I think we normally consider a user's reputation to be a fairly faithful representation of a user's value for this site. But it isn't enough. Valuable users of this site post good questions and answers, but they also vote, and edit, and use the review queues.
I've realised this is a problem because I keep seeing high-rep users post answers on questions which are clearly off-topic instead of closing them. When I check their profiles I see lots of posts, but little to no contribution to this site's self-moderation.
So I have made a data query to highlight the users of this site with the highest reputation who haven't achieved the Civic Duty badge (which only takes 300 votes). The query shows user names, number of votes, number of edits, and the last time they visited. I would've added the number of reviews they've made, but I couldn't figure out how. (It may not be possible given the data available.) But you can click on their user names to check yourself.
A user with 26215 rep, 542 answers but only 148 votes, 17 edits and just 9 reviews is contributing both to the health of the site and its disrepair. These users do not deserve access to the moderator tools.
(Note that there will be some users who are on this list but aren't problem users. Write a couple of really popular answers and you could get a huge rep boost, but otherwise your actual site use is appropriately constructive for someone with your general level of site participation.)
So that's the problem. What solutions are there? I'm not sure.
Posting good answers is still good. Voting must still remain private. Review queues are not essential to contribute to the site's self-moderation (you can flag and vtc as you come across bad posts normally.)
The one thing I can think of is what prompted this whole thing: making a bigger fuss of established users who answer blatantly off-topic questions. If you join me in this, what is the best way to make such a fuss? Comment? Flag? Downvote?