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?