ISSI (MM)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Boards are put in place to represent shareholders and protect their interests. Glass Lewis seeks boards with a proven record of protecting shareholders and delivering value over the medium- and long-term. We believe that boards working to protect and enhance the best interests of shareholders are independent, have directors with diverse backgrounds, have a record of positive performance, and have members with a breadth and depth of relevant experience.

Board Composition

We look at each individual on the board and examine his or her relationships with the company, the company’s executives and with other board members. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether pre-existing personal, familial or financial relationships are likely to impact the decisions of that board member.

We vote in favor of governance structures that will drive positive performance and enhance shareholder value. The most crucial test of a board’s commitment to the company and to its shareholders is the performance of the board and its members. The performance of directors in their capacity as board members and as executives of the company, when applicable, and in their roles at other companies where they serve is critical to this evaluation.

We believe a director is independent if he or she has no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives or other board members except for service on the board and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that have existed within the five years prior to the inquiry are usually considered to be “current” for purposes of this test.

In our view, a director is affiliated if he or she has a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company. This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the Company. This also includes a director who owns or controls 20% or more of the company’s voting stock.

We define an inside director as one who simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a chairman of the board who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company.

Although we typically vote for the election of directors, we will recommend voting against directors (or withholding where applicable, here and following) for the following reasons:

3

Board Committee Composition

All key committees including audit, compensation, governance, and nominating committees should be composed solely of independent directors and each committee should be focused on fulfilling its specific duty to shareholders. We typically recommend that shareholders vote against any affiliated or inside director seeking appointment to an audit, compensation, nominating or governance committee or who has served in that capacity in the past year.

Review of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis Report

We review the CD&A in our evaluation of the overall compensation practices of a company, as overseen by the compensation committee. In our evaluation of the CD&A, we examine, among other factors, the extent to which the company has used performance goals in determining overall compensation, how well the company has disclosed performance metrics and goals and the extent to which the performance metrics, targets and goals are implemented to enhance company performance. We would recommend voting against the chair of the compensation committee where the CD&A provides insufficient or unclear information about performance metrics and goals, where the CD&A indicates that pay is not tied to performance, or where the compensation committee or management has excessive discretion to alter performance terms or increase amounts of awards in contravention of previously defined targets. However, if a company provides shareholders with an advisory vote on compensation, we will recommend that shareholders only vote against the advisory compensation vote proposal unless the compensation practices are particularly egregious or persistent.

Review of Risk Management Controls

We believe companies, particularly financial firms, should have a dedicated risk committee, or a committee of the board charged with risk oversight, as well as a chief risk officer who reports directly to that committee, not to the CEO or another executive. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where a reasonable analysis indicates that the company’s board-level risk committee should be held accountable for poor oversight, we would recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise), we will consider recommending to vote against the chairman of the board on that basis.

SEPARATION OF THE ROLES OF CHAIRMAN AND CEO

Glass Lewis believes that separating the roles of corporate officers and the chairman of the board is a better governance structure than a combined executive/chairman position. The role of executives is to manage the business on the basis of the course charted by the board. Executives should be in the position of reporting and answering to the board for their performance in achieving the goals set out by such board. This becomes much more complicated when management actually sits on, or chairs, the board.

We view an independent chairman as better able to oversee the executives of the company and set a pro-shareholder agenda without the management conflicts that a CEO and other executive insiders often face. This, in turn, leads to a more proactive and effective board of directors that is looking out for the interests of shareholders above all else.

We do not recommend voting against CEOs who serve on or chair the board. However, we do support a separation between the roles of chairman of the board and CEO, whenever that question is posed in a proxy.

In the absence of an independent chairman, we support the appointment of a presiding or lead director with authority to set the agenda for the meetings and to lead sessions outside the presence of the insider chairman.

4

MAJORITY VOTING FOR THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Glass Lewis will generally support proposals calling for the election of directors by a majority vote in place of plurality voting. If a majority vote standard were implemented, a nominee would have to receive the support of a majority of the shares voted in order to assume the role of a director. Thus, shareholders could collectively vote to reject a director they believe will not pursue their best interests. We think that this minimal amount of protection for shareholders is reasonable and will not upset the corporate structure nor reduce the willingness of qualified shareholder-focused directors to serve in the future.

CLASSIFIED BOARDS

Glass Lewis favors the repeal of staggered boards in favor of the annual election of directors. We believe that staggered boards are less accountable to shareholders than annually elected boards. Furthermore, we feel that the annual election of directors encourages board members to focus on protecting the interests of shareholders.

MUTUAL FUND BOARDS

Mutual funds, or investment companies, are structured differently than regular public companies (i.e., operating companies). Members of the fund’s adviser are typically on the board and management takes on a different role than that of other public companies. As such, although many of our guidelines remain the same, the following differences from the guidelines at operating companies apply at mutual funds:

We believe three-fourths of the boards of investment companies should be made up of independent directors, a stricter standard than the two-thirds independence standard we employ at operating companies.

We recommend voting against the chairman of the nominating committee at an investment company if the chairman and CEO of a mutual fund is the same person and the fund does not have an independent lead or presiding director.

II. FINANCIAL REPORTING

AUDITOR RATIFICATION

We believe that role of the auditor is crucial in protecting shareholder value. In our view, shareholders should demand the services of objective and well-qualified auditors at every company in which they hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should assiduously avoid situations that require them to make choices between their own interests and the interests of the shareholders.

Glass Lewis generally supports management’s recommendation regarding the selection of an auditor. However, we recommend voting against the ratification of auditors for the following reasons:

5

AUDITOR ROTATION

We typically support audit related proposals regarding mandatory auditor rotation when the proposal uses a reasonable period of time (usually not less than 5-7 years).

PENSION ACCOUNTING ISSUES

Proxy proposals sometimes raise the question as to whether pension accounting should have an effect on the company’s net income and therefore be reflected in the performance of the business for purposes of calculating payments to executives. It is our view that pension credits should not be included in measuring income used to award performance-based compensation. Many of the assumptions used in accounting for retirement plans are subject to the discretion of a company, and management would have an obvious conflict of interest if pay were tied to pension income.

III. COMPENSATION

EQUITY BASED COMPENSATION PLANS

Glass Lewis evaluates option and other equity-based compensation on a case-by-case basis. We believe that equity compensation awards are a useful tool, when not abused, for retaining and incentivizing employees to engage in conduct that will improve the performance of the company.

We evaluate option plans based on certain overarching principles:

OPTION EXCHANGES

Option exchanges are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, although they are approached with great skepticism. Repricing is tantamount to a re-trade. We will support a repricing only if the following conditions are true:

6