THE guy says he's "not happy" about what the Legislature has decided is the most effective approach to securing the border. The concept of "not happy" moves me to ask aloud the question: just what is the responsibility of a nonprofit board to make their executive "happy". And, is a board supposed to do EVERYTHING the exec says?
When asked this way I hope you, as a board member, would answer "absolutely not!" Sure, governing is not about making an executive unhappy but governing is about representing the best interests of the public or at least the consumers who are to benefit from what the nonprofit has to offer. And, while the exec may have a variety of resources as well as skill and knowledge to advise direction, a board too brings multiple levels of knowledge and skills to the table to ensure that directions are meant to accomplish mission. And yes, a board can disagree with an exec for multiple prudent and common sense reasons.
Should the exec not be "happy" about their board's decisions they have options. They can do what is asked voicing their disagreement. They can provide evidence that the decision should be modified. They can walk away - get another job.
Making the exec "happy" is not the job of a nonprofit board. Tending to mission is.