The continuity was broken already, and we already took the hit and recovered from it.
A loss in the HC vote would be a majority of shareholders (against all odds of the default proxy vote for Harry) saying that the compensation practices are rewarding Sr. Management in a non-performance based way, and in a way that does not prioritize adding shareholder value.
Just one example: The only time I was granted options at a company, they became exercisable upon reaching a certain shareprice - not immediately exercisable at today's price, or $2.50 a share (today's price if we lose, just kidding). (i.e. the strike price was set above current shareprice - they take on value only if the shareprice increases). That's called alligning compensation with shareholder (or shareprice performance. Idcc never did this in their granting of options - they were a continuous gift. Setting strike price on options granst above current market price used to be a norm some years ago and moving away from that is a form of options abuse, and takes out shareholder interests entirely.
Of course, now that the options (expensing)game has been scrutinized as reaching the level of abuse - let's dodge the bullet and give everyone RSUs (regardless of meeting any defined goals) and while we're at it - let's establish bonuses so they are already set to be granted (as you may have read when WM salary structure was recently announced).
That's Continuity - a perpetual stream of rewards not based upon performance.
One, or both of us are beating a dead horse, so I'll go back to lurking. I thought the board would have moved past the great HC debate by now. I know your opinions are highly valued, and I highly value your contributions to the board.
Even though I do not agree with you on the HC
