The apology laden atmosphere in the wake of the damaging admission forced from AMP executives at the Hayne royal commission pervaded AMP's annual general meeting yesterday.However, the anger at how AMP had duped regulators and customers masked several aspects of Australian boardroom behaviour and corporate governance that are unlikely to be dealt with by the Hayne royal commission.The most troubling aspects, from the point of view of the retail investors who took to the microphones in droves, centred around why the two directors who would have been up for re-election chose not to do so. At least then they could have explained themselves to their shareholders. Secondly, the influence of the institutional investors on the makeup of the board was brought into sharp focus when AMP's acting chair and interim chief executive, Mike Wilkins, refused to detail how the largest shareholders and proxy advisers had voted, despite much hand-wringing over the need to be more transparent.In voting for adoption of the remuneration report, the instos voted approximately 37.5 per cent in favour, and 61.2 per cent against. And, despite anger and disappointment by those asking questions of their board, when the votes were tallied, the "mum and dad" investors had supported the board's recommendations by better than two to one. However, this group accounted for about 1.5 per cent of the total.Ultimately, this was a "first strike" against the board, and was by far the largest, ahead of a 49 per cent vote against CBA's board in 2016. For AMP's board, a second strike - that is, 25 per cent or more of AMP shares voted against next year's rem report - would see the whole board up for re-election. In the midst of this, the only board member to stand for re-election, New Zealand lawyer, Andrew Harmos, survived with 38 per cent of shares voted against him, one of the highest on record. Amidst the furore, good news was lost - for instance, AMP Bank's total loan book was up by another 2 per cent to A$19.8 billion during the quarter.