????或許，錯就錯在董事會。雖然存在杰弗里?亨利這位獨(dú)立董事長，但是董事會似乎不愿意反抗埃里森。當(dāng)然，獨(dú)立董事長的問題在于，他根本沒有獨(dú)立性。亨利曾經(jīng)在這家公司擔(dān)任了13年的首席財(cái)務(wù)官。這家公司的代理委托書顯示，現(xiàn)在他仍然“定期與公司的重要客戶會面，在完成全球主要商業(yè)交易中發(fā)揮著重要作用?！敝灰侠矶x“獨(dú)立董事”這個詞，亨利無論如何都算不上獨(dú)立董事，而是一名高管。在甲骨文由11人組成的董事會中，除埃里森外，還有三名公司高管。此外，甲骨文董事會有六名董事在任的時間已經(jīng)超過了十年，這么長的任期也使得獨(dú)立性幾乎成為不可能。

????這是《財(cái)富》美國500強(qiáng)中最排外的董事會之一。但是，它還能忽視股東的要求多久？

????與其他決議不同，“代理參與”決議具有約束力。近期，納伯斯工業(yè)公司（Nabors Industries）和切薩皮克能源公司（Chesapeake Energy）通過了類似的決議，導(dǎo)致了公司董事的大換血。如果甲骨文公司也通過代理參與決議，這些享有終身職位的董事可能就得走人。屆時，埃里森也的薪酬很可能會大幅縮水。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：喬樹靜/汪皓

????Perhaps it is the board that is at fault, then. It certainly seems reluctant to stand up to Ellison, despite the presence of an independent chairman, Jeffrey Henley. The problem with the independent chairman, of course, is that he is not independent at all. Henley was CFO at Oracle for 13 years and, according to the company’s proxy filing, still “meets regularly with significant Oracle customers and is instrumental in closing major commercial transactions worldwide.” That’s not an independent director by any sensible definition of the word; that’s an executive. Including Ellison, there are three other executives on the 11-person board. In addition, six directors have been on the board for more than 10 years, a tenure that makes independence very unlikely.

????This is one of the clubbiest boards in the Fortune 500. But how long can it continue to ignore shareholder demands?

????Unlike the other resolutions, the “proxy access” resolution is binding. Similar resolutions recently passed at Nabors Industries and Chesapeake Energy, leading to wholesale director replacements. If it passes at Oracle, these tenured directors may be given the boot. And then Ellison could very well see a sizable pay cut.