We don't have complete information, and the article is clearly a one-sided representation of the situation. That said, based on her account, it seems one of these things is true:

1. Code Club's board acted independently of any action by Google in an attempt to stop some perceived conflict before it started (e.g. Google balking at further support because on of their key people says some negative things about Google now and then).

2. Code Club's board acted based on off-the-record or unofficial complaints by unknown Google representatives about the negative things Linda says/said.

3. Code Club's board acted based on on-the-record/official complaints by Google.

If the former, the board is in error. They have neither the obligation nor the right to demand anybody in the organization, Linda or whomever, to behave in any manner when not "on the clock." Our society is conditioned to accept the imbalance of power that makes such a demand seem reasonable, but it doesn't have to be that way (my opinion, if it's not clear, is it ought not be that way).

If it's either of the latter, it's an egregious abuse of power on Google's part (and an obsequious act on the Board's part). Google's relative power and influence makes Code Club a rounding error in terms of their PR efforts, either direction. In this scenario, Google's support of Code Club is little more than an advertising purchase masquerading as giving back to the community, which is certainly not unusual, I suppose, but it's also not something that leads to anything like an equal/level playing field.

If she's making stuff up, well, that's pretty bad on her part, and at least as awful as any of the above items.