This is a good debate and the feedback is making a better and stronger proposal. That said, we must understand that governance and operations have different needs. More governance does not necessarily equal good governance.
Governance defines permissioned authorities and scope boundaries to secure the organisation from governance capture and catastrophic failures. Permission however is a terrible way to run an organisation. You cannot build a culture of dynamism, innovation and speed using permissions. Permission is “do-not-act-until-approved" which is organisational stasis and death.
I think some of the feedback and proposed solutions, particularly as it relates to budgeting and remuneration, lead to outcomes that are operationally unwieldy and suboptimal. Powers should be permissioned with clear constraints but provided those constraints are not breached then people should be empowered to get on with using their own autonomy and creativity to deliver results, which ultimately is the most important thing for anyone to be held accountable to.
What might this approach of permission and constraint look like re budgeting and remuneration? Define whether PNF directors can hire people and what they can spend on, set reasonable limits on budgets and remuneration, and then let them do it. It’s incumbent on the Directors to demonstrate ROI (via transparency and reporting) but requiring reasonable acts to be debated and permissioned before the fact is not necessarily good governance, it can easily become bad org design.