Archive

Posts Tagged ‘board of directors’

Best Of Class Forecasting & The Eternal Struggle…

March 16th, 2017 Comments off

There’s few corporate topics that elicit the levels of frustration and confrontation that budgeting will create amongst teams. Unlike the amusing skirmishes that we’re watching at a government level right now, you’d think that this exercise at a corporate level, when there is only company performance to address and the absence of “political parties”, that this would be a straightforward process. Well this certainly couldn’t be farther from the truth as we all know. Over the next few posts I’ll be diving into not only the process and pain that most companies will go through, but an overview of the budgeting platforms I have worked on and the considerations for each.  While some of my views might seem matter of fact to my finance colleagues, my posts are always intended to provide insights for the rest of the organization when their having to deal with what is typically that “black box” department called Finance.

In the most optimal situation, the compilation of a Budget represents the collaborative process that should involve all the functional areas of an organization. This collaboration in the end will yield a Budget that all individuals are supportive of and will ultimately drive future accountability in delivering results that achieve the commitment made to the Board. In the worst situation, and one that will ultimately result in a broken process at every level, are goals that are mandated at the top level and each functional area is forced to determine what path it will take to get to the end goal, regardless of how reasonable the goals might seem. Ultimately, these goals are not fully supported by the team, will not be met over time, will yield resentment, as well as create unnecessary levels of conflict amongst the team as they resources become scarce in the absence of results and fingers are pointed in every direction as goals that were never their own are missed. These are absolute extremes, and in most cases, the majority of corporate budgeting efforts fall somewhere in between and need to be navigated through effective communications, compromise, and support.

What is important to keep in mind, at least with consideration to what the Finance department is managing, is all the elements that they’re compiling and that the budgeting process is really a mechanical process…there is no emotion involved in this process. Even though it will prompt emotional responses across functional areas, it’s really mechanical for the Finance team. With that in mind, it’s also worth understanding what the endless data points are that are having to be compiled for the Budget. I’ve worked in smaller $30M turnarounds that have a relatively small product offering and limited international distribution….to much larger entities such as DC Shoes / Quiksilver, as well as MGE, which then reported on a consolidated basis to Schneider Electric. The latter organizations had extremely complex budgeting practices that had been decades in the making, involved consolidations with dozens of international entities, while also having to balance both GAAP and IFRS reporting. Not only were there challenges with international consolidations, but there were countless other elements to work into the planning process, which included…

  • Establishment of company codes depending on subsidiary considerations.
  • Delineation between the multiple sales organizations
  • Considerations to the multiple distribution channels that were at play
  • Breakdown between customer types
  • Inventory segregation
  • Product segregation to allow further performance reporting
  • Seasonal considerations, which in apparel, likely meant 4-5 seasons annually
  • Demographic segregation…Men, Women, Youth, etc.
  • Product categories…Bottoms, Tops, etc.
  • Fabric segregation…Denim, etc.

It’s easy to see with the list above why the Budget process is a very mechanical process and NEEDS to be absent of any emotion in the process. It’s also easy to see with the list above that the process also needs to be a collaborative one with EVERY functional area to ensure success in the process and an end budget product that is supported an endorsed by the team.

With some relief, it was a much simpler budgeting process at Cylance as we were still a primarily domestic story with Protect being the main product offering. We ran a separate P&L for the Services business as that was a strategic part of the organization, but we also had to ensure that the Services team was operating in a profitable manner. Services was an incredibly profitable business at MGE and there was no reason it shouldn’t be at Cylance and we had the reporting enabled to be able to track whether that was the case. While there was still some developing international business, it was going to be a fairly small percentage of our overall results, at least over the next 12-24 months while the domestic business was still going to be the main growth vehicle. Did we need to plan at a regional level and monitor the spend…absolutely. However, for the stage that Cylance was at, and for the foreseeable future, there was no reason to complicate the process and create a ton of busy work to keep Finance busy and engaged. There was no reason to build a P&L based on hundreds of departments or cost centers that was more akin to what was necessary at a $40B Schneider organization. As with manufacturing, and other supply chain philosophies, lean P&L management in early stages leads to a very straightforward process, one that does not require extensive interpretation, and ultimately leads to a clear & concise path that was developed by the team, is supported by the team, and is easily navigated by all constituents.

