I have to wonder if Time wasn't being a bit loose in its presentation.
According to an article in the New York Times, "Newly Elected Board at Tyco Moves to Recover From Scandals" Mar 8, 2003. pg. C.4 claims
"The new board, elected on Thursday at the company's annual meeting, replaced all of the directors who served under the former chairman, L. Dennis Kozlowski."
I'd trust the Times version as a more complete presentation of the events. Tyco's old board was swept out and a new one installed, perhaps with the explicit support of the new chaira and with key ownership groups on board. Ultimately however the final act had to done by shareholder mandate. I could see how a magazine like Time might protray the chair's role as central to the process, even presenting in a manner that while true to spirit is technically inaccurate.
That's my read on the matter,
Bill Smith
Towson Univ.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Nickols [mailto:
nickols@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:10 AM
To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: A Couple of Questions About Governance
The February 9 issue of TIME magazine carries a story about Ed Breen, former
president of Motorola, who is now hard at work cleaning up the mess at Tyco,
Int'l. In reading it, I came across this passage:
"The new CEO [Breen] moved quickly. In his first six months he replaced
Tyoco's board of directors wholesale, fired the entire top corporate team
and hired 80 executives to fill their spots."
Just out of curiosity, where would Breen get that kind of authority?
Breen is quoted as saying, "I wasn't naive about what I was entering. My
first day, almost 20 percent of our investor base showed up - in the third
hour - in my office." This suggests to me that what is probably a
controlling interest in Tyco isn't nearly as diffuse as the overall investor
base. Might that 20 percent have authorized Breen to do what he did?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us