Thank you for your summary of this study on the estonian house, I am feeling a little shell shocked. At the April meeting the board gave a chronology of events where they brought up different studies and said, "we are now in critical olukord". The chronology included a 2009 Ernst & Young report (financial report), 2010 Turner/Townsend engineering inspection, 2012 Cushman & Wakefield report and I guess this Environmental report (which the board said was used to solicit developer proposals)
The board needs to show all the reports, otherwise, they are going to lose credibility. I can't believe that they would deliberately mislead us, but, they are not helping themselves by not showing the reports. It is not looking good.

If so, for how much longer?
Let's face the truth. Our community is shrinking fast, both in quantity and in quality.
Our dear old folks are dying off. The remaining community activists, like Allan Meiusi, aren't fluent in Estonian.

So, I have to be fluent in Estonian to be a "quality" Estonian! Defining "quality" Estonian by the fluency of one's Estonian is as close to racism as you can get, a true superiority and elitist point of view. I guess in your very narrow world many Estonians are probably not white enough either.
What has been exciting to see at the Estonian house is the diversity, integration and welcoming of all people to the Estonian community.
I see this clearly at places like Estonian school, girl guides and scouts and even at the summer camps.
Maybe you should visit the Estonian house and see the many "quality" Estonia's that are not fluent in Estonian but are bound by our common ancestry, language (whatever level), have strong cultural morales and are very proud Estonians.
The Estonian house represents inclusiveness of all and maybe that is why it is the hub of the Estonian community.

The chips definitely can't fall where they may any longer especially for each of the board members.
It is possible that members of the board have never seen the reports, especially if the reports were done between 2009-2012. This unfamiliarity doesn't absolve them from their responsibility to now ask for the reports, read and understand them and their potential implications to the corporation, certain board members, decision made within internal board meetings and presented to the shareholders. Especially in light of the new information put forward by this article and the previous article by the 3 professionals.
Assuming all the board members can get access to all of the reports. When allegations of misconduct arise, such as, potential (misrepresentation of the state of the Estonian House that could have lead and influenced the decision making of shareholders and potential voting outcomes) the board of directors have an obligation to investigate the details, take a proactive stance and to communicate the results to the shareholders and to the public. Free advice.

When the board members are dealing directly with potential allegations of misconduct and the information is now public knowledge (in the public domain), shareholders and the public will be watching to see how well the board handles such matters. Each board members conduct and the conduct of the board as a whole will be under the microscope. Avoiding the hard questions and giving into groupthink mentality is not an excuse and in itself would be considered potential misconduct of the directors.