No no no, you don't get it. They're your regional representatives of The Access Fund, not of the climbing community.
Not a democracy, here, more of a meritocracy and a willing-to-do-volunteer-work-ocracy.
As an aside, it just seems that Julie (I agree with her for the most part, except for this) seems to have confused JG with you.
JG is clearly far more landowner-hostile, so I'm not buying the "Kent's alter ego hack account" theory.
Anyway, insofar as the GCC is or isn't a representative of the climbing community, there are a wide variety of opinions out there in the climbing community about how to handle the local politics and zoning issue, so can one really be surprised that they've decided to stay neutral? Taking a neutral position is actually the most democratic thing they can do.
This zoning issue complaint is the only substantive complaint you've ever raised about the GCC Kent, and you can castigate the Preserve on it with some validity, you can definitely castigate the FoS on it and the FoS is indeed completely misguided as far as I'm concerned, but all this flame-baiting of the GCC is just pointless and trollish for somebody who claims to want to start a dialogue
(And JG, wow, don't get me started, this guy bitches and moans but fails to advance one coherent suggestion as to what should have been done differently, and is probably just somebody's, not Kent's, anonymous hack account. Lame-o.)