From: Richard A. Mitchell [firstname.lastname@example.org]
The idea of a "disinterested" chairman of the board of trustees of a mutual fund is seriously flawed. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this arrangement would be any better at protecting the interests of mutual fund shareowners. Secondly, I would personally rather have the chairman of the fund that I own be someone who has both the experience to oversee activities and the "skin in the game" to care. And lastly, the charirman can be removed at any time by the shareowners of the fund by vote.
The actions of the few should not result in punishment of the many. The vast majority of mutual funds and their investors are completely untouched by this round of scandalous activity. Why do we feel the need to over regulate versus just sternly punishing the wrong doers?