Governance bodies ought to be somewhat predictable. In criminal law, one of the elements of insanity is the question whether one can conform one's acts to the requirements of law. Such a definition is premised on the notion that one can know what the law is. That's such a vague standard that it can be twisted into anything - and it usually is. An impartial body of governance would not give preferences to some entities and people over others.
Good governments have open procedures and transparent decisionmaking.
Such an abrogation of director responsibility is, in my opinion, a breach of the directors' individual and collective fiduciary obligations. One of the most valuable parts of a democratic institution is the right of the electorate to toss the incumbents out of office. But for the electorate to do that they need to be able to see how the incumbents are doing.