No, this is obviously the key:
"review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board"
This is an explicit statement that he was lying to the board about something. It cannot be worded more clearly unless switching to use the word "lying".
"he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities."
Given the comment above correctly noted that they explicitly ended on a whole thing about how the board's key responsibility was their commitment to the original core mission, and their issue with his lying was interference with their responsibilities, this does seem to be connected to that.