1.	Companies can’t be expected to change years of inbred behavior—specifically, concerning the exclusion of women and minorities from the board of directors. True or false? Answer: False, I’m glad to report, since I’ve taken heat because of my campaign to single out such malefactors. Back among 1992 annuals, more than two in five boards pictured (41%) were seen to be comprised solely of white-bread males. That declined a year later to 35%—one in three. Today: half that. Fewer than one in five (18%) companies are seen to be guilty of refusal to smarten up concerning today’s minimum requirements, doubly imperative now that most companies operate globally.
	2.	Surely you jest when you accuse the CEO of Owens Corning of playing with dolls. True or false? Answer: True...sort of. All I know is Glen Hiner is pictured in his annual report with a doll’s house, no explanation given. Your guess is as good as mine. At least he appears more humble, after years of outlandish behavior.
	3.	In the unlikely event you were to err, you of course would own up to it. True or false? Answer: True. All good journalists follow a code of ethics. It goes without saying that to err is human. But when I goof, I do so big-time, forgetting (specifically) that U.K.-based Reuters couldn’t make the list of world’s 10 best because it has no directors who are women or minorities. (Though it’s convinced it has an "integrated" board: "We have a Swiss director and a Swede as a director! If that’s not integration, I don’t know what is!" in the words of its annual report producer, a nice-enough chap otherwise.) I quickly owned up to the oversight, apologized to Reuters’ producer and to the producer of the Knight-Ridder report, which by rights should have been 10th best on the year. And—corrected the record both online and in the very next (December) issue of the print version of my newsletter.
	4.	Annual report producers come and go, but what remains constant is the corporation whose name’s on the cover. True or false? Answer: False. On the contrary, my study of annuals for the last 15 years indicates that, more than the corporation itself, whether or not the document is going to excel is in the hands of the individual. The two top "corporate annuals" actually are credited individuals: Don Janis and George Stenitzer. Take the former: He produced a Top 10 report for six straight years for Mosinee Paper Corp. When he left, its report tanked, never to be heard from again—at least, not positively. Even the third best annual report over the years, St. Paul Cos., and fourth best, Chevron, have one person—a woman—at the helm, year after year. And, again, listed fifth best is an individual: Lynn Taylor, who worked miracles for two California companies. You’ll never convince me it’s not the individual who makes the difference. Time and again that has proved to be the case.
	5.	Once a person attends your annual Annual Report Conference, there’s little if any need to come back for more. True or false? Answer: False, apparently. Take Pfizer’s Elaine Williams, its director of corporate and employee communications. At Minneapolis in 1996, Atlanta in 1997 and this past fall, she has signed up to attend her fourth Sid Cato conference in a row: New Orleans Sept. 15-17, 1999. Others outdo her: Some will have attended nine or 10 times what next fall will be my 12th annual conference.