“SEC Sues to Oust Musk From Tesla Over Tweets,” The Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2018 A1. The SEC sued to remove Elon Musk as the CEO of Tesla, after Mr. Musk tweeted about funding for taking the company private. See also https://infogovnuggets.com/2018/08/11/loose-lips-revisited/.
So, if the CEO doesn’t follow the rules, how much do the shareholders get hurt? Ten percent (or $5 billion). What’s Compliance worth to them?
Take that and smoke it.
Filed under Communicate, Communications, Compliance, Compliance, Compliance (General), Duty, Employees, Governance, Information, Management
More catching up, after a mid-summer’s nap. Catching up (part 1) is here.
Naomi Osaka Gets the Last Word,” The Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2018 (online). Serena Williams complained mightily after she was warned, penalized a point, and then penalized a game in her dispute with the umpire. She was also fined $17,000, although she still received more than $1 million for second place. Ms. Williams alleged sexism.
What does it say when a high-profile player gets penalized for several infractions, including calling the umpire a thief? What does it say, to her and to others, when she doesn’t? And from a Governance standpoint, why don’t the rules allow for the disqualification of a player for gross disrespect to the game? Losing the $1 million+ purse would have been a more appropriate penalty.
Would it matter if the employee had retained his former employer’s confidential information on (a) the computer or (b) the hard drives? Who owns what? Reminds me of my law school exams.
What can you say publicly about firing someone? Would it matter if the person was accused of sexual harassment, in violation of company policy?
What did they know and when did they know it, and what, if anything did they do about it? Investigation didn’t start for several months, after a NYT article. Is that enough?
In a similar vein, “Vatican to Address Allegations Of Abuses,” The Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2018 A7. Despite knowledge of past sexual misconduct with seminarians, retired cardinal still made an adviser to the Pope. (The retired cardinal has since resigned after allegations he had sexually abused a teenager years before.) What does that say about how that institution is governed? Can you hide this type of information?
What was he fired for, the text or the sexual harassment? To whom does it matter? What was the culture at the top of CBS? This guy was a direct report to the CEO, Mr. Moonves.
It’s good to have some check on the accuracy of information. Why isn’t Facebook’s effort more wide-spread?
Are these people accused of selling Amazon’s data or your data? Don’t employees have a duty not to do thing like that? There must be a company policy. Not sure that Amazon appreciated its employees “borrowing” its business model.
It has been suggested as much, at the time of the tweet (August 7, 2018). See Loose Lips, revisited.
Whose information is that, anyway? If your financial firm uses Messenger, the answer may surprise you. If you use Facebook to communicate with your broker, shame on you both. See also Gee, what could go wrong?
What does it say about both your Governance and your Compliance when your investigators don’t collect basic forensic data? And that the day after the probe was begun, a principal discussed how to delete old text messages? Isn’t this a basic competence question?
There is no privacy. You use their service for free and they get your information, to do with what they want.
Filed under Uncategorized
I’ve been otherwise occupied, and have fallen behind. Forgive me, Faithful Reader(s).
Two main points: compliance extends beyond just the law and your company policies and procedures, to reach your breach of the company’s quasi-contractual undertakings (i.e., it’s word); and senior employees get punished, too (which is highly visible to other employees when the punishment gets made public).
Three points: Wells Fargo has a serious integrity problem; cheating on a expense report is still cheating (not a Records Management issue, but a Compliance with policy issue); and publicizing the suspension of managing directors has an impact on the muggles. (Note: it appears the managing director(s) only got suspended; lower-level staff got fired. RDHIP (“Rank Does Have Its Privileges).
“Truckers Take On Digital Traffic,” The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2018 B4. Trucking companies invest big time in technology to build brokerage operations to compete with third-party brokers.
Information has value to someone.
Where to file this one, under “Dog Bites Man,” or something else?
“Moonves Negotiates Exit at CBS,” The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2018 A1. Departure of CEO accused of sexual harassment comes during contentious battle for corporate control.
You know it’s bad when this is the lead headline, above the fold, on page one. But is this enforcing policy for policy’s sake, or for some other purpose? Does it matter? Or does that depend on whether you’re the departing CEO or a shareholder?
If the information is truthful, what’s the harm in getting and using it? Doesn’t there have to be “something else” to be a crime? Is using it to “encourage” a witness not to testify an evil motive?
“Booker’s ‘Spartacus’ Moment Thwarted,” The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2018 A4. Senator says he will risk his Senate seat to publish confidential documents. Turns out the documents weren’t confidential.
A crime require both an mens rea (evil intent) and a bad act. But what does it say about one’s ethics when one thinks he is violating the applicable rules? Or is lying? Is it one or the other? Is this Governance, or Compliance, or Information? Or some combination?
What impact does your CEO’s commission of a crime on live TV have on the share price? What impact on the rank and file employees? What is the culture on Compliance at Tesla? What does it say about the executives who left?
Is this against the law? You have the absolute right to petition your government. Do you have to use your name to do it? The Journal says, however, “Submitting fraudulent statements or representations to the federal government is a felony.” If it obviously not your name, is it still a felony, since no one was confused?
Interesting, as the information isn’t information, in the sense of being accurate; but it still is the opinion of an entity. What are the Compliance ramifications? How do you govern against this? Pass another law?
Assuming for purposes of discussion that this is true, is it wrong? What if it were the suppression of the speech from some other category, such as blacks, or Catholics, or students? Why isn’t the Federal Government asking these questions? Is this a states’ rights issue? Some Governance, some Compliance, and some Information.
More later.
Filed under Uncategorized
infogovnuggets 