those qualified to hold the position. I cannot imagine that the list of incumbents is so limited that there are no other candidates.
•Second, we need the consider changing needs of the community.
•Third, we need to consider the ethnic and cultural background of those we vote for.
•Finally, we need to consider change for the sake of change.

Unfortuanately, the electors vote too heavily in favor of the qualified incumbents rather than change. They are more visible and easy choices. We need to look much deeper in our selection process. Until, we as electors at all levels place much heavier emphasis on change we will continue to see incumbents being re-elected.

In a more controllable but related issue, I tend to see the same people being appointed to positions. At the local level, these positions include assistants to auxiliary board members, cluster coordinators, ATC members. If our institutions searched to additional qualified members for these positions and routinely rotated membership, perhaps we would increase visibility of a wider range of candidates for all elected positions. Instead, I see the same people appointed year after year building an expectation that removal from a position is a slap in the face and reappointment is the expectation. If we are unable to find 3 additional people qualified to be ATC members over three years, the cluster is certainly not ready to become an A Cluster. We need to incorporate change into all of our appointments to the greatest extent possible.