Hi Greg,
Re-reading through your proposal, I stand by my comments here because when I referred to the fine points of dealing with bad actors and power balance, I was referring partially to the actual details of how bad actors would be removed in a balanced and transparent way. It's fine to set out a vision of transparency and fair play, but what will actually cause this to manifest in a tangible way? From what I can see, the traditional corporate model you describe here really depends on honesty from the board members and their reliability and not much else. When we look at the governmental and corporate world away from Steem, we see corruption and malfeasance at every turn and so from my perspective, any attempt to reuse such systems needs to address the fact that traditional organisational structures do little to ensure the performance that we know could be found here in a way that is optimal. We only need to look at the way that hard forks have been proposed and then adopted by top 20 witnesses in the past, which in then turned out that few had done any real testing of and that there was a kind of peer pressure to conform among them that resulted in huge centralisation - to see some of the problem here. If you study some of the biggest state sponsored crimes of human history, they generally tend to always involve a centralised and conforming power structure - so precisely defining the mechanism by which the community can prevent this from happening in realtime (as it happens) is needed here.
You wrote:

the Proposal is specific in noting a mechanism for removing bad actors, as you mention. In fact, one of the few proposals to address these issues.

Here are the lines in the proposal that relate to this:

Rules and procedures can be placed to allow board of directors to remove an executive committee member for non responsiveness to the community at large, or in the case of malfeasance.

The association may set guidelines for board member participation and removal in case of non participation, or malfeasance.

Rules and procedures will be put in place to allow removal of board members and executive committee members that are not responsive or are acting against the goals and mission of GROW-THE-CHAIN.

That's all fine, but you haven't specified how such rules would or could be designed and that is why 'the devil is in the details'. Any world dictator can create such rules too - that work purely to his/her advantage. We have here a challenge whereby power is distributed among a small group of people, none of whom want to lose their position and your proposal basically logically translates to: "they will figure out how to do that fairly and play nicely together" - I'm sure most people understand that this is not as straightforward as your proposal makes out.