It is my opinion that a lot more work gets done when there is a Executive Director running the organization and the ED works daily and uses the Board effectively. The Board's job is to raise money and have vision including making sure the mission is being met and the mission is still vital to the members it serves. I have participated in Not for profit retreats sponsored by the Andy Warhol Foundation to focus on growing a 501 c3 organization. I have learned a lot about how other similar sized not for profit organizations run their business. I am a co-founder of a not for profit art gallery that started about ten years ago, it is still running very smoothly and has hired a full time ED to take the place of the founders who began things. Now days the founders make decisions from the Board Member point of view. Our organization (Locust Projects) was part of about 15 different Arts organizations chosen by Warhol to take part in the initiative, most of the organizations that were included had budgets around 200k a year. The objective of the retreats was to have critical discussion about our field and share how we do our business and what has worked and what has not. All of these organizations have ED's. The ED and the Chair represent the organization and take what they have learned back to their BOD. I don't think it could hurt to have the club looked over by professionals and see where our strengths are and where we need to improve. Do we need a ED?, I think so. We have potential that is not being taken advantage of. It would be money well spent to investigate these questions.