Steve Kroop <<info>>
writes:

First I don’t think that Dick’s representations of the new
governance proposal (https://ozreport.com/22.246#1)
are quite correct (e.g., I don’t see where four people can pass a motion in the
new governance proposal). To say that the current BoD functioned for 44 years
without a problem is an opinion not fact.

While I have not served as long as others on the BoD, I am one of the longest
serving directors currently on the board and my characterization of how the
board functions is that we have managed to get the job done in spite of our
current structure and not as a result. To the extent the BoD has been
successful, IMO, it has been in large part due to the passion and commitment of
a significantly smaller subset of our board.

 I have personally witnessed vast amounts of precious volunteer time and
energy get squandered because of the size of the board. Over the years I have
see very talented individuals leave the board because of their frustration of
how inefficiently the board functions. I think our current structure exhausts
clever, out of the box thinking in favor of the status quo. As the pressure from
regulation, insurance concerns, declining membership close in on us, my fear is
that we can no longer afford to be inefficient and kludgey.