So how do we bridge the gap between supporting the teams with what they need, effectively consolidating and considering their feedback, and the platform that is utilized to bring it all together and present the detailed view to the Board? That’s what we’ll dive into over the next few posts and jump into some of the key areas of the P&L. The common theme that I’ve always carried over the years, is that the success of an organization is tied to the collaborative approach and one that considers and respects the feedback of the team. Ultimately it’s the team, or the CEO, that is presenting the Budget to the Board. A Budget that is expected to be delivered on and achieved. It should be a safe assumption that the Budget is the product of an entire team collaboration and one the team is committed to rather than being dragged along for the ride. I’ve had to endure every situation, but without a doubt, I’ll always side with collaboration…

Thanks for reading…

Jeffrey Ishmael

You Didn’t Have To Provide A Plan To The Board?

January 20th, 2017 Comments off

BUDGETOne of the benefits and enjoyments I get from updating my blog are the questions that I typically received from people asking for certain clarifications. This comes as no surprise since the original intent of my blog was to bring a little more transparency into how the Finance department operates relative to every other functional area in the company and what might be driving the actions or decisions of the Finance department.
With that said, I received a follow-up yesterday on the update I wrote on planning within a hyper growth environment. One of the main messages in yesterday’s post was that you really can’t plan, or at least effectively, in a hyper growth environment. With that message I was asked how the Board would accept that an operating plan wouldn’t be presented to them for the year. I have to say I was a bit amused at the question, but completely understood why it was asked. Not to mention, the Board would never allow such a hall pass from any team. There is ALWAYS an operating plan that is highly thought out, detail oriented, and usually has a number of additional scenarios that will convey what the impacts will be to cash and profitability if targets are missed or exceeded. For ballpark references, you might have the base scenario, as well as a +20% and a (20%) view. For a more mature company these ranges will obviously be tightened up when you have a higher degree of predicability and more history to base the plan off of. When you’re really just a handful of Quarters into a trajectory, which you are anticipating to double, and the trajectory starts looking like a 6-8x, then you have an entirely different beast to deal with.
So how do you plan for such a scenario? Again, as I mentioned yesterday, you really don’t “plan” for it, but you react to it and adjust the allocation of resources to support that new growth trajectory. As with any business, you have key indicators you look to gauge the health of the business and whether you are tracking to achieve the commitment made to the Board. The elements below are certainly not all inclusive, but are merely a sampling of the items that could be watched when encounter a growth rate that is entirely unplanned.
Billings & Revenues: While this is the key driver on which all spending decisions are made, the total number is not the overriding driver. There’s further review that should be done on the quality of that revenue, what the concentration is, and whether there are any key areas that are potentially missing against Plan. In the case of Cylance, we were constantly watching what our price per endpoint (PPN) was at every level. What that PPN was at a macro level, a channel level, a vertical level, as well as what they were for the duration of a deal. Looking to this number would indicate what the true health of the business was. Was there a single customer that accounted for a disproportionate share of the Quarter business, which in turn, might prompt a tapping of the brakes to ensure that hiring and spend weren’t getting ahead of themselves relative to the Plan and a normalized trajectory. Prudence should always reign supreme.
Gross Margin. Definitely a key indicator, but it also depends on what the structure of the billings are and how the terms being written may be influencing GAAP-based reporting. For a situation where multi-year deals are being done, it might be best to look at early results on a non-GAAP basis if a disproportionate amount of the activity is headed for the balance sheet as deferred income.
Headcount. For me, this was one of the key indicators as it related to our burn and this is certainly not just a single macro number, but a more complex element to dive into. First, what is the overall cost per head and what is the trend line on that figure? Are you’re costs per head staying constant or are you seeing an increase in that number, which might be tied to incentive plans that aren’t aligned with results, increasing benefit costs, or all of the above? Second, what are the average billings and revenues per employee? While the overall headcount might be increasing, this number should also be increasing with the results that are being achieved in excess of plan. It’s not a problem increasing headcount over the Plan, so long are you are seeing the achievement or increase in this planned metric. Third, what is the distribution of the headcount by functional area? Did the original Plan call for 12% within the Marketing area and now the revised number puts Marketing at 18% of the headcount? Is there a disproportionate growth in any one area because that functional area has successfully lobbied for additional staff that is not consistent with industry norms?
Facilities. This area is obviously heavily influenced by the increased headcount that is occurring to accommodate the unplanned growth. If historically Rent expense has been 2% of your operating expenses then this is the approximate metric that needs to be followed in order to stay consistent with the Plan. If you’re exceeding Plan and need more staff then this number, while increasing on a constant dollar basis, should still remain at approximately 2%. As an example, you’re planning a $25M year, which would allow for approximately $500k in rent expense. If the new trajectory is now $100M, then theoretically you would have $2M to spend on rent to accommodate the additional headcount needed to support that growth. Ideally you also start achieving economies of scale where you can actually see that number go down as a percentage of spend. If you fail to miss you billings number, hire all the folks, commit to even more rent expense…then you’re going to find yourself in a bit of bind. It’s akin to “I’m going to get a big raise next year so I’m going to buy my second home and a new car for my wife and I…”. And when it doesn’t happen?
Systems. This is another area that needs to be heavily strategized and managed in a hyper growth environment. There will be unplanned upgrades that will necessitate spending in the $500k-$1M range that, while necessary for growth, were previously balked at due to their cost and the original trajectory you thought you would be on. You might have thought you had another year…or two…to bring them online, but now seeing a 6x freight train coming at you there is no other choice than to starting throwing a ton more coal on that fire and get up to speed.
Culture. We’ll discuss this in another post…or posts.
This barely scratches the surface of “planning” in a hyper growth environment. It’s more about regulating the health of the patient, making sure the vital signs are remaining healthy, keeping your finger on the pulse and knowing how to respond. It’s the doctor that has decades of experience, treats every patient the same, only to realize he has misdiagnosed the patient and either administered the wrong medications…or too many. It’s about collaborating with the broader team in making key assessments, discussing with the team their needs, and ensuring that the resources (MONEY) are properly allocated and within the range of the original Plan that was discussed.
Thanks for reading…

