I keep reading about people being resistant to changing out the BOD members because they don't know anything about potential or proposed replacments. Or what they would bring to the table. Or their strategies. Or having any indication about how they'll be successful. I can accept that argument, to a point, but if you want to argue from that paradigm, you need to be able to support those same points with respect to the five CURRENT members.
Rather, those who raise these points about different BOD candidates, seem to excuse the current BOD from any of the same criteria. Is your argument that because they're already on the board, that you KNOW who they are? If so, what qualities do you know about that make them worthy? Have those qualities actually materialized into effective leadership? What strategies have they articulated that have proven successful? What have they OFFICIALLY communicated about the strategies that they will enact going forward that makes them worthy of staying on the BOD?
For those who ask, how can you vote for someone you know nothing or little about, I'd like to ask the same question? How can you vote for 5 BOD members who we know so little about? How can you vote for them over someone else based on the dismal record of success they've delivered to date?
I have yet to see an argument articulated that shows reason to vote for ANY of the current BOD members, other than FEAR of change. I'm all ears for a well thought out, precise, point by point justification of why they current BOD deserves one vote, much less the ability to remain in their positions.
If change for change sake is not an arguement, then staying the course for continuity and stability sake can't be one either.
