Ron, good of you to join the fray.

As a reader of news for over 40 years, I can tell you that reporters LOVE
conflict, in fact they thrive on it and they do everything they can to
inflame it and extend it, usually by confronting subjects of news with
aggressive questions.  The bias of a reporter (and they ALL have a bias)
always comes through in a story.  Your bias has been showing for a long time
and the bias you now have for the current events is coming out loud and
clear.  But that's OK.  Bias is not a bad thing in itself.  The readers know
where you stand and can figure out how and why you couch a story one way
versus another way.  I have a bias also as I believe the merger is a good
thing.  However, I do not think the way HP has handled itself was proper.  I
think it will go down in the annals of business as the perfect example of
how not to do a merger.  I have a bias, but I think HP screwed up, a lot.  I
also believe Walter Hewlett presented a healthy dissent, which is sorely
needed at times, except after the vote is done.  I think Walter Hewlett's
shenanigans, AFTER HE VOTED IN FAVOR of the merger are unconscionable.
There is simply no excuse for that.  He later explained that he voted in
favor at the time to get a certain price or some such Byzantine excuse. It
seems like he acts one way in the boardroom, goes home and does something
completely different the next day.  But that was just one occurrence, maybe
just an aberration.

You have a bias, but in your case, Walter Hewlett can do no wrong and the HP
board can do no right.

So, in the current story several newspapers or news agencies, report a
similar event.  Whilst the stories differ a little bit in the various
slants, the main premise is echoed by all.  To wit, HP says they offered an
olive branch to Hewlett at a board meeting; they all decided to get along
and let bygones be bygones and work for the future.  Walter Hewlett was
going to remain on the board.  (The fact there was such a meeting can easily
be checked, there are always minutes of such events.  The fact everyone
decided to get along and go along is what is under dispute here.  Back to
that in one second.  The fact Walter Hewlett was nominated to the board can
also be checked by reading the minutes.)

The next morning, some hours after the meeting, Walter Hewlett filed a
lawsuit against HP.  That fact is not in dispute.  It might be interesting
to figure out if Walter Hewlett knew the lawsuit was going to be filed in
the morning and knowing this went ahead and made nice-nice the night before
at the board meeting.  Now, where have we heard before, that Walter Hewlett
does or promises or agrees to one thing in a board meeting and then publicly
does something opposite in public the very next day.  It's deja vu, all over
again.

If you believe that Walter Hewlett and his supporters put together such a
lawsuit in a few hours during the night, after the meeting, it means he is
not a man of his word and his handshake means nothing.  If he knew about the
lawsuit and still made nice and shook on it at the board meeting, then he is
a hypocrite and his word and handshake still mean nothing.

So the stories go on saying that when the HP board heard this, they were
stunned and immediately decided to remove Walter Hewlett from the slate of
directors.  I really want to say that is an overreaction, but I can't make
myself believe that.  I just can't.  I think it's a perfectly natural
reaction and in light of the history of this man, probably a proper one.  As
someone else said on another thread, fool me once, shame on you, fool we
twice, shame on me.  I don't think HP wanted to see what the third
occurrence would be.  The damage wrought by this lawsuit may turn out to be
greater than the original vote competition.  This lawsuit is a dream come
true for IBM, Sun, Dell and other competitors.

Finally, reporters being what they are would surely have pressed Walter
Hewlett to refute what HP said about the prior evening's agreement.  Walter
Hewlett did not refute that.  He just said he was sad that dissent is not
acceptable in the boardroom.  The guy is on another planet!  This is not
dissent, this is all out war!

So you see, if you deconstruct the stories, it is plainly apparent that HP
did indeed offer a massive olive branch.  (Records can show that.)  They
said Walter Hewlett accepted it and then sued them a few hours later.  He is
then said to be shocked he got dumped from the board because of dissent.  He
does not deny that he agreed the night before to get along and go along.

Now, if the news stories are totally incorrect, that is a different matter.
But, in time, we will read that Walter Hewlett never agreed at the board
meeting and it's going to be a case of he said and everyone else said.  I
just wish it would all be over and we could get back to business.

Denys

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Ron Seybold
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: HP annual shareholder proxy

Hello Friends:

Here's a quick comment on rumors and confirmations, from a journalist
with 21 years' experience. In a matter of conflict, relying on a
single source leaves you room to label what you hear as a rumor. I
read the three articles that Denys pointed us toward. One included no
named source at all, and the other two relied on Sam Ginn, HP board
member and aggrieved party, whose olive branch Walter Hewlett
apparently rebuffed.

See, with just one source, these articles just amplify the rumor,
until we hear from Hewlett on the matter. We don't know that Hewlett
"acquiesced," as Denys said, by reading these articles. We only know
that Ginn believed Hewlett gave in -- though to what, I can't imagine.

Here's my take. Ginn and HP's board seem to have an inability to get
to the heart of what Walter believes, perhaps because they struggle
to register his differing point of view. Differing points of view are
essential in corporations of any size. They make initiatives better,
leaner. Shareholders could count on Hewlett raising dissent inside
the HP boardroom -- and it looks like the board knew it could count
on that dissent, too. The venue for his dissent apparently became too
severe for the rest of HP's board. When Hewlett took his dissent out
of the boardroom and into the courtroom, the board balked. Inside the
boardroom, they make the rules. Inside a courtroom, the state of
Delaware makes the rules. And yes, there are rules in business, in
spite of how things may appear today. Getting to the bottom of what
happened March 19 is worth the wait. Unlike voters for president in
the US, HP shareholders aren't assured of getting another chance in
four years to vote on the merger matter. For the moment, the
shareholders have lost the ability to elect a dissenting voice.

On the Motley Fool financial Web site, the analysts are saying HP's
ouster of Hewlett makes investors want to bolt, too. Carly Fiorina's
lack of oversight, they say, is dangerous. Read for yourselves at
<http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=619239>

It's a sad thing to watch such a revered company become so focused on
a single method of growth. Though HP put  "invent" under its logo, it
seems to have lost the ability to invent an alternative growth
method. HP may well have lost its dissent from its boardroom. The
dissent still remains in half of its investors, as well as thousands
of HP employees. Lots of good people will leave HP beyond the merger.
Their departure will make customers experience changes in the HP they
thought they knew. Then a new set of HP customers will begin to
experience the dismay that HP 3000 owners have felt over the past
five months.
--

Ron Seybold, Editor In Chief
The 3000 NewsWire
Independent Information to Maximize Your HP 3000
http://www.3000newswire.com
512.331.0075 -- [log in to unmask]

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *