Having just come back from the NHF Board Members conference in Birmingham I have to confess that I'm probably not as hard line against payment as I used to be.
I take your point Philippa that organisations should be free to make their own minds up on the question. I am asking for a rational debate when the decision is taken, rather than an assumption that 'if its not paid its not worth doing'. There are plenty of Boards who operate, and have operated, effectively and have overhauled their Board Membership without pay. If there are members of boards who are ineffective or maybe past their sell by date they should be politely (or more brutally) removed -paid or not.
Jono - my complaint isn't about falling standards - they should be dealt with whether someone is paid or not. Its about the assumption that if you pay your board members automatically they will do better.
Bill - the injustice of Board members (tenants or not) who are on benefits being penalised has been buzzing around for years. Apparently the NHF are having another bash at trying to persuade the relevant govt depts, but I wouldn't hold my breath.