It's a fact in my experience that when a staff believes it has not or is not being treated fairly and cannot get changes made through regular changes, the staff will make it's situation known to the public. And thus a long continuing saga has been revealed up in the bucolic setting of Burlington, Vermont (and, yes, it is a bucolic setting - one of those fantasy towns that a lot of folks who want a blend of country and urban value).
Well, in Burlington, Vermont there is a showcase gallery (of Vermont artists and art) with a board and a recently new executive and now, after a year, changes in who are the employees. If I read the Burlington Free Press (see, even the newspaper name is bucolic), staff have reported to the board and now the public through the press, what it, the staff, to be multiple instances of bias, racism and neglect by the relatively newly appointed executive. In its stead, the board has hired someone to "investigate" and has taken a very legal lens to present it's position until it receives its report, non-stated, to the public.
From an observer view, it is clear that something is indeed amiss. There appears to be a large disconnect between the exec and staff with cited incidents as proof. The board has managed to step back enough to not appear culpable or even leaning in the exec or staff's favor. An investigation is definitely in order but what I as the investigator (and yes, this is one of my jobs as a consultant) would want to focus equally on the exec and their accountability in relation to staff and the board (and its steps) to help create a whole picture that is both transactional and relational. But I am of course depending on what the journalist has reported as accurate and what has been stated in the article is objective.
All-in-all these situations are never desirable nor perfect and no one really wins. That it got to the public eye however speaks to a failure somewhere in the systems of accountability. Nonprofit boards in particular should make a note to self that its responsibility is to hold its executive and itself accountable and it must take the time way ahead of publicly viewed incidences and regularly to do so.