I was a little concerned that line might be misunderstood (I’m the author of the article). I totally agree with you that there are hypothetically possible ethics violations that would warrant dismissal. But I was trying to point out - as you did - that based on what we know it’s not reasonable and likely (I.e. plausible) that one of those hypotheticals exists in this case.

I included it because, in talking to several board members, they would have you believe that there is some super secret and awful thing that Lakey has done that they can’t talk about. It’s a bogus excuse they use because they know they can’t actually justify what they are doing. I was trying to highlight how silly it is.