zlacker

It is if the board had 9 members originally and only temporarily has 6 because of recent resignations. And that there is a proposal to expand the board on the table (because 6 is kind of thin for a company this size).

>>jacque+(OP)
Ah, I didn’t know about the three vacancies. If the former board members in those slots all would have voted against these actions, then yes it probably meets my definition of a power play. But if any of them would have voted to take these actions, then the required majority may have been there even with the former full 9-member board, in which case it’s again not a power play.

Let’s assume for a second that it is a power play. If the point of it is just the power struggle between two factions seeking power then yeah it’s not a good thing to majorly disrupt an organization. But if the point of the power play is to rescue the nonprofit’s pursuit of its mission from a CEO’s misuse of power that goes against the mission, it’s a board acting exactly as it should, other than badly handling the communications around this mess.

I have no inside info and therefore am not expressing any opinion on what the truth is. But I’m not going to rush to believe the PR war being waged by Altman and his allies merely because the current board is bad at PR/comms.

I look forward to reading any public summary of the report from the investigation which the new interim CEO has ordered.