Mitt Romney, liar.

[Ziggurat]

No way. I don't buy for a moment that there is a government requirement that CEOs--even pro forma ones-- have to get a minimum $100K salary.

Your argument makes no sense. There doesn't need to be a requirement that such pro forma CEO's get paid that much money in order for a company to choose to do it. The relevant fact in that regard is that there is no prohibition on companies paying that much money to a pro forma CEO.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I didn't say that. Did you watch the video or not?

I not only watched the video, but I went to the CNN website and read their report. The claim is that Bain was required to keep Romney's name in their SEC filings. While I can believe that it was required to list Romney as the sole shareholder, and maybe even as the chairman of the board, as a non-lawyer I am mystified that there was a legal reason that required them to list Romney as the CEO.

The fact that it might have been possible to do things differently in terms of executive appointments doesn't mean they needed to or even should have. But given what they did do, it appears that the legal filing requirements did exist despite Romney having no role in decision-making.

Sorry, but unless there was a legal reason to continue to list Romney as the CEO and to not appoint an interim CEO, I'm going to have trouble believing that there was any reason for Romney to continue to hold the title other than so that he could play a role in Bain.

If Romney by virtue of holding the title of CEO could have participated in Bain business but didn't simply because he chose not to, he would still bear responsibility for what went on and he still is being less than honest about his work with Bain, even if there was nothing illegal going on.

Plenty of companies pay what are essentially severance packages. The form that package takes varies quite a lot. There are obvious tax advantages to Romney for having payments spread out over several years, and probably no downside to Bain for spreading out payments. You seem to think that the payments indicate more than they actually do.

Don't severance packages have to be listed as such? Can you give someone a severance package and list it as "executive compensation", or whatever the exact term they used was?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your argument makes no sense. There doesn't need to be a requirement that such pro forma CEO's get paid that much money in order for a company to choose to do it. The relevant fact in that regard is that there is no prohibition on companies paying that much money to a pro forma CEO.

Nonsense.

The argument is that the $100K salary can't be used as another line of evidence that he had an active role in the company because it was strictly a matter of a legal requirement.

There is no such legal requirement, as you now admit.

In fact, I doubt very much there was even a legal requirement that Mitt Romney had to be the pro forma CEO. They could have put anyone else's name in there if they were merely fulfilling a requirement to have a name in there. (And if there is such a legal requirement, is Mitt admitting to be part of a conspiracy to get around the intention of such a law?)

But no one required Bain to pay him $100K for doing nothing whatsoever.

So again, I'd leave the salary as another line evidence that he still had an active role in running the company.

Together with the language in the SEC filings and statements of people (Romney's wife, his lawyer) including newspaper interviews of Romney himself that Romney did indeed continue an active role on a part time basis in making investment decisions for the company.

 

[Ziggurat]

I not only watched the video, but I went to the CNN website and read their report. The claim is that Bain was required to keep Romney's name in their SEC filings. While I can believe that it was required to list Romney as the sole shareholder, and maybe even as the chairman of the board, as a non-lawyer I am mystified that there was a legal reason that required them to list Romney as the CEO.

That you are mystified doesn't mean it's not true. Furthermore, your confusion seems to come from a disbelief that they couldn't have done it any other way. But that's not the issue. The issue is what the legal requirements were given the way that they did choose to handle things.

Sorry, but unless there was a legal reason to continue to list Romney as the CEO and to not appoint an interim CEO

You are conflating multiple issues. There may have been a business reason not to name an interim CEO. Given that choice, that could have created a legal obligation to continue to list Romney even without any active involvement.

If Romney by virtue of holding the title of CEO could have participated in Bain business but didn't simply because he chose not to, he would still bear responsibility for what went on

And what precisely do you consider to be the nature of this responsibility, and why?

Don't severance packages have to be listed as such?

Do they? I haven't heard that they do, especially if the person is still nominally an employee.

Can you give someone a severance package and list it as "executive compensation", or whatever the exact term they used was?

Why not? And if that really was potentially a problem, don't you think you'd be hearing that leveled as an accusation against Romney?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Don't severance packages have to be listed as such? Can you give someone a severance package and list it as "executive compensation", or whatever the exact term they used was?

I guess if you start from the premise that it's OK to list someone as a CEO who really isn't, hiding a severance package as a salary is not big deal either.

But again, even if such shady things are done in the business world all the time (and even if that were somehow exculpatory!), that still leaves the third line of evidence: statements from Romney, his wife and his lawyer that he would continue an active part time role in running the company.

I think the 3 distinct lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: when Romney "left" the company he merely switched to a part time active role where he still made key investment decisions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There may have been a business reason not to name an interim CEO. Given that choice, that could have created a legal obligation to continue to list Romney even without any active involvement.

