[Mod note: Take this to email guys.... there is nothing about Hawaii in
this argument...]
"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1212255901-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On May 30, 6:35 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.> wrote:
>> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1212162300-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>>> I'll quote you on CEOs of US Corporations who presumably belong to
>>> responsible companies...
>>
>>> "These CEO's of large companies are just human beings. They do not
>>> walk on water, or have some sort of crystal ball that tells
>>> guarnatees
>>> that they will be successful. And because they are human beings,
>>> some
>>> are honest and some are not honest. You cannot dream u way to
>>> prevent
>>> that from happening."
>>
>>> Here you imply that they can get away with lying. That's not how the
>>> system is intended to work. It's a similar to you saying that
>>> criminals are "just human" and will break the law, and there's no way
>>> to "prevent" that. I point out that we "prevent" that by having
>>> deterrence. They screw up and in theory, the law says that they get
>>> punished.
>>
>> I DID NOT SAY THEY THAT WOULD LIE. I said that being human, they
>> will make
>> mistakes and like all human beings some will not tell the truth.
>
> Jerry... very few of us lie in court-- much less if we can be
> convicted of a criminal offense as was Ken Lay of Enron. What you
> claim to say is obvious in general. Why use it when we are discussing
> something specific like this?
Very few of us will ever be charged with a crime. So, we will never know
what we would do in a court. And becuase the subject was not about Ken
Lay,
it was about CEO's of large companies in general.
>
> I suspect that lying like this is more common than most people
> realize, and it would be great if there were a way to kick out a
> dishonest CEO. Especially in Hawaii it would be great for our economy
> if the CEOs of our Hawaii corporations were more accountable and
> responsive to their shareholders. For example, we could require that
> shareholders with 5% or more of the company could request a seat on
> the board. If they suspect mistakes and misconduct, then they could
> get the CEO fired without a messy proxy fight.
>
The odds are that "if" someone owns 5% or more stocks in a company, they
have a chance of being on the board, "if" that is what they want to do, and
"if" they have the qualifications to be on the board.