If you’re feeling déjà vu, you’re not alone.
Once again, the board has appointed someone from within its own comfortable, well-worn social orbit. Once again, the community is left on the outside looking in. And once again, there’s a complete lack of transparency about how this decision was actually made.
How many people applied for the open board seat?
We don’t know.
Were there qualified candidates from outside the board’s inner circle?
We don’t know.
Was there a fair and competitive selection process?
We don’t know.
What we do know is that the newly appointed member was already part of the board’s “Closed Circle.” And that fact alone speaks volumes.
This is the pattern. An opening appears. The board goes quiet. No public accounting of applicants. No meaningful engagement with stakeholders. And then—surprise!—another familiar face joins the ranks. It’s governance by clique, not by merit. It’s networking masquerading as leadership.
Let’s be clear: serving on the board that oversees the community is a privilege and a responsibility. It requires fresh ideas, diverse perspectives, and a genuine commitment to serving the broader community. When appointments consistently come from the same social and professional circles, the message is unmistakable: this isn’t about widening the table. It’s about keeping the seats warm for friends.
Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not optional. Community representation is not optional.
And yet, here we are.
When a board repeatedly appoints from within its own ranks or extended inner circle, it undermines public trust. It sends the message that the process is predetermined. That applications—if they even matter—are just window dressing. That decisions are made long before any public announcement.
The most frustrating part? It doesn’t have to be this way.
Publish the number of applicants.
Disclose the criteria used to evaluate them.
Explain why the selected candidate was the best choice.
That’s not radical. That’s basic governance.
Instead, the board continues to operate as if it answers to no one. As if the community that supports, funds, and champions SHPOA doesn’t deserve clarity.
If the goal is to strengthen SHPOA’s future, then broaden participation. Invite new voices. Break the pattern. Demonstrate—through actions, not platitudes—that appointments are based on qualifications and vision, not proximity to the existing power structure.
Until then, every new insider appointment will feel less like progress and more like proof that the circle isn’t just tight.
It’s sealed.
About the Author
