This could be an offshoot of any one of the hell-inducing scenarios discussed in my book. Or, a member wielding significant power, influence, or money. It can be a single director or a subset of the board.
The wound is created during a specific meeting or series thereof, where a slight is perceived. It is further picked and festers in sidebar meetings where sub-teams grouse about their projected dissatisfaction. Whether the grievance is real or imagined, the board is subjected to passive-aggressive or coliseum-like jousts between those angling for power.
Blood, blood everywhere, and not a mop in sight. Before anyone can inject sanity, the disgruntled members take their toys and go home. No more money or advocacy on the nonprofit's behalf. Corporate records are returned months later out of spite. Letters to the Editor crop up to criticise or undermine the organisation or its leaders, and gossip is spread throughout the community to ensure the sandbox is no longer usable by anyone. Those who know better will choose to make informed opinions, but others will jump on the bandwagon and fan the flames of toxic public opinion.
If you're storming off in a tantrum from the board, ask yourself if you truly want to do damage to an organisation with a worthy cause because your opinions weren't the final decision or not enough people kissed your ring. Does disrupting business continuity benefit the community being served?
Time to take some deep breaths, look squarely in the mirror, and be a professional who provides sufficient notice along with transitional assistance to your successor.
— From "How to Avoid the Pitfalls of Nonprofit Hell"