Well, their big mistake was being unwilling to be clear and explicit about this, but as I read it, the board's problem with him was that he wasn't actually acting as the executive of the non-profit that he was meant to be the executive of, but rather was acting entirely in the interests of a for-profit subsidiary of it (and in his own interests), which were in conflict with the non-profit's charter.
I think where they really screwed up was in being unwilling or unable to argue this case.
I think where they really screwed up was in being unwilling or unable to argue this case.