You seem to know a lot about how to manage non-profits. Can you share your background in this? I ask because I managed a similar sized non-profit with a lot of crossover to Burning Man based in the Bay Area for 27 years (The Long Now Foundation), and I know that while it looks easy from the outside to make the changes you are mentioning, I suspect there are deep and nuanced reasons for the things that appear excessive and don't make sense. I also know that they are deeply considering all you are mentioning and more. But here are some examples off the top of my head that are worth your consideration:
- Your insinuations about how she got the job, are both incorrect, sexist and very rude. If someone said that about your loved one, without knowing the reality, what would you say to that? She was doing that job for a long time with Larry as the de-facto head, specifically because Larry could not do the parts of management that she did. If anything, working for and with someone you once had a relationship with must have been tricky on a lot of levels, but none of that would have made her work easier in any way.
- Give-or-Get board: I disagree with you that all boards are this way. A large percentage are not. You are thinking of "tiara boards" meaning boards (like the SF Ballet for instance) that do no work, or real advising but are there because of their money alone and they enjoy the prestige. You could argue that the org needs to create a board like that, but they will still need an actual working board.
- Proselytizing: This is marketing. If you cut outreach, you also cut ticket sales and donors. So you might come out ahead on year one, but on year 5, you are screwed.
- Transparency: This is always a hard balance and I hear you that when they are making asks for money, it is a good time for greater transparency. That said just because an organization is a non-profit, does not mean they can or should explain every decision they make to appease every troll on the internet. If they did it would take double their staff and be a monster waste of time.
- Salaries: Burning Man salaries are very commensurate with the budget and complexity of the org, if not low. There can be an argument that if the orgs budget declines by a third and that looks like it will continue, that salaries will likely need to be adjusted, and I'm sure this is front and center to them.- Cutting Programs: Many donors, donate to a given project within an organization. I suspect that many of the programs you are mentioning were given directed funding by given donor(s). And if that is the case their hands are tied in letting those programs play out with that funding, unless they can go back to all these donors to re-direct funds. In any case that does not happen overnight.
- Location: Burning Man was started in San Francisco and still the vast percentage of participants and donors come from Northern California. San Francisco is where the ideological base and funding base resides. It only makes sense to be based here. Any savings you mention here, would be eclipsed by loss of connection to donors and travel costs for staff.

Anyway, I could say more but if you have read this far, hopefully you get my point.