Do you scrutinize BOD candidates for all the companies you invest in as carefully as you do BRK's or is BRK an exception?

Good question and yes I try to when looking at the proxy statement which is after all the topic and reason for this discussion.
Berkshire is also different due to :
- The position size and exposure some of us have which is different to other positions.
- The certainty of change, in the very near future, where current allocation and policy transitions from being driven by two very competent, independent individuals with a long track record and conviction. This very unique combination of individuals currently assures robust debate and criticism being offered and acted upon. This model will soon need to shift to a competent ceo in Abel, no Munger and then robust challenge to the ceo (where necessary) can only come from the board. That is why the future board needs to be stronger than it has been so far. In fact so far, you could have put anyone on the board as long as Warren Buffett was both CEO and Chairman. The company would have run just as well. Obviously this no longer going to be the case in the future.

A board packed with family appointees and a lead director with a lower position size than mine after many years of membership is not a particularly positive sign for me.