I am late to the party, but I figured I'd voice my concerns here since the other thread doesn't contain any actual discussion on this proposal. This might be too late, given we're well past the start of voting, but oh well...
The only reasons that have been presented to justify this are that we don't have enough qualified people to choose from for these positions. If we don't have enough people who are active and informed, then shouldn't we be focusing our energy on addressing that issue instead of cutting corners with our legislation to make it easier on us?
Allowing our justices to hold multiple other positions can be dangerous and has a chance at establishing a judiciary that makes rulings that are favorable to their other positions. We won't ever be able to guarantee a completely unbiased judiciary, but we can certainly take steps to make sure it is operating as a body that works in the region's best interest and not in the interest of those who are appointed to it. I don't think the reasons that have been brought in favor of this are sufficient enough to warrant the potential dangers that can arise from the changes presented here. I would encourage the officials of LazCorp to address the overarching problem of activity and engagement directly so that we do have people to fulfill these seats and our other positions.
I would encourage other Shareholders to vote Nay on this proposal, so that we can begin working together to address the cause that lead us to this instead of trying to quick-fix a symptom.
The only reasons that have been presented to justify this are that we don't have enough qualified people to choose from for these positions. If we don't have enough people who are active and informed, then shouldn't we be focusing our energy on addressing that issue instead of cutting corners with our legislation to make it easier on us?
Allowing our justices to hold multiple other positions can be dangerous and has a chance at establishing a judiciary that makes rulings that are favorable to their other positions. We won't ever be able to guarantee a completely unbiased judiciary, but we can certainly take steps to make sure it is operating as a body that works in the region's best interest and not in the interest of those who are appointed to it. I don't think the reasons that have been brought in favor of this are sufficient enough to warrant the potential dangers that can arise from the changes presented here. I would encourage the officials of LazCorp to address the overarching problem of activity and engagement directly so that we do have people to fulfill these seats and our other positions.
I would encourage other Shareholders to vote Nay on this proposal, so that we can begin working together to address the cause that lead us to this instead of trying to quick-fix a symptom.