At the City of Brotherly Love
By the time the battle had come to Philadelphia, it had moment unlike any other shareholder revolt.

Mainstream news media were watching closely. Jim Hill (who used to write for LaughingPlace.com) was appearing on MSNBC and getting his media access to the meeting yanked. A significant number of the crowd was loudly cheering Roy Disney and Stanley Gold as they made their presentations. And yes, the typical loonies in attendance were also getting on mic and getting on Mike.

When all was said and done, 43% of the Company ownership, more than half of the actual votes cast (votes not cast were considered "for" votes), had voted against CEO and Chairman Michael Eisner.

The Board of Directors could not ignore that if they wanted to. First, once it was well past the percentage needed to allow an alternate slate of Directors to campaign for election at next year's meeting. Secondly, if the Directors were to ignore such a clear, unprecedented statement from a significant percentage of their ownership, Wall Street would have a fit.

It's one thing for some customers to get angry, for some websites to criticize the management of the Company, to have your employee morale in the dumps, or even to have angry former Board members. It's an entirely different matter when such a large percentage of ownership -your investors- makes the effort to vote against you.

So what did the Board do? It installed former U.S. Senator (and Board member) George Mitchell as Chairman of the Board. This is the bare minimum that the Board could do, and it is largely symbolic. In and of itself, it won't do anything to appease the critics, because many of them voted against Mitchell as well. In fact, about a quarter of the shares went against him. He's supported Michael Eisner through the whole ordeal.

It's Not Over
On the other hand, as symbolic as it was to take the Chairman position away from CEO Michael Eisner, symbolism often means a lot when it comes to ego. Will Michael Eisner stay where he is, having been rebuked by 43% and being "demoted"? In Hollywood, in corporate politics, the answer is usually no. People like Michael Eisner don't ascend to such heights and make such waves by being humble and content with less.

Unless The Walt Disney Company is merged or acquired by another company which would subsequently give Eisner a prominent place in the combined business, I just can't picture Eisner staying for long.

It is a bitter situation. It is undeniable that Michael Eisner, who is affable man in front of the camera and at public events, was one of the key ingredients in saving Walt Disney Productions in 1984 and restoring it to prominence in the business world as The Walt Disney Company. It is also apparent to many, however, that without Frank Wells, the formerly gourmet recipe has spoiled and is festering. Where things will go from here remains to be seen.

This is a different kind of company. People are sentimental and nostalgic about it. Roy Disney's very family name and legacy are inseparable from it. It has traditionally stood for wholesome, innovative, affirming entertainment, engaging us back to our earliest memories.

Just as the Liberty Bell rang out and nothing would be the same after, the shareholders spoke loudly in Philadelphia and things can't go back to the way they were merely six months ago. We're at a crucial time in the history of the company; on the brink of the Company's future, and I hope it will be one worthy of its past.

What do you think?