It likely makes for really good copy when board members (from a quasi-public) organization chat publicly about their exec. At least it is making for a good front-page LA Times story.
From the story, I gather that not all board members are, shall we say, happy with their exec. And, again from the story, it does sound like there are reasons to suspect that the unhappiness may have developed for a number of reasons. In my practice, I see this often enough and work with boards to help them understand if the trust they once had is too far gone to maintain the relationship. Tust can be lost for both good and bad reasons but, right or wrong, there's a point at which trust has so diminished that the board really can't go on working with their exec.
I don't know enough to know that this is what's going on here, but the public nature of the conversation makes me wonder aloud whether board members are truly fulfilling their duties of loyalty and obedience. Let's review these two duties.
The duty of loyalty is basically focused on board members recognizing that when they speak outside of the organization they must speak as one and must act to preserve the best interest of the organization.
The duty of obedience is often best recognized through conflicts of interest issues, but it too basically says that, members should act in ways that support the central goals of the organization.
Now, when individual board members muse publicly, particularly to the press, I'm not thinking that's representing their duties of loyalty or obedience very well. And, to top it off, it's certainly not supportive of the exec, even if there are questions about performance. No, I believe that questions of performance are internal issues left to the board to resolve, privately. Yes, there may be public conversations once the issue is addressed, but at that point, these conversations should represent the agreements by the board, as a whole.