... you are referring to private boards:

>> Board members need to be able to have unrestricted conversations
>> so that they can express their points of view without reservation.
>> The membership needs to know about the decisions the board
>> makes, they do not have to know about how the decisions were made.

In California, at least, if the governing body of a public agency had such conversations in private, even if done serially (that is, A talks to B, who talks to C, who talks to D, who talks to E, who talks to A) rather than in a joint meeting, the members would be in violation of the Brown Act, which invalidates any decision they make (and, in some circumstances, constitutes a crime).

Inasmuch as our club officers are elected, I believe the analogy to public officials is more apt than that to governing boards of private organizations.

We have a right to know how our officers think about issues (and, most importantly, how they voted on them) because we may have to decide, at some time in the future, whether to vote for them again.

>> Publicly disagreeing with policy will only serve to get
>> you out of the organization.

You're telling me ???

----- jim o\-S