This is a very tough decision, due to several ambiguous,...

This is a very tough decision, due to several ambiguous, subjective, and opaque facts. Also due to alleged or apparent distasteful flaws in both the current Board and past CEO. Imperfections get amplified during these conflicts, but I'm not comfortable with either group.

I would have more easily voted the board removal,  but proposed Chair Barry Lewin's statement yesterday in AFR left me cold. It is too dogmatic and contrary to sound Board Chair leadership: "The plan is to reinstate him," he said. "Several of the top 10 shareholders want Michael back. Obviously subject to appropriate checks and balances that we'll deal with if elected. They've invested on the basis of Michael's leadership."
http://www.copyright link/business/...-back-after-investor-activism-20170507-gvzq0o

Lewin's statement is worrisome. A new board must be much more cautious about re-appointing the past CEO, especially related to the seriousness of his alleged behavioural issues, nepotism, and other decisions that may have conflicted with shareholder interests. Lewin and other proposed directors should have done their "checks and balances" of the former CEO before agreeing to join the slate of directors presented by the instos who have already decided the former CEO should return.

Meanwhile, I am troubled by the current Chair's apparently flawed track record, process of sacking the CEO (particularly so soon after the new Chair's appointment), the board's rapid choice of a new CEO, and reliance on an external consultancy rather than board expertise.

With respect, the recent share price movement should not be a reason/justification for this decision. Share price is a Ouiji board in the short run. The long run share price is a consequence of current decisions.