Jack Ciesielski posted a critical comment on Jim Clark's resignation from Shutterfly's (NASDAQ:SFLY) board (you should read the whole post, including excerpts from Clark's letter). He essentially accuses Clark of using Sarbanes-Oxley as a cover up for his real reasons for resigning.
"A couple of things to note. His first reason is this: the man calls himself a technologist, and uninterested in a manufacturing environment. He’s just got little to offer a manufacturing concern. And if that’s so, and it makes sense to him not to be at Shutterfly on those grounds - why be so concerned about constraints imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley? Seems like just an opportunity to vent on the law, if the first reason is the most important one. And the one that makes leaving a sensible thing to do for a fellow like him.
If there’s “little that I can offer to guide what has become a manufacturing company” - why, then, is SarbOx such a constraint? Why is it necessary for Mr. Clark to be chairing any of the various committees? In truth, what he’s doing may well be the right thing for the company, but for the wrong reasons. This shows how SarbOx is sapping entrepreneurship? Be serious: how material do you think his interest in Shutterfly may be to Clark’s portfolio? Think he’d be sweating long nights writing code if he stayed? He may be more beneficial to the company on the outside as a resource - both financial and networking - than staying on the inside as chairman and “chief manufacturing officer.”
This is the comment I posted in response to his piece:
"Say what you want about Jim Clark's true motives but he is completely right about SarBox (a.k.a the Universal Accountant Employment Act) . It is hurting the American economy, the US stock markets and empowering Stock Markets like AIM and the LSE at a time when the US economy, shareholder and tax payer can ill afford it.
SOX is too expensive and unwieldy, especially for small companies; SOX makes it difficult and expensive to recruit talented outside board members; it is filled with paranoia about conflicts of interest like the ones Clark described.
Jim Clark has been a very important entrepreneur for our economy (do you remember Netscape? SGI). I suggest that instead of looking for ways to undermine his credibility, the new Congress and the investor community should heed his warning. "