How difficult is it for a nonprofit board to remove an underperforming member? And, how difficult is it for a nonprofit board to remove a member who some suspect has been personally profiting from the organization or has been taking other actions which are harmful to the organization? And, finally, does anyone really care?
Based on correspondence I've been recently receiving, removing a board member is not easy and few if any other members are even clear about the steps. And, few even know that the first resource for understanding what action is possible is likely the by-laws (e.g. board member removal clause, whistleblower clause).
Of course the simplist method for removal is to not provide a second term to a member, assuming that members have term limits. The Governance Committee should annually review all member's performance and determine if particular members should not be place on the slate for a second term. And yes, there should be conversations and a member who is identified as "questionable" should be involved in understanding the situation and have a role in determining what next.
But what if a situation demands more immediate reaction? I would first direct a board member with suspiscions and hopefully evidence to the Governance Committee or if not, an Executive Committee for an off-line disussion which should then start a ball rolling to assess what next. Whistleblowing policies can help if a member is anxious about taking such action.
Whatever, a member who is not fulfilling their fiduciary duty and worse, is personally gaining from or doing harm to a nonprofit should be stopped immediately. I believe it the failing of those who learn of this to not take action.