The problem with the idea that someone can do no good on a board if they are outvoted on issues based on moral objections is that it assumes all the other people have identical views and motivations, and every vote and issue will be ineffectual. I think that's doesn't match with reality. Look at the supreme court, and the different a single judge can make on the myriad cases they see. People are complex, and have nuanced views. An ineffectual vote six days out of the week may still yield a positive result one out of seven. Do we throw that away out of idealism?

There's a place for grand gestures. Giving away real, tangible power, even if unable to be expressed most of the time, in lieu of increasing awareness about an issue that everyone already knows about is not what I consider a smart move. To have any gain, it would at least need to increase awareness of the issue. I'm not sure that's even relevant in this case, given the widespread public acknowledgement and numerous media outlets addressing the issue already.