Interesting. Whether it’s good governance is one question and whether there is statutory authority is another. Seems like it’s permitted (except appointing the chair which is a decision delegated to the board), but I’ll defer to attorneys on that.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Do you think it’s clear that removing board members is permitted at the sole discretion of the President? Removal isn’t addressed in the statute. Of course they probably have other bylaws that aren’t public and a process could be outlined there.
It can be argued that the appointer cannot dismiss given there is no clause to allow that and that there is no precedent. It is noted that the Smithsonian Charter also does not anticipate the need for a dismissal clause.
As far as wise governance, it does seem risky to remove that much institutional memory all at once. Board members may indeed serve a symbolic role but they also have important obligations, including oversight. To view the choice only through the first lens could be very costly.
The Trustees have been bipartisan and wealth directed since inception. Their role is to bring in the money - so a wise decision would be to keep it bipartisan and mostly apolitical.
The Board facilitates wealth having access to government (see named trustees) and performs a general lobbying role
Of course, this all assumes the goal in appointing board members is to maintain the organization’s viability and do so with a singular focus on its mission.
Comments
The Board facilitates wealth having access to government (see named trustees) and performs a general lobbying role