On Wednesday 17th October 2018, a quadruple US public funds who have shares in Facebook Inc supported the proposal to bring down the current C.E.O of the company, Mark Zuckerberg from the chairman position, owing to numerous controversies that occurred under his watch.
Facebook has majorly been in the news for the wrong reasons over a couple of months. Amidst these scandals, there was the news about Russia interfering with the US elections; another was the Cambridge Analytica data leak that occurred early this year.
The issues have led Trillium Asset Management, an activist to file a proposal to eject the Chief Executive Officer Zuckerberg from his Chairmanship role although the proposal by Trillium Asset Management has been filed since June.
Fellow shareholders including state treasurers from Illinois, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, and New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer all filed their proposal yesterday. The most recent Facebook hack that affected over 29 million accounts might as well be a catalyst to this move.
The proposal filed by these pension funds overseers tabled it that the unavailability of an independent board chair and oversight is responsible for the manner in which the social media giant is “mishandling” the several scandals.
“Facebook plays an outsized role in our society and our economy. They have a social and financial responsibility to be transparent – that’s why we’re demanding independence and accountability in the company’s boardroom,” Scott Stringer stated.
However, the proposal will not be looked into until May 2019 when the Facebook annual shareholder meeting holds.
With respect to that, another shareholder, Seth Magaziner, the Rhode Island state treasurer said this in an interview: “This will allow us to force a conversation at the annual meeting, and from now until then in the court of public opinion.”
This isn’t the first time where a proposal of similar conditions has been laid before the social media giant. The first time was in 2017. And the 60% voting rights that Zuckerberg had made the proposal’s aim futile.
