I'm indirectly aware of a small historical museum director who does
everything, including run the parent society, and seems to keep
everyone, including the taxpayers, happy.

I'm directly aware of a (nonprofessional) curatorial staff (none of whom
does the work of a museum director, nor does anyone else) who carried on
a battle, in person and in the press, with the county government (which
owned the building and paid their salaries.)  The society is fading
away.

The solution was to put the staff in charge of the society.  The
politicians are happy--no more bad press, yet there's the illusion that
the taxpayers' money is being overseen.  The parent society members are
happy--no more problems to consider, cutting into their social hours.
The staff is happy--no more having to answer questions (and questions,
as we all know, are 'attacks'.)  Nothing terrible has happened yet but
my vote is definitely against making curators directors.

I also disapprove of putting on the board, reporters--just because they
won't report on our activities otherwise, or volunteers--just because
they won't work on projects otherwise.

Someone doesn't have to be a director to act as liaison.  A museum
director reported and interacted at our board meetings without being a
director.  (I've been on 3 boards.)

I WISH I was on a board of 14 with even 6 active members.  I've never
been on one with more than 3 actually participating and have heard about
boards with NOBODY worthy of being called 'active.'  (I know Holland is
a nice town.  I guess they also know how to get the right people on
boards.)

For staffers, a word to the wise.  A museum director found herself paid
by one entity but officially under another.  She felt more loyalty to
where the money came from.  She was (unfortunately) purged.

I know 'ex officio' means automatically there.  Some here believe such
members have regular, full rights and others believe they don't.  So are
ex officio directors really directors in name only or is that just one
interpretation?