pappythorn: "In your spare time,without distressing your thought process,would you address the repetition of bod bashing,past weaknesses is corporate mgt.?A neutral position on this is required."

NEUTRAL: "not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy"

I think the BOD beat me to it, if the controversy is shareholder value requiring aggessive actions against those who put their personal interests above those of the shareholders.

To answer your question differently, a neutral position, such as an arbitrator might take while hearing arguments. would be to hear truthful facts which support the weakness of the BOD and truthful facts which support the strength of the BOD. It's the dirth of the latter which leads those who cannot provide the latter to protest at every opportunity against the former.

Just imagine what could happen if a political party put all its energies into protesting the policies of its opposition while not having counter-policies of its own to promote! [No political flak please - I'm am legally neutral.]