“Ex-VW Official Admits Role in Emissions Cheating,” The Wall Street Journal, August 5, 2017 B3. A former VW “compliance executive” charged with conspiracy to defraud the US, wire fraud, and Clean Air Act violations pleads guilty. He admits he knew about the software used to mislead US environmental regulators. Faces sentencing in criminal case in December.
Hiding information from the government is not a good thing. What was the culture that allowed this to happen? Did people feel a need to do this to compete? Too many car companies have been caught up in such scandals to have it be random.
The shareholders have paid (and are continuing to pay) for the mistakes of the employees of the company. Who else from the company is going to go to jail, or lose his/her job? VW is facing costs in just the US of more than $25 billion and investigations elsewhere. Does the “compliance executive” know of others who also knew? Might he offer up some names before December? People who bought VWs are going to want to recover damages from someone.
Filed under Accuracy, Analytics, Board, Compliance, Compliance, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Culture, Data quality, Directors, Duty, Employees, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Oversight, Oversight, Value
“Caterpillar Faces New Questions in Probe,” The Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2017 B1. During a criminal investigation, required export documentation couldn’t be found. Apparently, there are also inconsistencies between what was submitted to the Department of Commerce and what was turned over in response to subpoenas.
So, a corpration may be charged criminally. What about officers, directors, and employees?
It is only foolish consistency, not inconsistency, that is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Filed under Accuracy, Compliance, Compliance Verification, Controls, Corporation, Data quality, Duty, Employees, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Oversight, Value
If someone asks you to “alter” or “fudge” a financial metric reported to the market, take pause. Or hit the big red button.
“Witness: Magnate Knew of Altered Metric,” The Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2017 B9. The chairman of a large company allegedly knew that one of the financial metrics the company reported to the market for the previous quarter was improperly inflated. Or fudged, as they say in the trade. By $12 million.
The former chief accounting officer took a plea to fraud (and admitted to lying on other matters) and is cooperating with the government; the former CFO is charged with criminal fraud and is at trial. The company is “cooperating.” The chairman hasn’t been charged. Yet.
Why isn’t the company charged? At least one of its agents appears to have committed a fraud. Why isn’t the chairman charged, if he knew? Is this consistent with the Yates memo? Is there a civil (derivative) suit against the chairman?
Filed under Accuracy, Board, Collect, Communicate, Compliance, Compliance, Compliance, Controls, Corporation, Directors, Duty, Duty of Care, Employees, Governance, Inform market, Internal controls, Management, Oversight, Oversight
Apparently, keeping the identities of confidential informants secret poses some challenges. Are there information governance lessons to be learned?
“Inmates Targeting Informants,” The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2017 A3. “[C]lose to 700 witnesses and informants believed to have cooperated with the government have been threatened, wounded or killed” over three years. One source of information: online court records that provide clues as to who cooperated with the prosecutors. Some inmates may be posting their sentencing files to establish their bona fides.
Hard to classify this in this blog. Does this pertain to
- the value of accurate and complete information
- the risk in making information widely available
- the government’s duty to protect informants
- the government’s duty to have a transparent criminal justice system
- a defendant’s right to confront his/her accusers
- the need for security and the difficulty in providing it
- the proactive value of disclosure
- the fact that information can be misused
- the difficulty in creating effective controls
Filed under Access, Accuracy, Communications, Compliance, Controls, Data quality, Duty, Duty of Care, Governance, Government, Information, Internal controls, Oversight, Privacy, Protect assets, Risk, Third parties, Value
How do you forecast what information the company will need twenty years from now, long after your retirement?
“First Job of Dismantling Nuclear Plants: Find a Russian Speaker,” The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2017 A1. Dismantling engineers encounter problems when trying to decontaminate and tear down an old nuclear facility. The engineering drawings are not necessarily accurate as-built diagrams, and a lot of the language is Russian.
An organization needs a lot of information. One area is “What information will we need when it’s time to dismantle this great thing we just built?” Is this information governance, records management, or knowledge management? Does it matter? Who owns this problem? This same problem came up in my prior life when looking at the information requirements to shut down and dismantle a North Sea oil platform – a lot of that information needs to be captured at the front end and during the life of the facility, and maintained until the facility is removed.
Gee, how important are computers to your company? Or, more importantly, the information they contain?
“Big Outage Dogs British Airways,” The Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2017 B3. A power surge apparently takes out BA’s entire IT system. No flights, no baggage, and no customer communications. This is partly a business continuity problem, and is a predictable hazard (I was working at Amoco in Chicago in the 90’s when a flood took out the email servers that were then in the basement- Ed.). But it also highlights how important access to information is to having your business run right. If you put all your eggs in one basket, watch that basket.
What happens when you have so much information that you can’t read it all? “U.K.’s MI5 Begins Internal Probe,” The Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2017 A9. Apparently, the suicide bomber in Manchester was on, and then off, the security service’s radar screen. He was one of 20,000 suspects, but not among the 3,000 most active ones.
Filed under Access, Accuracy, Business Continuity, Communications, Controls, Duty, Governance, Government, Information, Interconnections, IT, Operations, Oversight, Supervision, Third parties, Value
“FCC Won’t Move Against Colbert for Crude Remarks,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 A3. Remarks about Trump don’t draw a fine. The question remains, what will? What’s the impact of the regulator not even trying to enforce regulatory standards?
“Pakistan Investigates Social-Media Critics of Its Military,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 A8. Twenty-seven critics investigated for “unacceptable” comments criticizing and ridiculing the military and judiciary. The FCC wasn’t consulted.
2. “U.S. Sues Chrysler Over Emissions Tests,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 B1. Apparently VW wasn’t the only one seeking to game the emissions-testing process.
3. “Human Still Rule Machines in Insurance,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 B1. Despite the new sources of data, and the ability of computer programs to determine how much an individual insurance policy should cost, humans are still a necessary decision-maker.
4. “Target Settles Probe Into Its 2013 Hack,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 B3. Following the 2013 data breach, Target pays an additional $18.5 million to settle state charges.
5. “High-Ranking Chinese Regulator Faces Probe,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2017 B14. Assistant chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission fired for breaking the rules. Details not available.
Filed under Accuracy, Analytics, Compliance, Compliance, Controls, Corporation, Culture, Duty, Employees, Governance, Government, Information, Internal controls, Management, Managers, Oversight, Supervision, Value