Originally Posted by Maestro64
You know I have read similar things and have read the proxy statement, even in this article
Ms O'Dell is as clear as mud, she wants a plan to be shared with her and ISS but she does not want to know name, excuse me with out name how is it a plan. I am not sure what she is looking for. I know many companies have a short list of people internally who they would consider for internal position if someone was no longer in a position. They some time even identify external people that feel could fill the role. However, it sounds like she is looking for a document that explains how they will do about that. I highly doubt that is what she is looking for she and ISS really wants names since the name tell it all.
My advise to ISS if they can not stand the risk of not knowing, then get out of the stock.
Well, there was a bunch of HR-speak BS in the proposal about, "will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates," and, "will identify and develop internal candidates." It also clearly states, "adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy," and "annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders." So, to claim that it doesn't require Apple to do anything is either to not understand it or to intend to mislead.
As I've said before, there are two possible interpretations. Literally, since it doesn't spell out what details must be disclosed or what has to be in the annual report, it's meaningless, so pointless. However, I'm sure these people would file a lawsuit if Apple followed a literal interpretation and published a report that said, "We have fulfilled our obligations under the succession planning resolution."
The other interpretation is that they do expect Apple to not only name names, but to tell how these names fit into their business strategy (thus revealing that too). This is the only interpretation that actually means anything, and it seems pretty clear that this is what they are after.
These ISS people are essentially idiots. Idiot shareholders ruining companies through interference and/or excessive focus on short term profits has become an American tradition in recent years, but we can at least hope that most Apple shareholders have the sense to reject this proposal.