What might that business reason have been? That they wanted to convince the financial community or Bain's clients that Romney was still at the helm?

Isn't this exactly the problem the Obama campaign is alleging? That Romney either lied when he said he was no longer active in the company or he lied when he said he was.

Also, this sounds very much like solely a business reason and not at all a legal obligation. (Or it's trivial: if you decide to pretend that Romney is still the CEO, the law requires that you put his name on the filings as CEO. I wouldn't call that a legal obligation for Romney to have to continue as pro forma CEO.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Nonsense.

The argument is that the $100K salary can't be used as another line of evidence that he had an active role in the company because it was strictly a matter of a legal requirement.

I've never heard that argument until now. The only argument about legal requirements that I've heard was in regards to putting Romney's name on the SEC documents.

In fact, I doubt very much there was even a legal requirement that Mitt Romney had to be the pro forma CEO.

There doesn't need to be such a legal requirement, only a legal requirement to name someone as CEO even if only pro forma.

They could have put anyone else's name in there if they were merely fulfilling a requirement to have a name in there.

Except that this might have created problems of its own. It might not have been possible to make someone a pro forma CEO without the possibility that they would decide to act as more than pro forma CEO. Obviously Romney was unlikely to do that, since he was voluntarily stepping down from the position. But maybe they didn't have anyone else they trusted to do that.

Or it could simply have been that they had no reason to pick anyone else as a pro forma CEO, and no reason to pick an interim CEO until they finished their restructuring.

But no one required Bain to pay him $100K for doing nothing whatsoever.

So what? They can spend their money however they want. Maybe it was essentially a way of saying "thank you". Maybe it was simply cheaper than hiring an interim CEO that they didn't need. There are lots of possible reasons for all of these things. You seem to only be able to think of one, and you're using your inability to think of other reasons as evidence. But it's not.

 

[Polaris]

This may sound like a stupid question, and I admit my knowledge of the inner-workings of corporate management is hovering just over zip point squat, but...

If Romney wasn't CEO of Bain after 1999, who was? A company needs a CEO doesn't it? Should this matter be as simple to clear up as someone showing up and saying, "Romney couldn't have been acting as CEO in that time frame because I was, and here is my proof"?

 

[Upchurch]

Just so I'm clear, all the official filings indicate that Romney was the one in charge at Bain between 1999 and 2002ish, correct? We only have anecdotal statements that say otherwise, and even those are contradicted by other anecdotal statements?

 

[Unabogie]

Isn't this point moot now that we know Romney testified that be attended board meetings as part of his testimony to run for governor of Massachusetts? He said it himself: he was attending board meetings in all of those years. So did he lie to the SEC, the FEC, or to Massachusetts? I admit I'm having trouble keeping all of his lies straight, but how does he explain away his claiming that he attended board meetings if he had absolutely no interaction with Bain?

 

[BenBurch]

So, if I understand the GOP spin on this, Romney was not CEO in spite of the paperwork and the salary, and no interim CEO was ever appointed, and nobody illegally took decisions on his behalf.

So, Republicans, did Bain conduct no business over the 1999-2002 interval that required contracts being approved or any other legally-binding decisions? None at all? And the board of director's meetings; Romney did not report at all to them in the interval in question?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just so I'm clear, all the official filings indicate that Romney was the one in charge at Bain between 1999 and 2002ish, correct? We only have anecdotal statements that say otherwise, and even those are contradicted by other anecdotal statements?

Sounds right by my understanding.

And he got a salary for that time period.

The only possible way to reconcile the conflicting anecdotes is that the ones saying he had an active role were mostly said ahead of time. That is, at the time of his "leaving" Romney himself said he would continue in an active, but part time role. It could be that he intended to do that, and that he was paid to do that, and the SEC was told he was doing that, but that in fact he didn't.

But again, this is pretty much exactly the problem the Obama campaign complains about: either he lied when he said he wasn't actively involved in running the company or he lied when he said he was.

 

[BenBurch]

Isn't this point moot now that we know Romney testified that be attended board meetings as part of his testimony to run for governor of Massachusetts? He said it himself: he was attending board meetings in all of those years. So did he lie to the SEC, the FEC, or to Massachusetts? I admit I'm having trouble keeping all of his lies straight, but how does he explain away his claiming that he attended board meetings if he had absolutely no interaction with Bain?

Somehow the Repubs are denying it anyway, hence my prior question.

 

[Ziggurat]

This may sound like a stupid question, and I admit my knowledge of the inner-workings of corporate management is hovering just over zip point squat, but...

