In my view, Committee members who see their role as advocates for certain issues or a certain population of the Membership (for example, users of racquet facilities), seek objectives of that particular population, publicly lobby the Board in furtherance of those objectives, present themselves as opposition to Board and management on issues they see as being popular to their notion of a constituency, and even interact with governmental agencies in ways not requested or authorized by the Board (as to OPA business), are not acting in accordance with their proper role as Committee members. 

To be clear, any OPA member can do any and all of those things in their capacity as an individual and self-governed member of OPA. But when they seek and accept a Committee position, their situation changes, at least as to matters within their Committee purview. Also to be clear, healthy discourse and disagreement on issues is to some extent constructive in any governance setting, as l'm certain this Board would agree. But the Committee member role is not to generate controversy or disputes on Board or other policy matters. It is to assist the Board as and when asked to do so, and to otherwise be supportive of the Board, including in formulating how and when to appropriately disagree with some Board stance, if it becomes necessary to do so.