Thanks for the ex officio clarification.

Ok, perhaps my terse wording of responses to the 16 interesting previous
messages (ignoring the many points I agreed with) and mixing experiences
with a bunch of different small organizations was confusing.  I have no
beef with reporters being directors.  I object to 'rewarding' a reporter
who refused to write about our activities unless she was put on the
(unpaid) board.  (If you're curious, she's done a lousy job of reporting
on us now that she's a director.)  I have no beef with the practice of
rewarding major patrons or movers-and-shakers with directorships.  I
object to offering board membership to anyone and everyone who does any
one-time museum project or dusts a table.  If that person continues
contributing and taking an interest, I do think they belong on the
board.  Am I still discriminatory?

My opposition to curators on boards is back to the simple
conflict-of-interest (not the one anecdote I cited.)  I've heard people,
mainly politicians, take great umbrage at being accused of conflicts of
interest.  It's not an accusation of villainy.  I'm sure museum
professionals do have to deal with ignorant directors.  The curator or
museum director being on the board certainly wouldn't change that.  I'm
sure there are cases of curators being very good directors but I contend
they are the exceptions. Does the vote of one museum director director
'matter' 'against' the votes of a bunch of non-employees with SPINES?
~Eh.  Am I more comfortable with an executive director than a curator on
a board?  Yeah, and I don't think it's just because I personally know of
no bad exec dirs but do know of a couple incompetent curators.  (I
suppose I shouldn't ignore that I know of many more good ones.)  But the
IDEAL solution to silly-assed board directives isn't to stick
knowledgeable staffers on the board, it's to get sharp directors.  (No,
I cannot offer advice on how to accomplish that.  I failed miserably.)
I repeat, it can be made a part of museum staffers' jobs to attend board
meeings, paid.  Is it discriminatory to disallow curators sitting on
their overseeing boards?  I don't believe so but, if it is, too bad.
That goes with the territory.

To digress further, a lawyer was an unpaid director of an organization
with no paid staff..  He wanted to help organize the ton of unsorted
museum materials.  That interest was poohed, and he was repeatedly asked
to provide free legal advice.  He eventually withdrew without
accomplishing anything for us.  It is nice when CPAs and lawyers provide
those services for free but, if they only want a BREAK from their normal
work, don't queer what they WILL do.

I realize that a major problem with most of the boards I have served on
was bad chairmen.

I have been told that some directors express amazement that they're
expected to attend board meetings.  That's the fault of the nominating
committee but I've never known anyone to want that job.

Advice for curators (expanding on Mary Haegele)--find out what the
directors think of each other, too.  If there's real strife (as opposed
to the loving differences of opinion we have in this list,) run away.
It's your neck that'll get it sooner or later.

As for legalities, they're fine and good to consider but I know of a
society which claims to have no board of directors, even though one is
of course required by the state for them to exist as a non-profit
corporation.  Legal requirements only mean something when the state
enforces them.

This long string has made me happy to read of a few problems that 'my'
museums have NOT had.