Jeffrey Ishmael

CFO’s & Cyber Risk: Protecting Your Performance…& Shareholders

May 2nd, 2014 Comments off

As a CFO, I can’t help but be a bit shocked at the recent article on CFO.com “CFO’s Disregarding Cyber Risks”.  In my position, and more in relation to my past positions, my involvement with IT-related activities typically centered on the ongoing assessments of our ERP platforms, annual budgets, necessary capex, and the standard operational issues. I can honestly say that cyber risks were really not part of our ongoing concerns, nor was the topic ever tabled by the rest of the senior leadership team or the Board. We also weren’t planning in an environment where billion dollar breaches were being reported in the press.

Fast forward a few years and it’s hard not to take note, and initiate an elevated level of planning, in the face of the Target breach that occurred just prior to the Holiday shopping season. I don’t care what industry you work in, any CFO should take note of a company which, in a single Quarter, revises their earnings estimates down by 25%, or approximately $250 million. How about a revision in revenue estimates that takes the topline down by almost $1 billion….in a single Quarter! Even more importantly, at the time of the revisions, the company was unable to assess the potential impact of the breach beyond the current Quarter. That event by itself should have every CFO looking over their shoulder and considering the proverbial “what if”. Evidently not…

In the recent article on CFO.com, which drew 600 responses, CFO’s ranked data privacy only 12th on their list of corporate risks. In comparison, data privacy ranked 26th on their list in 2013. While the level of importance is rising, it’s still not being given the proper level of attention. At the top of their list was legal and regulatory shifts. In hindsight, I would love to have someone provide me an example where legal or regulatory changes resulted in an immediate and material revision to earnings or revenues. These are typically changes that are discussed over extended periods and phased in, thus allowing the company and shareholders to digest the resulting changes in how the company reports its results. This is in stark contrast to waking up and realizing you’ve just compromised the privacy for 70 million of your customers in the most critical shopping time of the year.

What was also concerning about the article is that 57% of the respondents weren’t analyzing whether they had enough cyber insurance coverage or weren’t undertaking additional key activities to sufficiently mitigate the risk of cyber risk. This was not only happening at the senior leadership level, but at the Board level as well. While the public and general investing community is aware of the breaches that are reported in the press, I know I have taken an entirely different approach to my personal cyber security as a result of the work I see our team doing across a wide spectrum of industries and with companies that are very recognizable to us all.

As a CFO, if you want to ensure that all of your costs saving initiatives and EBIT performance aren’t compromised, the investment in a security solution will pale in comparison if you do encounter a significant breach…

Thanks for reading…

Jeffrey Ishmael

Have You Overstayed Your Board Seat Welcome…?

