The Financial Post reports in its Thursday edition the recent "No" votes on compensation by shareholders at Barrick Gold and CIBC have become flashpoints for those commentators who would suggest that board governance is broken. Guest columnist Paul Gryglewicz writes that with shareholders saying No, this is an opportune moment for boards to innovate and implement new executive pay designs that have greater shareholder appeal. Unfortunately, the role of shareholder advisory firms on "appropriate compensation design" may serve to limit this opportunity. There is an excessive dependence on short-term share-price performance. When Barrick first began implementing say-on-pay votes, its results were above 90 per cent in favour. Then, in 2013, it received a No vote. The following year the vote was Yes and then, this year, once again, another No. It is impossible to manage compensation programs with this kind of volatility. The result, given this precedent, is that we may see mining companies whose successes depend on massive capital planning in three- to five-year periods begin planning solely with a one-year total shareholder return in mind. That way of thinking is bad news for shareholders in the long run.