Almost every board eventually faces an owner who is angry, persistent, and correct about at least one thing. How that is handled decides whether it becomes a tribunal file.
Separate the three things they are doing
They are usually making a factual claim, a request, and an accusation, all in one message. Take them apart.
Answer the factual claim with the record. Answer the request on its merits. Do not answer the accusation at all in the first reply; it is the part most likely to produce a sentence the corporation regrets.
Answer in writing, on time, every time
A records request has a statutory clock and answering it late converts a complaint into a proceeding. Even where no clock applies, a written answer within a predictable rhythm removes the escalation that silence produces.
Nothing costs a corporation more than an owner who concluded the board was hiding something because nobody replied.
Concede the part that is true
Boards resist this because they read it as opening the door. In practice, the opposite is true: acknowledging the one thing that went wrong, plainly and once, ends most of these. Defending everything invites the owner to test everything.
Keep it at the board, not the director
Individual directors answering individually is how a board ends up with three inconsistent positions in writing. One channel, one answer, minuted.
Know when it stops being a communication problem
When the same matter has been answered fully in writing and returns unchanged for a third time, the board is no longer having a conversation. That is the point to take advice, not the point to write a longer letter.
Record what was answered and when. If it ever goes further, the sequence of dated answers is the corporation's entire defence.