Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Being Held Accountable
After receiving a bailout, "nine out of ten bank executives are still running the show," according to NBC. Here's a simple question: If you mismanaged the company that you worked for as these men (and they are all men), would you have been fired immediately? What's up with the board? What's up with holding these people responsible for their actions, especially when taxpayer money has been used to bail these institutions out?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Being a blogger, I envy you the way you chose the title of the blog, the way you write your posts...even the way you post your comments.
Being Khaled..I appreciate your feed back.
Thanks, Khaled, though no need to envy. :-) I LOVE your blog for its sensitivity, poetics, design, beauty, and honesty. The more I get to know you through your blog, I may just have to post a piece entitled, Being Khaled. You are multi-faceted and this always holds my interest. You're super!
Judith,
Perfect point. The board of directors are in charge of the CEO (they hire him/her and regularly evaluate their performance) in all public traded companies. Under Sarbanes-Oxley, the directors were to be held more accountable. Yet, I have not heard a single word spoken, by main stream media, questioning what the boards were doing while the companies were failing. Maybe the directors of these failing companies are just too “esteemed” to even be questioned?
Bob Foster
Bob - I haven’t heard a single word about the board of directors of these companies anywhere. It's almost as if they are non-existent. Regarding Sarbanes-Oxley, all you hear about it is how restrictive it is for business. Hmmm?
Judith,
Regarding Sarbanes-Oxley: Whenever the federal government attempts to solve a perceived problem, it is like hunting rodents with a cannon. They may get the rodent (sometimes), but they destroy everything around it in the process. Sarbanes-Oxley was initiated to curb criminal activity within public-traded companies. Consequently, the honest small business (under 500 employees) is burdened with the same onerous paperwork, extra costs, and detailed oversight, as GM, Ford, and all large corporations. This is where S-O becomes restrictive, unnecessarily costly—and meaningless. The SBA is working to get the legislation modified to relieve some of the pressure on small businesses.
Bob Foster
Bob - I loved the opening! I actually laughed out loud. Thank you for the brilliant breakdown of how S-O affects small businesses. Though, I do remember Donald Trump talking about it once and he spoke unfavorably about it. He is most certainly not a small businessman. Thanks again.
Post a Comment