Too many positions&Service suffers

When someone holds too many positions, service suffers. Plain and simple-Service suffers.
It also leads to fewer people participating in decisions and causes a lessening of internal democracy. Concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands leads to the development of secrecy, which leads to the creation of suspicions, which may cause paranoia and could...in some extreme and rare cases lead some to believe they are being blackmailed or smirked at, which in turn leads to all kinds of trouble. All kinds of embarassingly expensive trouble.

This brings to the fore another grave problem we have experienced going on 10+ years, the problem of training and co-operating with alternates.
In our system, knowledge gained is collective knowledge and rightfully belongs to the organization, therefore alternates should be trained in order to pass along this valuable knowledge.
The main problem some folk have with alternates is political. They feel they may be training people who could become their replacements. Choose the right people and this won't be a problem.
What amplifies and broadcasts this scenario is 'that in one notable case the full time guy just plain refused to co-operate with three....count 'em 3 alternates and leadership let him get away with for these last 8 or 9 years. Flat out refused to co-operate with any alternate. Has absolutely had his way with the position to the present. Will not share knowledge that should be treated as collective knowledge. If this guy got hit by a bus-the whole program would simply end.
A hugely expensive program would simply disappear*poof* Just like that.... like money out of the Liberal Sponsorship scandal.
This "Wag The Dog"scenario continues to this day, to this very day..Some leadership.
The problem with this situation is that it "has been personalized. The ol'"personality differences"excuse gets trotted out by leadership as a way of avoiding.....indeed in this particular case.....flatout abrogating responsibility. BTW. The very same excuse that has kept this situation in limbo these last 10+ years....and with many of the same players in the leadership ranks as well.
Sad part of all this is that old excuses are tainting the new blood.
The view these people should be taking is,"Service to the dues-payers".
Time for not just, Accountability, Ethics, a policy on nepotism, but also for term limits and yes.... The inclusion and full training of alternates should be incorporated in our bylaws.

Scandal corruption and radical alternatives

Scandal and corruption can sometimes lead to electorates choosing radical alternatives.
It has been argued that one of the many reasons for the recent election of Hamas in Palestine was because of allegations of favouritism, nepotism and corruption by the ruling Fatah faction in the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian people are well versed politically so they must have known the reaction of their enemies to the election of Hamas. Yet they voted this way mainly as a rejection of corruption.

The same can be argued about a study in Britain that suggests that fully 25% would vote for the extremist BNP. This isn't to suggest widespread racism, though that may play somewhat of a role, but seems yet another example of the population rejecting what they percieve as corruption or at least lack of proper representation by the established political parties.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1755286,00.html