Hello and apologies for jumping late on the band wagon.
As in the case provided, in our organization too we have appointed Directors that are not a member of the organization, practically spoken to have access to knowledge and expertise otherwise hard to get on your board from your member population. This in itself I believe is aligned with the insights of Governance best practices today.
What strikes me in the case is that membership itself provides no guarantee of receiving health service, but members may face a waiting time of 5 years. For such a vulnerable group, as Director that would be totally unacceptable to me. So I am curious how their Governance and purpose is formulated in this respect.
My assumption is that their main challenge is funding (or efficiency/costs of their operating model, hard to say)
I see the good governance model provided as very usable. One should handle it with the right interpretation and consider it a “model”. Key to its value in my view is the right application of Empowerment and Accountability into it.