I remain unconvinced about the member-elected Board position in general.
A prominent Australian law firm places a coloured chair in every meeting room, used as a proxy for the client to remind its lawyers to consider the client at all times. I'm unconvinced that a member-elected board position is any different, albeit I would expect them to be slightly more animated than a chair.
It should be trite that Board consider members. Where they don't, and they find a member-elected representative annoyingly reminding them that members exist, they could just work around them. From memory, we had Kate Grieve on the Board when the jumper changes were made without consultation with members, and the plans were put in place to move to Cockburn.
Is it unfair to expect one or two member-elected members to change anything? Probably. But when you vote for someone to nominally represent you, it creates an expectation that you will somehow be kept more in the loop. Confidentiality obligations preclude that from happening.
So while symbolism can be important in its own right, I'm just not sure it adds any accountability at all. In this case, they haven't even got the symbolism right, so I'm glad Hg has pushed them in the right direction there.
My personal, probably ill-informed view, is that the entire Board needs to be more accountable to the members, and that can't happen while the WAFC is the sole shareholder.