She's a board member. Who had approximately 1/4 of the power to fire Sam, and she did eventually exert it. Why do you rather assume her voice was not heard?

You should assume that most of this happened before the firings.

Then it was 1/6 about the voting.

But voting is totally different thing than speaking about concerns and then getting actually them into the list, which will we voted further if they decide to do something about it.

In theory that is 1/6 * 1/6 power if you are alone with it for the decision to happen.

I still see no justification for assuming that the board member's voice was not heard before the publication. There's zero evidence for it, while the priors ought to be favoring the contrary because she does wield a fairly material form of power. If more evidence does emerge, then we could revisit the premise.

> she does wield a fairly material form of power.

How? Being a board member is not enough. There were aready likely two against her in this case, while the rest is unknown.