No, the difference is meaningful because as soon as you swap out owners for "board of directors" it changes the scenario from "outrageously normal" to "outrageous fraud".
A director is not an owner who has any legitimate claim to funds they manage on behalf of the owner or the charity, quite the opposite, they have a legal fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the owner or the charitable purpose, not their own. If they funnel the company's money to themselves, that's outright fraud (or embezzlement, depending on details) and they deserve to be in jail and a civil claim to compensate for breach of fiduciary duty, there's nothing normal or tolerable about that.
I'm not discussing the way things should be, but the way they are. There are numerous public charities who get a significant amount of funding because of who's on their board.
They're not funneling money to themselves, they're funneling it to other charities that they work with.
A director is not an owner who has any legitimate claim to funds they manage on behalf of the owner or the charity, quite the opposite, they have a legal fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the owner or the charitable purpose, not their own. If they funnel the company's money to themselves, that's outright fraud (or embezzlement, depending on details) and they deserve to be in jail and a civil claim to compensate for breach of fiduciary duty, there's nothing normal or tolerable about that.