I have noted through my work that some nonprofit board members are treated deferentially. This is to say that some members have "gifts" that are viewed as far more valuable than their attendance at meetings or their participation in committees.
Often times these members have big "names" they lend to the organization, are big donors, or are part of the institution's history and members are really uncomfortable holding them to the same standards or removing them from the board.
I very much understand the general position of the board about these members -- their "value added" is such that it's ok not to require the same participation required of the remaining members.
But....is this really "ok"? How exactly do these members exercise their fiduciary duty when they are not present at meetings, lending their wisdom and thoughts to fully inform decisions? And how do the other board members really feel about these member's absence in the daily oversight of the organization? Or is writing a big check equal to fulfilling fiduciary responsibility, in essence contributing to the financial sustainability of the organization?
At very minimum the decision to retain a board member is a decision for every member and one which should be revisited each year. I also propose that the benefits that special members offer could be gained by providing something other than a board seat. But whatever the solution, recognize first that in reality, every volunteer leader of an organization is special based alone on their willingness to serve.