By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Sadly, I must reaffirm my position stated during Apple CEO Steve Jobs' last medical leave, in January 2009: His health situation isn't a private matter, and, frankly, it's even less so now. The seeming suddenness of Jobs' more recent medical leave, which this time is open-ended, raises reasonably disconcerting questions about how long he can continue as chief executive and whether Apple has in place an appropriate succession plan. I didn't expect to return to this topic again, and surely Macheads will beat me aside the head with snide and accusing comments or rebuttal blog posts. So be it.

As leader of a public company, Jobs has no inherent right to privacy where his ability to act as CEO is concerned. Jobs' share in Apple was, last time I checked, well below 5 percent. He isn't principal owner of Apple, tens of thousands of shareholders are. If not Jobs, then at least Apple's board of directors has a responsibility to appraise shareholders about such an iconic CEO's realistic ability to continue in the role. Right now, Jobs has essentially abdicated the responsibility for undetermined amount of time. In a January 17 letter, Jobs explained that he had "asked [COO] Tim Cook to be responsible for all of Apple's day to day operations." Not some responsibility but all.

The Securities and Exchange Commission doesn't explicitly require disclosure of executives' health-related issues, but it does encourage companies to disclose succession plans. From Stanford School of Business paper "CEO Health Disclosure at Apple: A Public or Private Matter?" published last week: "The SEC has encouraged companies to disclose information on their succession plans so that shareholders can assess whether the company might be 'adversely affected due to vacancy in leadership.'"

From that perspective, Jobs' health is not a private matter but one of public company responsibility. On January 17, Jobs didn't give a time period for the medical leave or even assert that he would return to his responsibilities. "I love Apple so much and hope to be back as soon as I can," he wrote. Hope expresses desire to resume duties, not expression of confidence that will be the outcome. By comparison, in Jobs' letter for the last medical leave, he gave a finite period (six months) and referred to Cook taking responsibility "for Apple's day to day operations" without using "all." As later was revealed, Jobs was quite ill during the last medical leave, when he received a liver transplant. Could he be sicker this time -- something that could be insinuated by the seemingly sudden and open-ended medical leave?

Rules of Succession

In a January 18 interview with Bloomberg, Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Corporate Governance, said that Apple hasn't met its responsibility to shareholders: "Much more disclosure is in order. I think the board really should come forward and let--give--investors know more of what they know. Transparency in this situation is really valuable." He added: "The problem is that in this company, investors place a lot of stock in Jobs' presence, and in the past his presence or absence has caused some real gyrations in the stock price." Elson emphasized that when investors bought Apple shares they "expected full and fair disclosure of the company's fortunes. I think this would include something like this" -- the "this" referring to Job's medical leave.

In a January 18