Principles to Live By

Corporate Governance (New 1 Oct 2010)

Home
Definitions
Spiritual wisdom for the Class of 2020 (New 23 May 2020)
FBI: Hate crimes, anti-Semitic attacks up in 2017 (New 16 Nov 2018)
High CEO Pay Means Disappointing Stock Returns (New 1 Aug 2016)
Importance of Teaching Values (New 24 Mar 2016)
America's economy is a nightmare of our own making (New 25 Jun 2015)
The Stranger in Your Home (New 24 Mar 2015)
The Cost of WWII Air War (New 28 Mar 2014)
Wealth Inequality in America (New 6 Dec 2013)
The Psycholoty of Winning (New 3 Feb 2013)
Crisis of the Middle Class (New 8 Jan 2013)
Income Inequality Grows in TN (New 15 Nov 2012)
Why the Economy is Slow (New 12 Oct 2012)
Veteran's Charity Under Fire (New 15 Aug 2012)
Nursing Homes Vs. Prison (New 12 Nov 2010)
Soul of the Republic (New 30 Oct 2010)
National Purpose (New 16 Oct 2010)
Inside Job (New 14 Oct 2010)
'Big Business' Democrats (New 14 Oct 2010)
Corporate Governance (New 1 Oct 2010)
Common Good (New 1 Oct 2010)
American Wealth (New 19 Sep 2010)
Shrinking Middle Class (New 19 Sep 2010)
Financial Market Failure (New 15 Mar 2010)
Pledge of Allegiance (New 14 Mar 2010)
The Gift of Fear (New Jan 2010)
No Time to Lose (New Sept 2009)
Fiduciary Responsibity (New 7 Mar2009)
What Hamilton Has Wrought (New 27 Mar2009)
What Would Jesus Do? (New 21 Mar2009)
Global Warming (New March 2007)
Compassion
Democracy
Christmas
What I Wish For
Scout's Oath
Perspective
Statistics
Osama Bin Laden
Torture
ENRON
Close to Home
Inhumanity to Man
Thanksgiving
DC Area Snipers
Historectomy
Education
Civil Society
Religious Extremism
Stem Cell Research
Rapture
Mailbag
Contact Me
Peaceful Civil Disobedience


Fairness Trustworthiness Kindness
Patience Gentleness Knowledge
Discipline Compassion Integrity

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

bar_blue.gif

After reading how skewed our distribution of wealth is I was not surprised to read the following article about the efforts of two powerful organizations which represent the top executives of U.S. Corporations.  They are trying to stop new rules by the SEC that would allow groups of shareholders owning more than 3% of the shares of a corporation to present an alternate slate of board members for election.
 
All other considerations aside, in my opinion, the share holders own the corporation and should be allowed to vote for candidates of their choices rather that just an up or down vote on the candidates presented by the current management and board of directors.
 
Maybe this new SEC regulation is a beginning in bringing top executive and board compensation down from the lofty perch it currently occupies.
 
As pointed out previously, when you're in the 40% of the population with only .2% of the wealth of the nation, it's hard to think about applying the golden rule.

bar_blue.gif

Business groups sue to block new shareholder powers

Nashville Tennessean Newspaper
October 1, 2010

WASHINGTON — Two influential corporate interest groups filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday attempting to block a provision of the recently passed overhaul of financial regulation that would give shareholders more say in the boardroom.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable filed an administrative challenge asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to halt its implementation of new rules announced on Aug. 25 for the selection of corporate boards. The pair also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for immediate review.

The two powerful associations allege that the SEC has, arbitrarily and without regard to the cost to businesses, implemented new "proxy access" rules to allow dissident shareholders to run their own slates of candidates for a corporation's board of directors. The SEC responded Wednesday afternoon with a statement denying the allegation.

"We believe that the commission's proxy access rules are both lawful and in the best interests of the public and shareholders," said John Nester, an SEC spokesman.

Critics say that allowing a competitive slate to be put forth by a shareholder or group of shareholders owning more than 3 percent of a company's stock would give enormous new influence to labor unions,  many of which have union-run pension funds.

Proponents, however, say that corporate boards are often chummy with management and often don't have the best interests of shareholders at heart. Allowing dissident slates would allow shareholders a greater say on executive pay and other areas of company policy.

Corporate boards are supposed to act as a check on management, but in recent years they've come under intense criticism for being inattentive. Boards drew scrutiny after the collapse of energy giant Enron Corp. in 2001. After the collapse of Wall Street financial firms in September 2008, questions about boardrooms rose anew.

Reporting by McClatchy Newspapers, for example, has since shown that board members at Moody's Investors Service didn't understand the firm's complex rating process for mortgage bonds, but continued to support the company's management.

The issue of passive corporate boards largely has been overshadowed by bigger debates over financial reform legislation, now called the Dodd-Frank Act after Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

The SEC has moved quickly, after a comment period, to take a step toward boardroom democratization. "Our rules will result in a greater number of nominees appearing on a proxy card. Shareholders will continue to have the opportunity to vote solely for management candidates, but our rules will also give shareholders the opportunity to vote for director candidates who otherwise might not have been included in company proxy materials," the SEC said in its 451-page rule issued after a 3-2 split vote on Aug. 25.

Debate affects many

The debate affects all publicly traded companies in the U.S., large or small. Under current practices, directors are nominated by management, and shareholders vote them up or down. It's highly unusual for proposed board members to be rejected. More than half of the roughly 10,000 U.S. corporations regulated by the SEC are incorporated in Delaware, which has mechanisms in its state laws for shareholders collectively to seek alternate slates of candidates.

The Dodd-Frank Act gave the SEC powers to make it easier for dissident shareholders who individually or collectively own 3 percent of a company's stock to run alternate candidates for the board.

The Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, which represents the top executives of major corporations, say that this gives union-run pension funds a way to disrupt the internal affairs of companies while seeking to organize workers.

The issue of passive corporate boards largely has been overshadowed by bigger debates over financial reform legislation, now called the Dodd-Frank Act after Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

The SEC has moved quickly, after a comment period, to take a step toward boardroom democratization. "Our rules will result in a greater number of nominees appearing on a proxy card. Shareholders will continue to have the opportunity to vote solely for management candidates, but our rules will also give shareholders the opportunity to vote for director candidates who otherwise might not have been included in company proxy materials," the SEC said in its 451-page rule issued after a 3-2 split vote on Aug. 25.

Debate affects many

The debate affects all publicly traded companies in the U.S., large or small. Under current practices, directors are nominated by management, and shareholders vote them up or down. It's highly unusual for proposed board members to be rejected. More than half of the roughly 10,000 U.S. corporations regulated by the SEC are incorporated in Delaware, which has mechanisms in its state laws for shareholders collectively to seek alternate slates of candidates.

The Dodd-Frank Act gave the SEC powers to make it easier for dissident shareholders who individually or collectively own 3 percent of a company's stock to run alternate candidates for the board.

The Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, which represents the top executives of major corporations, say that this gives union-run pension funds a way to disrupt the internal affairs of companies while seeking to organize workers.

McClatchy Newspapers correspondent David Lightman contributed.