Think of these as limitations for adopting Policy Governance.  If these conditions don't exist, working to adopt Policy Governance is likely to have a positive effect on a board. 

What may be disconcerting about this list is that these are conditions that Policy Governance should minimize.  The dilemma is that when they already exist, it is difficult, if not impossible to move to the model, and in some cases the model simply becomes a tool to maintain the status quo instead of becoming a new group approach to governance.  For example when a small group of members is in control of the board, Policy Governance may simply allow them to have an even tighter reign.  Although, it is likely that this small group will be violating a number of Policy Governance principles, it is also very unlikely that any of the board members will bring it to their attention.  However, this doesn't mean that education about the model is inappropriate if these previous conditions exist.  Knowledge is helpful at anytime. 

The next question may be what does a board do that finds itself in one of these conditions.  The best thing is to directly address the problem rather than trying to get Policy Governance or some other technique to address it in a more subtle way.  For example if the executive isn't performing at an acceptable level, the board and executive should be in some pretty deep discussions until it is worked out.  If the executive feels that the board is on his or her back, that should be a discussion.  Adopting Policy Governance wont make these things go away.  Instead it is likely to magnify them.