The decision of the Board of Directors of Sémiacs to dismiss its former CEO, Henri Alonzo, following his conviction by the Court in relation to moral issues, is completely in line with the obligation of good governance of a company (which is furthermore predominantly publicly owned).
What raises some doubts is the amalgamation of this administrative decision with the conclusion of an inspection reporting an abnormally high salary for the same Alonzo following decisions made “alone” by the former deputy mayor of Nice and, at the time, president of Semiacs, Benoît Kandel, who is now an opponent of Mayor Christian Estrosi.
The doubt is reinforced by the statement from the current president of Semiacs and new deputy mayor of Nice, Philippe Pradal, also a member of the board of directors at the time of Benoît Kandel’s presidency: “It is not the legality of the procedures that is in question but their appropriateness.”.
Then why bring it up unless with the obvious aim of discrediting the one who allegedly made this or these decisions “alone, without informing the board of directors.”?
The logical “ratio” is evident and should not escape Philippe Pradal, whose professional skills in this area are unanimously recognized and highly regarded. Either the governance procedures of Semiacs allow the President to make decisions alone, or this act is abusive.
Since Pradal himself does not dispute the regularity of the process, we return to an assessment that is legitimate personally but should be foreign to the governance of the company. Then, why discuss it this way without suggesting a “political” ulterior motive?
Moreover, it should be known by the administrators that the principle of “incuria in operandi” does not exclude and even couples with that of “incuria in vigilandi”. These are principles that require no great explanation when one is a public officeholder.
However, it is possible that, as Benoît Kandel reacted by calling this accusation “grotesque”, we are witnessing a “political settling of scores”, as it is also possible that the administrators of Semiacs and its president, who were silent and tolerant until yesterday, have become scrupulous and strict guardians of public morality. It does them credit as long as it remains within the framework of the company’s governance and does not become a tool for political confrontation. Given the chronology of the events and their context, doubt arises spontaneously.
We must nonetheless hope that the election campaign will rise above this and not be limited to this!
