You're railing against...
- a more or mostly less quiescent organization
- that has basically no members, or at least no real membership
- that has basically done away with by-laws, elections, BofD terms...
- ...mostly because of the first point...
- although they probably seemed like a good idea at the time of organization
Seems rather Quixotic, no?
I feel a somewhat more important point is that the GCC is ostensibly the official local representative organization of the Access Fund. As others have pointed out, I agree that the GCC should either (once again) become a real organization that is truly representative or allow some other group to step into the void and be the voice of the climbers.
But the major impediments will remain:
there are only a few willing to do so, they will continue to be major players in whatever transpires, and the historic difficulty of being able to create, organize, and effectively operate such an advocacy group that is indeed able to work with local landowners. Yes, people have pointed to the SCC as a shining example of such a group. Unfortunately, despite the existence of numerous climbers coalitions/groups nationwide, there are damned few that have been as effective - a testament to how difficult this is. So in the Gunks, instead of constructive discussion, we get these snarky pissing contests, like this thread. At least you guys are dealing with relatively more esoteric issues, like zoning laws and land acquisition practices, instead of more visceral and permanent things like the elimination of a climbing area in my neck of the woods: http://nn.byu.edu/story.cfm/72157 http://preserverockcanyon.com/
And one issue from a few years ago that came to successful compromise. In the early part of the decade, access to Castleton Tower was destined to be lost forever due to developemt: http://www.castlerockcollaboration.org/