February 26th, 2013 Comments off

For those that know me, I am a fiercely competitive individual and that competitiveness extends to not only my cycling, but to a different degree, the office. Depending on the environment and who I am dealing with, my competitiveness will be adjusted accordingly. The satisfaction I have gotten from my career has been the derivative of the environments I have hired into and being able to let that competitiveness play out in the form of driving improved financial results at all levels, thus improving the financial health of the company. Over the last few years the scope of my involvement broadened as pursued my first Board seats, both of which were with non-profits. Both were equally enjoyable and had satisfying missions.

One of those Boards, the Orange County Marathon Foundation, was dedicated to the organization and execution of the OC Kid’s Run, which is a peripheral event to the Orange County Marathon. The Board already had a strong line-up, but I was asked to participate on the Board and very quickly was asked to be the Treasurer, a nomination I gladly accepted. I decided to participate since there was a strong initiative to increase participation, address sponsorships, and a few other key items. Seemed like a perfect strategic fit for what I had essentially done at a corporate level in the past. I spent my first few Board meetings getting to know the broader team, as well as the past challenges they had to deal with in the past. Very quickly I found that it was a very capable crew. Yes, there were a few contributions I made, but I also came to realize that it really wasn’t the standard “restructuring” I was used to, nor was there really a need for any intensive financial planning. The expenses that the team was dealing with were almost entirely variable with the runner count for the event.

Now let’s rewind to that whole “Performance” thing that drives me in my personal life. Essentially the Board really only needed an accountant or bookkeeper to count the debits and credits. I also really started to question my contribution to the Board and whether I was adding value to the seat I was occupying at each Board meeting. It took a bit of time to admit, but I arrived at the decision to discontinue my involvement with the Board because I knew there was somebody else out there that would deliver much more value than I was, which ultimately, would benefit the kids that much more. With such a capable team behind the Foundation, I didn’t want to hold onto my seat strictly for the sake of having a placeholder on the resume.

Whether non-profit or your standard corporation, it’s the duty of Board members to ensure that they are delivering value and helping the team drive a higher level of performance that might not be there in their absence. If that is not the case then perhaps they should be rethinking their position on the Board. I received some feedback that suggested I should hold my seat until I found another Board, but that certainly wouldn’t have been appropriate, or fair, to the Foundation Board. I know that as I continue my networking efforts I will find that next Board opportunity that will allow me to leverage my experience and deliver the value I expect to.  Have you overstayed your Board seat welcome…?

Thanks for reading…

Jeffrey Ishmael

Cylance, Inc. Launches & Comes Out of Stealth Mode…!

February 13th, 2013 Comments off

Cylance, Inc. today formally announced $15 million in funding from Khosla Ventures and Fairhaven Capital, along with the Board of Directors and Advisors that have been put in place to help guide the company for the years ahead. While this day is merely the culmination of months of hard work by a team I have come to admire over the last 7-months, it still feels fantastic to take a day and celebrate the accomplishments of the team and what we have to look forward to. The full details of the press release can be found on our website at www.cylance.com .

A bigger affirmation for the mission and future of this company are the backers and advisors that have come on board. Khosla Ventures was founded by Vinod Khosla in 2004 where he was formerly a General Partner at Kleiner Perkins, as well as a co-founder of Sun Microsystems. Fairhaven Capital is a venture capital firm focused on themes in the enterprise, physical technologies, media infrastructure, and security markets. Both are neither strangers to technology, nor are they a stranger to the talent and abilities of Stuart McClure, the founder of Cylance.

In addition to the funding, Stuart has been able to assemble an incredibly high caliber Board of Directors and Advisors with additions that include Patrick Heim, former Kaiser Permanente CSO and now Chief Trust Officer at Salesforce.com, Admiral William J. Fallon, U.S. Navy (Retired) former Commander, U.S. Central and U.S. Pacific Commands, and Alex Doll, former co-founder and COO of PGP who sold to Symantec in 2010, who will guide the Company to achieve its goals. With this Board pedigree, Cylance has a deep and diverse team to help guide the Company. An equally talented Board of Advisors brings together a diverse group of experts to solve the complex security problems that the industry currently faces. Advisors include: Paul Forney (Invensys), David Willson (Army/NSA), Shane Shook (KPMG/PwC), Robert Bigman (CIA), Stewart Baker (Steptoe/NSA), Alex Nazaruk (GetCo), Michael Rauchman (GetCo), Eric Culp (formerly of ESRI), and Joseph Gabbert (formerly of McAfee and EMC).

The team here at Cylance has an incredible opportunity, and a fantastic level of support to carry out the mission at hand. As I’ve written in previous posts, it’s all about delivering on what you promise and driving high levels of performance. With the team and backing that has been assembled, this is merely the first step. There’s more to come, but it feels great to formally step out from behind the curtain and share more detail about what has been assembled for the future.