If Romney wasn't CEO of Bain after 1999, who was? A company needs a CEO doesn't it?

Why does a company need a CEO? If merely to have someone to put their name on SEC documents, then the title need not be anything beyond just a title. In terms of actual operation of a company, no, it doesn't actually need a CEO. It needs some method of making final decisions, but that need not be done by a single individual.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't this point moot now that we know Romney testified that be attended board meetings as part of his testimony to run for governor of Massachusetts? He said it himself: he was attending board meetings in all of those years. So did he lie to the SEC, the FEC, or to Massachusetts? I admit I'm having trouble keeping all of his lies straight, but how does he explain away his claiming that he attended board meetings if he had absolutely no interaction with Bain?

He sat in the pro forma seat. He was thinking of nothing else but the Olympics!

 

[BenBurch]

Why does a company need a CEO? If merely to have someone to put their name on SEC documents, then the title need not be anything beyond just a title. In terms of actual operation of a company, no, it doesn't actually need a CEO. It needs some method of making final decisions, but that need not be done by a single individual.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why does a company need a CEO? If merely to have someone to put their name on SEC documents, then the title need not be anything beyond just a title. In terms of actual operation of a company, no, it doesn't actually need a CEO. It needs some method of making final decisions, but that need not be done by a single individual.

So again, what was the business reason for putting Romney's name as the CEO, President, sole partner, person controlling the company, on the SEC documents?

Since you accept that there was no legal requirement to do so.

Ditto the salary. There was no legal requirement to pay him $100K. What was the business reason for doing so?

[ETA: Are you saying Romney was trying to skirt the intent of the law in its SEC filings and to mislead investors about who was running the company?]

And yet again, there are at least 3 lines of evidence that Romney was actively involved in running the company. So far you're only making an attempt (an unsuccessful one at that, IMO) to refute 2 of them.

What about Mitt's own statement that he planned to continue to be actively involved in running the company on a part time basis? What about the statements from his wife and his lawyer?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure why they would. I can't imagine a scenario where someone sees something correctly reported and they go out of their way to make certain everyone knows it is correct. Doesn't make much sense to me. On the other hand, if someone sees something reported that is not correct, well, that's a different thing altogether. JMO.

Because a responsible journalist having reported that Obama campaign spokesmen made this claim about McCain should follow up and attempt to verify it by putting in a call to McCain's office.

Why does no response (yet) signify that the claim is true but doesn't signify that it is in fact still unsubstantiated?

Try to think in terms of a skeptic evaluating any other claim. (Try to strip it of the politics and partisan considerations.) We have a claim made by someone who was not privy to the information. So far, we have see no substantiation of the claim by anyone who was privy to it, and we also have no refutation of the claim by anyone who was privy to it. I think it's irrational to read any significance into that silence at all. All we have is an unsubstantiated claim from someone not privy to the information.

And FWIW the nature of the claim has problems of itself. It requires thinking someone (McCain) acted starkly inconsistently.

I still reserve judgement and consider it simply an unsubstantiated claim. It could be true, but so far I reserve judgement. The longer we go with my request for a reliable source going unfulfilled, the more I begin to doubt it--but it's early yet.

 

[Unabogie]

Because a responsible journalist having reported that Obama campaign spokesmen made this claim about McCain should follow up and attempt to verify it by putting in a call to McCain's office.

Why does no response (yet) signify that the claim is true but doesn't signify that it is in fact still unsubstantiated?

Try to think in terms of a skeptic evaluating any other claim. (Try to strip it of the politics and partisan considerations.) We have a claim made by someone who was not privy to the information. So far, we have see no substantiation of the claim by anyone who was privy to it, and we also have no refutation of the claim by anyone who was privy to it. I think it's irrational to read any significance into that silence at all. All we have is an unsubstantiated claim from someone not privy to the information.

And FWIW the nature of the claim has problems of itself. It requires thinking someone (McCain) acted starkly inconsistently.

I still reserve judgement and consider it simply an unsubstantiated claim. It could be true, but so far I reserve judgement. The longer we go with my request for a reliable source going unfulfilled, the more I begin to doubt it--but it's early yet.

Just for the record, the Obama people have been saying this for at least the last year. I'm surprised there isn't further confirmation of it. Steve Benen at MSNBC just repeated the same claim. I'm genuinely curious is this is indeed true. I think it is, mainly because it would be out of character for Mitt to pass up a chance to complain about Obama. But I'm certainly willing to seek further information to verify it.

 

[BenBurch]

This is weird. We have people saying that Romney was not a CEO except for filling all of the legally-required roles of a CEO, being paid for being CEO, and reporting under penalty of perjury that he was CEO.

Is that what I am hearing?