What they are saying is that the outgoing Board members don't feel that they should be making decisions that will bind the brand new Board members into a course of action that will wind up either negating the results of previous elections, one way or another (either this year's or earlier years'), or changing the bylaws by which the org functions, which is never something that should be done lightly or hurriedly, and never just for the sake of convenience. (And never ever by outgoing Board members in the final weeks of their term!)

Every person currently on the Board was elected to a three-year term; the people running this year are running for three-year terms. The reason that there are so many slots open this year is that two of the outgoing ones are leaving early.

Those early-leaving people in particular shouldn't have a say in how the situation gets fixed -- they shouldn't be able to say "well, I chose of my own free will to leave early, and therefore I am deciding by fiat that X and Y also have to leave early, even though they're willing to fulfill the three-year term they committed to." Or, conversely, "I declare that because I chose to leave my term early, X and Y, who have committed to three-year terms, can only continue to serve if they re-run for full terms and commit to what will turn out to be four or five years."

Either way, that's not a choice they should be making for someone else. They lost the right to make that sort of choice when they resigned.

This is the transparency people have been asking for: this Board has looked at the situation, realized it's an issue, and made it public a year in advance so people will know that this is indeed on the radar and the agenda, and that it's a problem that will be worked on by the incoming Board, which hasn't even been decided on yet.

And they get jumped on immediately for not having the perfect answer out of the gate, but instead laying out the options that they'll be considering, as people requested they do. Yay fandom.