Lilian:
>>The sad thing is that through that heavy-handed approach to smother criticism, the exchange is missing on an excellent opportunity to educate the public and to give more than lip service to consultation.
Good point. In today's Financial Post, Fleming defends his warning - its actually pretty funny to read, because IMO, the TSE's statements are so inconsistent with their actions.
Here are some examples [quoting from the article]:
''There is no intent on the part of the TSE to bully any one''
''...Fleming and other TSE officials were unable or unwilling to provide an example of the allegedly libelous comments posted by ... Porter Davis. "We pay good money for legal advice" and anyone who wants to see the alleged libels should hire a lawyer to do analysis of the chat room ... said TSE general counsel Len Petrillo. ''
''The TSE said in a prepared statement, "this is the first time in the 150 year history of the exchange that we have CONSIDERED [emphasis mine] such an action ... We beleive in freedom of speech and that diverse and alternative views from all our stakeholders are valuable. But points should be made through "appropriate channels" which "best facilitate constructive debate ..."
''Fleming says that he was not troubled by the professional criticism, but personal comments were "unprofessional and uncalled for" ''
Here are my comments, I have added footnotes to explain any potentially confusing statements.
Now when I read stuff like this, I really start to wonder about what exactly these TSE guys are smoking [1]. Given that portions of this fight are being fought in the court of public opinion (i.e., traditional and NEW media) the statements of their general counsel (Len Petrillo) seem quite out of place. Does he realize that members of the public who are reading the Financial Post report don't have big money to spend on lawyers to review SI for them like the TSE does. Does he realize that many people will interpret his comments as condescending and arrogant. What a great understanding of your stakeholders - get a clue buddy! [2]
Mr. Fleming says discussion about the TSE should be limited to "appropriate channels" [3] in order to "yadda, yadda yadda [insert motherhood statement of your choice here]". Well I always though that SI WAS an appropriate place for members of the public and the industry who were interested in things like markets and investing to talk about things like, well, the markets and investing. The amount of talk on this particular subject by a variety of people - seems to support my contention. Possibly Mr. Fleming doesn't like SI as a discussion forum because he (or his cronies or his flunkies) can't influence any control over the debate or manipulate the results [4, 5] the way they can with more structured stakeholder relations exercises?
When I read ''Fleming says that he was not troubled by the professional criticism, but personal comments were "unprofessional and uncalled for" '' I was stumped. Initially I thought that the purpose of this exercise was to defend the reputation of the 250-year old TSE. But its not statements about the TSE that are the problems, apparently its "personal comments" about Mr. Fleming. And why are they characterized "unprofessional and uncalled for", I thought that they would be characterized as "defamatory and libelous".
Message to the TSE: This problem is no longer just a problem with one person. The story of your actions is now out in the media where people will make their own determinations as to wether your arguments are credible or not. This is now a public-relations story and in my opinion press releases like the ones that you have put out to date will do little to convince the public that you are right.
Regards,
John Sladek
Footnotes :
[1] "what these TSE guys are smoking" is a colloquial expression. It is meant to imply that, in my opinion, the actions of the TSE appear to be irrational. It is not intended imply that anyone at the TSE is smoking anything (legal or otherwise).
[2] "get a clue buddy" is also a colloquial expression intended to imply that Mr. Petrillo should try to get a better understanding of a certain type of stakeholder, so that he might understand how that type of stakeholder would interpret his comments. It is not meant to imply that Mr. Petrillo or his associates at the TSE are in any way less-than-competent in the discharge of their duties at the TSE, or are not very nice people in every possible way.
[3]What are the appropriate channels for criticising the TSE in general and Mr. Fleming in particular?
[4] The TSE press release says it wants to stick to forums "best facilitate constructive debate and that best serve the interest of all our stakeholders". In my opinion, "facilitate constructive debate" could be replaced by "control the debate", and "best serve the interest of all our stakeholders" could be replaced by "ensure that these discusions via 'appropriate channels' come up with the results that are in the best interest for us".
[5] I mean "manipulate the results" in a professional way, not a personal way. |
