Ann: Plant Performance Update, page-179

Dearladies and guys, there are valid reasons why the CEO or BOD of a company mayreply to shs' queries and still requests that the correspondence be treated as private in nature.

1. The speed at which info is spread over social media and also on the HC platform can lead to a cascade of misinterpretations as the info spreads far and wide, thereby unwittingly causing a public relations nightmare for the company.
2. The info given is clearly expressed as private in nature so that the enthusiastic shs may restrain themselves and not put words in the mouths of the CEO or BOD or presume to speak on behalf of the company.
3. By clarifying that the info is private in nature, there is less onus on the CEO, BOD or company to bear responsibility for any misinterpretation, misunderstanding, miscommunication, etc. arising from misguided shs actions.
4. Put another way, the onus then increases on the part of the shs to bear such responsibility if the shs cross the line from being a private recipient of non-sensitive info to a public dissemination of incorrect info that cause loss or damage to others. Use the info wisely.

There isa clear distinction between (1) a private communication of regularnon-sensitive info that should be respected in confidence for the abovereasons; and (2) a disclosure of commercial in-confidence or sensitive info.

If there is an assumption that I am given commercial in-confidence info byKen in an email reply, then that assumption has only demonstrated limitedanalysis of the situation or understanding of the transparency andaccountability process followed by Ken or his representative.

If thereis still a desire to conflate the distinction or to pursue a debate about shs'entitlement to info, then seek out an activist with a passion in that directionwith whom to wag your chins. I'm not an activist.

All thebest.