Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (50346)	2/14/2002 9:08:27 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I have a problem with assuming he is guilty until the facts are better known. I think it is quite feasible for an employee to commit acts which are not readily knowable by the board. I'm with Frank and Judith. It's true that the full story has not yet come out, but it's already demonstrably clear that most of the firm's senior leadership were taking part in at the very least a giant reckless ponzi scheme, and most probably some kind of criminal deception. This was not a question of a rogue employee or a single covert incident, but rather the central financing and accounting arrangements for the entire firm for several years. Now the sole real responsibility of a board is oversight of precisely this kind of thing, and of the quality and integrity of management. Enron's board demonstrably failed in that task. The only options for them, therefore, are "I didn't really know what was going on because I didn't take my board duties seriously," or "I knew and went along with it." My hunch is that some members of the board fall into each category, but even the lesser evil is a pretty serious black mark on somebody's record. It seems to me, therefore, that the only case for keeping Savage on would be a) he fell into the first rather than the second category and b) he brings something very, very special to the QCOM board and losing his involvement would hurt the company significantly. tekboy/Ares@boardmembershipisaresponsibility,notaprivilege.com <edit> I'm quite intrigued by the thread line-up on this one...and by Bruce and Thomas' casual view of board member responsibilities. I'm not doubting that they're right about what often happens in practice, but surely that's because most board members violate their clear fiduciary responsibilities. Just because everybody does it doesn't make it right, and any board member who is simply a rubber stamp for reckless and possibly criminal management should be ashamed of him/herself. None of this will affect QCOM much, I imagine, but Frank's point was that it he was disappointed in Dr. J for winking at the problem. I agree.