When they pressure management to defend itself, it creates greater accountability. It forces management to explain its reasoning. The other shareholders can make up their minds whether they agree or disagree. Let the shareholders decide.

When a consultant does other work for the company, it creates either the actual danger or perceived danger of a conflict of interest. The consultant should either work for the board, or work for the company.

Any time you separate economic interest from voting interests, it leads to all kinds of problems. It lessens the accountability. I haven't heard of any good reason for dual-class stock. I think the proposal will strike a chord with a lot of people.

Because of a greater focus on governance, the resignation of a director certainly has a greater weight attached to it. Boards have greater power. In the past, directors just faded into the sunset.

An idea, like a ghost, must be spoken to a little before it will explain itself.

When you see something like this, it begs asking what failure in their system led to this. Why didn't anyone pick it up?