Michael: I think it's hard to know what might have been done to bring Chris around and retain him at the helm of MAF. I'm afraid that it might be a classic case of a visionary leader with poor management skills. Chris saw MAF as "his" organization, and that might help explain why he treated staff (and collaborators) badly and didn't make good use of the board. I think we should be surprised that that board had the wherewithal to dismiss Chris. They really had to think that MAF was in bad shape to get to that point.

It's not clear from the story how much overlap there is between the "old" and the "current" boards, but probably not much. Eric and Jonathan. Maybe Mrs. Eisenbarth, although my de_script_ion of her as "oldest and most experienced" doesn't necessarily mean that she's been around MAF all that long... only that she's a seasoned arts matron. We know that some of Chris' most committed supporters left with him. However, I suppose it's safe to say that there was an assortment of fence-sitters who had been around during the regime change. These are the folks who hadn't been very committed from the get-go, and had only gotten further worn down as the drudgery accumulated.

Then there's Laurel, who we should see as an "accidental" board chair. She inherited a board with Chris' imprint, and she doesn't really know what she should be doing. No, no firm policies about term limits. It was a big board... hard enough to keep it up to size without rotating people off. Chris' approach was to keep as many of his buddies as close to him as possible. Laurel's approach was to go through the motions and hope for the best. Not much opportunity for vision or new direction.

Mark