In Reply to: Voting at trust meetings posted by Noel Thorpe on 03 January 2003 at 12:07:03:
The voting record isn't published so any numbers are liable to be inference and perception rather than public fact. If an MED voted against openness they must have thought that was in the interest of the members. That is just of historical interest because (if there was such a case) that person will no longer be an MED when the new batch takes office.
Judging by historical outcomes, some of us believe that the company appointed majority on the trust board was used to follow a principle of always doing what IBM wanted. The potential for that still exists.
The MEDs are intended to bring a broader influence to the boardroom and you might expect them to give more weight than others to factors like openness and the pension promise. But that is the only sense in which there can be a "MED voting position". All trustees are required to vote in the interests of all the members, as they see it.
The external directors get paid from the trust funds. The amounts for individual directors are not public but the aggregated costs in the public accounts suggest something of the order of £1000 each per meeting. IBM can un-appoint them at will, so you might see this as an incentive to do what IBM wants. On the other hand, if there was no pay, what quality of external directors would you expect to get?
Very few trusts pay their MEDs. The employee MEDs are being paid their normal salary for (at least some of) the time they spend on pensions work. Retiree MEDs have such bloated pensions that it would be a sin to pay them:-)