I agree that that's a problem (and believe I know who you're talking about). But the bigger problem is that the Board, and Corporate in general, is mostly composed of smart and reasonable people, and they *still* wind up making bad decisions.
I haven't studied this as closely as goldsquare, but as far as I can tell, the Board is at the center of a whole lot of institutional dysfunctions, including (off the top of my head):
-- The self-selecting nature of the Board, which, even with the best desire for diversity, selects for compatibility with the institutional groupthink. -- The fact that a measure of fondness for (or at least good tolerance of) bureaucracy is a requirement for reaching the heights of the officer corps. -- A general sense that the Corporation is crucial for the operation of the Society, which leads to people protecting the Corporation at the *expense* of the Society. -- A fear of legal consequence that doesn't seem to be well-grounded in a proportional understanding of what is actually likely and serious. -- A lack of *any* formal and organized mechanism for feedback from the membership. (The fact that the Census was so exceptional is depressing.)
Etc, etc. Since the *organization* is broken in a host of ways, it's almost irrelevant how good or bad the people filling the seats are: their ability to change the brokenness is fairly limited, short of a major revolution. (The cynical part of me still slightly regrets that the lawsuit didn't put the SCA, Inc out of business -- it would have hurt like hell for a year, but we would have had a rare chance to make root-and-branch improvements...)
no subject
I haven't studied this as closely as
-- The self-selecting nature of the Board, which, even with the best desire for diversity, selects for compatibility with the institutional groupthink.
-- The fact that a measure of fondness for (or at least good tolerance of) bureaucracy is a requirement for reaching the heights of the officer corps.
-- A general sense that the Corporation is crucial for the operation of the Society, which leads to people protecting the Corporation at the *expense* of the Society.
-- A fear of legal consequence that doesn't seem to be well-grounded in a proportional understanding of what is actually likely and serious.
-- A lack of *any* formal and organized mechanism for feedback from the membership. (The fact that the Census was so exceptional is depressing.)
Etc, etc. Since the *organization* is broken in a host of ways, it's almost irrelevant how good or bad the people filling the seats are: their ability to change the brokenness is fairly limited, short of a major revolution. (The cynical part of me still slightly regrets that the lawsuit didn't put the SCA, Inc out of business -- it would have hurt like hell for a year, but we would have had a rare chance to make root-and-branch improvements...)