In what is clearly a set of very confusing circumstances or very intentional power-plays or maybe both, the Museum of Contemporary Art Board, Executive and "owners" are clearly challenged. The first question: who's in charge?
In summary, based on the New York Times article, the city of Miami owns a building which houses an art collection which is, by contract, managed by a nonprofit. The city contributes about 25% of the annual budget. The nonprofit is overseen by an executive who in this case was appointed by the city. Who pays the executive is not exactly clear. The board however is not recognizing the director as "in-charge" but the city does and the executive is clearly acting as though he is indeed in charge. Meanwhile, there are also issues over whether or not the building is adequate enough to house the collection and programs of the museum.
I presume much of this will be resolved in court as clearly the contract between the city and the board is not complete enough to clearly define where one purview begins and the other ends. Of course one solution is for the board to take its 75% of the budget and go where it wants leaving the museum building and the executive on their own. This happens with some religous sects all the time.
All of this serves to remind us that passion is a very motivating factor in how what might otherwise be viewed as market and good business decision-making activities. We are also reminded that agreements, while they may appear to be written in stone, can still miss a beat here and there with extreme rammifications.
At the very least for this situation, a board cannot legitimately fulfill its fiduciary duties when other parties have more control over its assets than it does itself. And what might otherwise look like insubordination on the part of an executive actually can become quite the opposite when one of the voices at the table has perceived or real authority that trumps the board's authority.
It really doesn't get more messy.