Today, UPS named information technology expert Rod Adkins to its board of directors. Stuart Eizenstat is a partner at Washington, D.C. law firm, Covington & Burling and has been on the UPS board since 2005. It is my understanding that this law firm does not use UPS for their overnight shipments - they use FedEx Express. This firm is the largest law firm in D.C. and one of the top 50 largest firms in the US (source Internet Legal Research Group - Law, Lawyer, Lawyers, Attorney, Attorneys and Legal Resources), so they likely ship out a lot of overnight letters and international shipments from all of their worldwide locations. Since the members of the board of directors directors are elected to represent and are legally obligated to represent the interests of the owners of the company (anyone that owns UPS stock), how can Stuart Eizenstat represent the interests of UPS when the firm he is employed by uses UPS' primary competitor? In 2012, UPS non-employee directors received an annual cash retainer of $90,000. They also received an annual restricted stock unit grant of $150,000, which they are required to hold until they leave the board, when the units are paid in Class A common stock shares. Think about this next time you vote your shares of UPS stock and consider not recommending Stuart Eizenstat for re-election to the board. I don't see how he can truly represent the best interests of UPS stockholders given his primary employer (where he is a partner) uses FedEx. Can he at least submit a sales lead and help the UPS sales group to make a pitch for their business? He's obviously a smart guy and well-connected based on his bio, but I believe that one requirement of being on the UPS board of directors should be that the place where you work should use UPS as their primary carrier. Covington & Burling LLP | Biographies | Stuart E. Eizenstat Perhaps if enough UPS shareholders send him an e-mail and ask that his firm switch to UPS, something positive will happen.