<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Kieren,<div><br><div><div>On Feb 10, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Kieren McCarthy <<a href="mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com">kierenmccarthy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">It should also be possible to get rid of smaller numbers of board members seeing as most are supposed to be representative of a particular community.</span></blockquote><br></div><div>This is exactly wrong. Board members are obligated to do what’s best for the entire community, not just their particular consistency. They bring the perspective of their constituency as part of their background and knowledge, but they are not supposed to be the representative of their constituency in the sense of a congress or parliament.</div><div><br></div><div>You might argue we should change the role of the Board or create a different body, but the idea that specific Board members are responsible the outcome relevant to their body is contrary to the actual obligation currently in force.</div><div><br></div><div>Steve</div><div><br></div><br></div></body></html>