Another interesting move on Benchmark's part. I wonder if this is the key sentence: "Travis’s failure to make good on this promise, as well as his continued involvement in the day-to-day running of the company, has created uncertainty for everyone, undermining the success of the CEO search."

One of the key things about organizations which isn't always apparent is that leadership isn't "given" it is earned. This is often used as a tool in story telling where the hero's actions inspire people to follow them and so even though someone else is the "boss" the people are following the "hero."

That they are complaining about Travis, who, AFAICT, does not even have an employee role at all in the company, continues to be "involved" in day to day operations, suggests that his lack of co-operation is the issue and Travis is, or continues to be depending on your point of view, the 'bad actor' in this situation.

Sometimes you have classes where they throw out a hypothetical question like "What if you fired the boss and he didn't leave?" If Travis is able to exert that level of control over the company then clearly he continues to have people loyal to him doing as he asks against the wishes of the board. I can imagine that this would make it extremely hard to manage a company in that situation.