Start viewing the video at 18:20 to hear those remarks.  And you'll be hearing several times there's an accusation of objectionable language, supposedly raised of "basically malpractice" by one of the attorneys.  I'd suggest that the OP board member saying this was over the top with his choice of words.  I'd suggest that the actual language used was really different.  

A couple other board members signaled this speaker to stop his remarks, which he complied with, and stopped commenting.  Seems this was a very unwise way to bring such language into a public meeting.  Pretty bad.  And others realized it. 

Also, it seems pretty convoluted for this gentleman to be complaining about rising legal expenses, when the board's own action has brought on some of those expenses.  First, in getting the legal opinion for -- how to avoid a referendum.  Then next, when refusing to reconsider their anti-referendum position, after it was pointed out how the Association's own sample contains the word "should".  Most folks could reasonably anticipate that a lawsuit would be next, in these circumstances. 

I'd call their vote against a compromise motion to be hard headed. And still with no remorse.   

Tom