The Foundation looks dumb in all this, but rather than beating each other up about the past, I'd prefer to inquire about the present.
This person was in a sensitive position. Can the Foundation offer assurances that her actions in this position did not cause any material harm? I have in mind problems ranging from poor accounting and mismanagement to ouright fraud and embezzlement.
I realize there are likely limits to what one can discuss publicly if there were problems, but perhaps a more general statement denying any problems would be possible. For example, a statement like: "To the best of our knowledge, Ms. Doran's performance as COO was satisfactory and we do not believe that her actions had any direct negative impact on the Foundation during her time here."
Something like that would give me peace of mind that this situation is now concluded (aside from the bad PR).
The possibility of a link between this person's involvment as COO and the subsequent delay in the audit is a troubling one and should be disspelled if possible.
-Robert Rohde