Fox News just reported

[snowbird]

George Mitchell is now Chairmen and Michael Eisner stays on as CEO

 

[BRERALEX]

interim chairman. hopefully he'll hit the rode soon the Corporate jungle queen must be peeeeed

 

[manning]

Oh great, a politician for a chairman!!!

 

[Luv2Roam]

Any improvement? Anyone really think so?

 

[BRERALEX]

doesnt interim mean just till they get a real guy? they're not that dumb to just leave mitchell. They know they need to get a real business man .......hopefully.

 

[larworth]

I'm scratching my head on this one.

Thier act of contrition is to appoint a person who got a 25% NO vote. Who has already had a chance to influence the way the company is run and failed. Who we can reasonable assume will let ME continue to call all the shots and continue to run things as he has?

Will the street really see this as sufficient?

 

[DancingBear]

Haven't there been rumors that Mitchell has been working from within toward an Eisner resignation/succession plan?

 

[llrain]

from what i heard Mitchell is good for nothing and screwed up some big thing in the more rectent past...I want to say he was responsible for cutting maintenence that ironically led to a couple accidents..

Oh,...I dont think he is for the resignation of eisner...They are pretty much on the same wavelength

 

[ShadowWind]

Being that most of Michael's cronies are on the board, that just gets Mitchell to the head of the class. He is Eisner's yes man anyway, so nothing has changed, at least for now, but I think the vote is still ringing through the Disney corporation, a ring that may prove frutiful, but also will call in the dogs on Disney's heels...

ShadowWind

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Luv2Roam
Any improvement? Anyone really think so?

Maybe ...

Mitchell will have to PROVE to people that he and Eisner are not joined at the hip. The onus is on Mitchell to show the business world and Disney stockholders (particularly the big guns) that he's not just some puppet for Michael. He's far more likely to overcompensate against Eisner on things -- for a while at least -- than he is to just go along. He needs to inspire investor confidence, and he knows he can't do that by just following blindly. He now has to lead. I think we may see a whole new Mitchell.

 

[honeymom]

With a company with the potential to be poached is it:

1) Better to have an interim Mitchell/Eisner team?

2) Nobody at the helm while a replacement for Eisner is found?

I think they made the right choice.

 

[Luv2Roam]

With a 24% NO vote, I would say he has too much baggage and will not be able to prove himself. No one will trust him, any more than Ei$ner.

 

[momof2inPA]

Eisner must owe him some money. Serve as interim chairman, receive huge bonus. If I were a stockholder, I would be incensed.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

Whoa. Back up the thinking.

1) Mitchell is a long-time friend of Eisner.
2) He has gone along with Eisner on the board for a long period.
3) Although titles are split, I don't see much difference.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Luv2Roam
With a 24% NO vote, I would say he has too much baggage and will not be able to prove himself. No one will trust him, any more than Ei$ner.

I don't agree. He also got a 76% YES vote, which would be more than enough to elect any senator, representative, or to pass any piece of basic legislation pretty much anywhere. I've never quite understood why a simple majority doesn't work in the business world, but in the context of 100%, 24%, while significant, is certainly not a death knell. He's got the perfect chance to step up here and save things, as he's done many times before in non-business arenas. I think it's going to be interesting to watch.

 

[Luv2Roam]

Even 76% is considered bad.

Directors of most public companies typically are re-elected with more than 90% of shareholder votes. Eisner received a 93% vote at last year's 2003 annual meeting. Conversely, withholding of 20% or higher from a director usually causes companies to go into crisis mode, Elson said.

From:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_usatoday/disneystripschairmanshipfromeisner

I do agree with you on this:

I think it's going to be interesting to watch.

If nothing else, this has proved a great learning experience for all.

 

[raidermatt]

He also got a 76% YES vote, which would be more than enough to elect any senator, representative, or to pass any piece of basic legislation pretty much anywhere.

Not quite the same. 76% includes everybody who didn't vote, as well as "broker" votes, which are also counted as yes's. In political elections, non-voters simply don't count. In this case, they count as "yes".

He did not get 76% of the votes actually cast.

Steve Case left AOL/TW after getting a 22% withhold vote. Mitchell gets 24%, and they make him Chariman?

24% withheld their vote for him to even BE on the board.

I've never quite understood why a simple majority doesn't work in the business world,

Because if even 20% of your stockholders are peeved, and sell, everybody gets the shaft. And again, they don't do the elections like political elections, only counting the votes actually cast. Even further, the biggest shareholders are often the board themselves.

Again, Steve Case got a 22% withhold.

...but in the context of 100%, 24%, while significant, is certainly not a death knell.

But as has been shown, that's not the relevant context.

 

[wdw4us2]

When considering the vote totals/percentages, remember that these totals do not reflect the actual votes cast.

These totals represent all the possible votes. Any ballots that were not voted automatically become yes votes on all portions of the ballot, including the Board of Directors.

I have heard that the total of votes actually cast against Ei$ner was actually about 55%. The 43% comes from the total ballots assigned to shareholders.