I've had this poster on ignore for a long time, so I didn't...

I've had this poster on ignore for a long time, so I didn't realise he'd chimed in until your reply. A governance consultant you say? Haha.

As Hrdwk has just put it "I think everyone will agree it has not been perfect and that segregation of duties would be ideal". I think most people see it in this level-headed way. Others have been consumed by Paul's dual-role and have turned it into an immediate make-or-break issue. Others (exemplified by the post that originally irritated me) pontificate about PAR not having "a proper chair". This is taking it way too far.

AICD prefer an independent, non-exec Chair of the board as a best-practice template:



I have intimate knowledge of many AICD programs, and they are consistent on this point. It is one with which I agree. Anyone can see the potential for the Chair to give the CEO an easy ride in performance or remuneration-related situations if they are the exact same person. These are genuine risks of a combined Chair/CEO role in organisations - however, these have not been amongst the whinges on this forum. The whinges relate to the CR excluding retailers, or Paul's fireside chat which heralded lengthier timeframes. Clearly those are verse and chorus of retail shareholder complaining, and not valid accusations of governance failure related to the separation of Chair and CEO hats.

AICD's best-practice advice even specifically and deliberately allows for the Chair and CEO role to be combined "in special circumstances approved by the board". Perhaps give this some consideration before throwing rocks. Does a Chair stepping-down out of the blue whilst the organisation is going through a company-making phase qualify as special circumstances? Does the availability and willingness of a founder-CEO with intimate company and industry knowledge to cover the Chair role appeal to the board in these circumstances? Clearly it did.

The most salient point i've read on this issue on HC, one made not too long ago by one of the very best posters on this form (good day to you, Torpy), considered the wisdon and indeed the optics of either the Chair or CEO standing down from their position during this critical juncture in our young company's lifecycle. Was the last 6 months the time for this to happen, or was it wise to steady the ship until achievement of Phase III, after which a new appointment could be made to one of these key roles, returning us to the most 'preferable' best-practice scenario?