That’s your opinion and once again I cannot see it confirmed by the statutes.
By reading the statutes I summarise my opinion as follows:
10.1 describes the Board of Trustees:
“The Board of Trustees consists of natural persons who belong to another body or:…”
That section provides a non exhaustive list of indicators as a minimum requirement for eligibility.
It does not set any limit on the authority of the MC to decide to refuse applications or renewals for whatever reasons they see fit even if the applicant passes the first test for eligibility.
10.2 actually specifies that the MC decides on applications and renewals without setting any criteria or limits:
“Induction into the Board of Trustees is decided by the Membership Committee.”
As stated previously that sentence, like others in that section, stand on its own and no limitations on the authority of the MC to decide one way or another have been set.
10.2 Confirms that appointments/renewals are “… following the decision of the Membership Committee” so it isn’t a simple box checking exercise. The MC has full authority to decide if an application or renewal should be accepted or not even if it passes the first eligibility test.
12.5 Would be the only place where guidelines could have been set but none have been provided so at present the MC can arbitrarily decide which applications or renewals they want to accept.
I did evaluate the matter in 2023 when the person in question made your same comments, I have re-checked it after the more recent MC’s decisions taking on-board the comments that have been posted and I believe there are no grounds for me to change my opinion.