Thanks for reading…

Jeffrey Ishmael

FEI/Woodruff Saywer Panel: Securing Your First Board of Directors Seat

February 11th, 2010 Comments off

            Last night I had the chance to attend another great FEI dinner for what has been a great 2010 season. Although the events have all been memorable this year, last night provided another opportunity to revisit the topic of securing your first Board of Directors seat. It was a repeat of the panel hosted earlier in the year by Woodruff-Sawyer, which also happens to be a sponsore of the Orange County Chapter of FEI.  Also a good opportunity to catch-up with Ron Pakhouz and Jared Pelissier and hear about their great start to this year and the new clients they’ve been signing.

            For the panel last night, we were also fortunate enough to have the same high-caliber panel, which include Paul Folino (Chairman of Emulex), Priya Huskins (D&O expert extraordinare of Woodruff-Saywer), and Bruce Lachenauer, who specializes in Board member recruitment. I’m not going to go into a full overview of the panel, since much of what was discussed at the earlier one was repeated here. However, below are some of the key takeaway points by the panel members last night.

 

– More HR positions relative to the Comp committee.

– 40% of current new Board members are brand new vs. 16% previously.

– Last 4-months Board activity is up 40%.

– Large increase due to need for financial expertise.

            A. 25% are CFO’s

            B. 25% are from Audit firms

            C. 25% are from Investment Banks.

            D. 25% from other functions.

– “The days of the Generalist on the board are dissipating…” – Folino

– Develop a Board that has broad-based strengths and can contribute to all areas… – Folino

– Regardless of your functional area of expertise, you better be able to have a valuable point of view/position on all Board issues – Priya Huskins

– What can you do to make yourself a more attractive Board candidate? – Bruce Lachenauer

– There is no on-the-job training for a Board…you need to hit the ground running – Lachenauer

– How do you leverage Private or Non-Profit Board experience to Public? Typically there are Public individuals sitting on the former. – Folino

– I can’t think of a better time for individuals to be looking for Board seats than now. – Folino

– It’s not just about D&O insurance, it’s about the conduct leading up to questionable events and the quality of due diligence. – Lachenauer

– It moves beyond more than just the financial risk, but the risk to your personal reputation – Folino

– There’s an absolute need to scrutinize your fellow Board members & their reputations – Huskins

– What are the opportunities to interview the Executive Team of the company before making a decision? – Lachenauer

– I can’t imagine not having someone w/ a strong legal background on the Board when it comes to M&A activities. – Folino

– Participating as a Board members vs Advisors involves a much higher level of accountability. – Huskins

– This is the first year that Brokers will not be able to cast votes for Board members, which may create a very interesting environment for Board retention. – Huskins

– The Nominating Committee is now usually headed up by an outside Director as opposed to the CEO. – Folino

Woodruff-Sawyer Board Panel: Part II

October 6th, 2009 Comments off

            Last week I gave an overview of the Woodruff-Sawyer panel discussion that I attended, which focused on the process of Board of Directors seat selection and the considerations to pursuing such a position.  I had previously left off at the considerations and value of sitting on the Board for an external organization.  As Bruce Lachenauer had discussed during the panel, sitting on the Board for an outside organization brings great perspectives to the company you work for if you are functional executive. However, in consideration to this pursuit, there are a number of considerations.

Ø  If you are seriously looking at such an endeavor, it’s ideal to start front-loading that effort with your existing company, President, or legal counsel to ensure there won’t be any issues with such an engagement.

Ø  Typically, any external Board appointments need to be run through your internal Board, regardless if you are a sitting member or not.

Ø  Preliminary support from your President or CEO is crucial in such an effort. 

            Paul Folino, Chairman of Emulex Corporation, also discussed the merits of sitting on a Non-Profit Board. Folino felt that this was a great way to get the feet wet with Board participation, while also giving something back to the community. However, as Folino cautioned, “don’t expect that the work load of a Non-Profit will be less than that of a standard corporate Board”.  This was also endorsed by one of the members of the audience, who also had extensive Non-Profit Board participation.

