I agree but this is an ideal notion. Boards are very often stacked or highly disfunctional either on purpose or by accident. Sometimes the board is just a front for a founder that wittingly or unwittingly serves to help dupe investors or other stakeholders.

The government doesn't hold boards to any standard. It's a free-for-all.

Sometimes they are owners, other times they are the ones being duped into rubber stamping and legitimizing criminals.

This is painting by broadest brush imaginable.

Boards routinely hold back the success of organizations, and ousting those boards can be in the best interests of the company. This is pure idealism. Some companies are better with passive or active boards; however, activist boards and passive-reactive boards can cause all kinds of harm leading to the death of the company.

The board member here does not appear knowledgeable in the technology while also expressing a motive be deeply involved in its development. This was a recipe for disaster.