YET I'd point out we're in the U.S. where folks being accused have the right to be heard --and the right to counsel, and the right to bring witnesses setting forth their side of the story.  Also the right to question the information asserted against them.  In judicial hearings that's called cross examination.  In an informal setting I'd call it just a part of the basic right to be heard.  

During investigation of this issue the tables were turned against Colby. All sorts of rumors but called unsubstantiated.   Then there were criticisms about mentoring by citizens, go-fund-me efforts,  conspiring with residents to dump the GM, etc.  Using the OP's attorney to dig up assertions against her,  making her into a target, yet procedurally not allowing her basic defenses to be asserted. 

And as their final slap down, not allowing her the customary two weeks, after resignation, to wrap up the projects of her office.  A final public penalizing.  Classless, uncalled for.    

I believe any summary would be more complete if it mentions that Colby was not even allowed to be at the board meeting where her grievance[s] were being discussed and voted upon.  Nor to bring any witnesses [nor their written statements] supporting her side.  Nor to challenge the other side's assertions.   Deck was stacked against her by the board's procedures.

This gross miscarriage smells like grandma's kettle of fish basking in the summer sun for a week.  Stinks to high heaven.

Seems it would be a good gesture to amend that summary to point out and describe this issue.  Serving the interest of basic fairness and upholding those U.S. principles.  If such amendment were to be left undone, this would serve to hide and to perpetuate those unfairness aspects. 

This omission of Colby's basic right to be heard deserves sunshine.

I'm sure you can compose more diplomatic phrasing.  And probably omitting my inelegant griping mentioned above.  Thanks for your consideration.