Thanks Jimmy. I gather any rules of the role would have to be in the form of by-laws to give them any muscle.
Looking at them, I think the requirements of a committee as a whole would first need to be to set. For instance, given the legislation doesn’t demand any meetings be held, it’s easy not to miss too many when there are none. Previously I’ve served in years like that.
I think that brings back the title of the original article, which was pointing to disengagement, not necessarily just money. If you run a closed shop, you can’t expect customers.
We are over 80% investor, but I found with direct engagement many of them were very interested, but there was nothing to get involved in. Not even discussion.
Out there in Investorland, there is talent. Although perhaps not having the time or inclination to be on a committee, some have become valuable consultants. Business owners, analysts, lawyers, engineers.
Career investors have useful comparative knowledge. One of their buildings is run like this, another like that. This is good, that is bad. All is a help to us.
Anyways, back to your point. That does seem to be an answer. Set the structure, then KPIs, now let’s talk money. I have long thought about enshrining committee governance but not in any relation to payment.
I’ll talk to the SM. There must be other OC’s who have brought their committees to a more professional level. That’s the most important thing to us – but in a way which doesn’t exclude those good folk who just want to help – we don’t want a cold board of directors scenario either. As you say, avoid extremes.