 

            With regards to the selection process, Lachenauer did not feel that a separate resume was warranted for the process. In his view, he has to do as much, if not more, due diligence for Board selections than a standard executive search. If the resume is more an overview of candidate’s background then it will lack the details that are often the important selling points in presenting a candidate for consideration. The accomplishments are critical and will need to be shared, and therefore, should not be excluded from the resume. Further comments by Lachenauer included:

Ø  The selection process is intended to find a candidate that will be entering into a long-term relationship & participation on the Board. As difficult as the interview process can be, it’s just as difficult to leave the Board, which puts a heavier emphasis on the long-term views.

Ø  Board members are not going to find you…you need to find them. 

            As a response to a question regarding whether an individual should pursue a Board seat for a public or private company, Folino commented that “there should be no consideration to Public or Private, but that it should come down to your background and the experience that you will bring to the table”.  Tomorrow I’ll wrap up my notes on the panel discussion with an overview of the key areas to consider with respect to choosing a Board, the management of risk in such an appointment, and additional considerations before accepting an offer.

 

Thanks for reading . . . .

 

Jeffrey Ishmael

Woodruff-Sawyer Board Panel: Part I

October 1st, 2009 Comments off

                As mentioned yesterday,  I had the opportunity to attend a panel discussion on the considerations to accepting a Board of Directors position. The panel was sponsored by Woodruff-Sawyer and led by Paul Folino, who is the Chairman of Emulex Corporation. The panel was also rounded out by Priya Cheria Huskins, Esq. and Bruce Lachenaur. Priya is a Partner at WS and is considered a leading expert in D&O liability risk and corporate governance. Bruce is a Partner with Spencer Stuart, which is a leading executive search and consulting firm and leads their Board Services Practice. It’s worth noting that Spencer Stuart is active on a very high percentage of all Board related searches nationally.

 

            As an individual who has had extensive interaction with Boards and presentations to, I have not previously sat on a Board and have initiated this as a goal to achieve within the next year. To my benefit, one of the opening stats that Lachenauer touched on was the shift in Board compensation from being more internally focused to having a higher degree of outside influence. It was mentioned that the trend has almost reversed and the current ratio is approximately 3:1 with regards to external Board members. This bodes well for those looking to become involved with outside companies. However, as a result of the current climate, it has also become more difficult to secure that first time Board seat. Recent statistics show that only 16% of Board appointments were first-time appointees versus the historical figure of 40%. Consistent with the trend for outside influence, there is an increasing demand for a Chairman that is independent of the company and can bring unique perspectives.

 

            The panel also discussed the aspect of Committees, as well as the make-up of individuals that should sit on those committees, as well as the Board. Lachenauer commented that the most difficult committee spot to fill has been that of the compensation since this has become such a contentious area of the previous few years. With the contentious nature of the business environment in mind, in all areas, Paul Folino commented that he “can’t imagine having a Board make-up that does not include strong legal counsel”. Folino also commented, in response to a question, that age is really a non-issue with respect to the Board. That all considerations are based on the experience that one brings to the Board, and in some cases to the detriment of the Company, Board age limits can result in the loss of immense expertise and experience.

 

            There was an extensive amount of information that was shared during the panel and I look forward to summarizing my notes in future postings. The additional areas will include the considerations to sitting on an outside Board and strategizing that with your current company, the search & interview process, compensation levels, as well as what dynamics to consider in choosing what Board you will commit your time to.

 

Thanks for reading . . . .

 

Jeffrey Ishmael

My 1-Year Goal: Board of Directors…

September 30th, 2009 Comments off

            There’s always a certain accountability in publicizing your goals, although those goals can also be subject to change due to elements beyond your control. One of the goals that I have set for myself is to secure a Board of Directors seat within the next year. I’m fortunate enough that I have some great mentors and colleagues who currently, or previously, have participated at the Board of Directors level so I’ll have some good guidance. While I have the ability to constantly work with our corporate counsel, who is also well versed in these areas, it’s an entirely different beast actually participating at that level.

 

            Today I was invited to attend a panel discussion that was sponsored by Woodruff-Sawyer and led by Paul Folino, who is the Chairman of Emulex Corporation. During the course of the discussion the panel discussed the basic elements of Board governance, committee involvement, and the value that participating on an external Board brings to your current company. There was also a lengthy discussion about the different dynamics of Board participation to consider, as well as Boards in the private, public, and non-profit sectors.

 

            There was some great information shared and I had a number of individuals who openly expressed their willingness to help in the process.  Whether this is a 12- or 18-month effort, I think I would have a great time contributing to a Board and the company I would be serving. I also look forward to sharing more of the details about today’s panel over the coming days.

 

Thanks for reading. . . .

 

Jeffrey Ishmael