Business Litigation Business Litigation Bricker & Eckler LLP



Blog Archive :: April 2015

Apr 30, 2015

Ten Considerations for Making You a Better Board Member

Being a board member became less enjoyable during the first decade of the new millennium. First, boards were blamed for the malfeasance that resulted in the burst of the dot-com bubble in the earlier part of the decade, and then boards were blamed for the misfeasance that resulted in the “Great Recession” in the latter part of the decade.

Congress reacted to the dot-com burst by enacting Sarbanes-Oxley, requiring greater independence of members of audit committees. Quasi-government organizations, such as the NYSE and Nasdaq, expanded the independence requirements from audit committees to other oversight committees, such as compensation and nominating, and to the board itself. Regulators such as the SEC, IRS and Treasury, as well as banking and insurance regulators, expanded the independence requirements from publicly held companies to tax-exempt organizations and financial institutions.

Congress and the Obama administration reacted to the Great Recession by enacting Dodd-Frank and placing restrictions on the size and activities of organizations that are considered “too large to fail.” In addition, Congress adopted “say-on-pay” legislation, shareholders’ bills of rights and requirements to disclose of how governing boards are organized and led.

Despite increased responsibility and oversight, board members can protect themselves and effectively serve their organizations. The purpose of this article is to provide some guidance for consideration of independent directors seeking to become better board members.

1. Observe the expectation and right of reliance.

The foremost principle of corporate governance is that boards and their committees are expected – and most states’ laws give boards and their committees the right – to rely upon:

  • Officers or employees as to matters for which the director reasonably believes they are reliable and competent;
  • Professionals such as lawyers or accountants as to matters that the director reasonably believes are within the person's professional competence; and
  • Duly established committees of the board for matters within their designated authority, which the director reasonably believes to merit confidence.
The concept is that the organization is managed “under the direction” of the board, and the most important responsibility of the board is to select management, including at least a chief executive officer, whom the board believes is reliable and competent in managing the organization.

2. Ask and encourage questions, taking into account the impact of the highly improbable, and educate when to stop asking questions.

Your role as a board member is to see that direction is provided but is not to execute that direction or manage the organization, unless you believe that the CEO and management are not reliable and competent to do so. You do this by asking sufficient questions, so you have a reasonable belief that the CEO and management are reliable and competent in what they are authorized or directed to do.

Your questions should not generally be “how are you going to do this?” Management should have the authority to determine “how.” Your questions are to verify or confirm their reliability and competence in making the “how” determination: “How does this benefit the best interests of the business?” “Is it consistent with our business model and strategy for the future?” “What financial, legal, ethical, strategic and reputational issues have been considered?”

As a director, you should take into account the premise of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, that policy-makers, such as board members, must consider all of the possibilities, especially those that could have a high impact, albeit remotely probable, and not just the normal. The 2008-2010 Great Recession is the likely result of a failure to take into account the highly improbable, but high impact, occurrence.

Accordingly, the most important questions that a board should ask are “what if”: Most importantly, “what happens if things don’t go as expected?”

Finally, educate other board members about when to stop asking questions. A board member can stop asking questions when he or she reasonably concludes that the CEO and management are reliable and competent to carry out the action being authorized.

3. Understand the organization’s business model and strategic direction.

To oversee that direction is provided to the organization, you must understand both the current business model as well as the strategic direction for the future. One of the problems in replacing employed officers with independent directors as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley is that some boards as a whole have become less knowledgeable of the organization’s business model and less understanding of its strategic direction. As boards become more independent, the CEO and management have a greater responsibility in educating directors on the current business model and future strategic direction.

The role of most boards is not to initiate the organization’s strategic direction, unless the CEO or management has failed to recommend it, but to agree with the strategic direction recommended by management. Having an agreed strategic direction will give the board benchmarks to measure the CEO and management’s performance, and it will focus the board’s attention on the most important matters— those dealing with the organization’s direction.

4. Abide by the principle that a board speaks with one voice.

Your duty of care and loyalty as a director requires you to abide by the decision of a majority of the board at a meeting at which a quorum is present. This applies to all matters coming before the board for its consideration. The board speaks with one voice on all such matters or not at all. Occasionally, on matters where it is important to have a single message, a board will speak only through its chairperson or the chairperson’s designee.

If you disagree with a decision, your rights are to vote against that decision, to have your negative vote recorded in the minutes and, when and if appropriate, to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Generally, “what happens in a board room remains in the board room,” unless you believe that your remaining silent will result in a material breach of fiduciary duty or violation of law.

5. Assure the board has the expertise to speak with one voice.

To be able to speak with one voice, the board must have sufficient expertise to understand how any action it is asked to authorize is consistent with the business model and strategic direction of the organization. This requires boards to assess the collective expertise of the board as a whole: Does the board have the expertise required to oversee the organization’s current business model and its future strategic direction? You should urge the board to make this assessment if it has not done so recently.

Your goal should be an “expertise” board, composed of persons each having particular expertise or other competency needed for the board to have as a whole all of the competencies necessary to achieve its future objectives. This is in contrast to a “constituency” board, which is composed of persons who represent the view of a particular constituency (such as the U.S. Congress or a state legislature). Unlike a constituency board, assembling an “expertise” board requires the organization to assess the core competencies present among its management team members; to prioritize the additional competencies necessary for its future operations; and to recruit persons having those competencies for nomination as board members.

The major benefit of an “expertise” board is a focus on the best interest of the organization as a whole, because its members are selected to bring to the table particular expertise or other competencies that, when taken with the expertise and competencies of the other members, are to achieve the agreed best interests of the organization in the future. Having an “expertise” board also avoids problems of a constituency board whose members view their duties as representing the best interest of the separate constituency that each member represents, often resulting in:

  • Partisanship similar to Congress and state legislatures;
  • Decisions watered down to the lowest common denominator; and
  • Favoring particular constituencies rather than the organization as a whole
Boards should evaluate and inventory the individual knowledge, skills, experience, expertise and other competencies of each of its members; determine the competencies needed in the foreseeable future; and then determine whether to fill any missing competencies through:
  • Recruitment of new or additional directors;
  • Education of directors to enhance expertise or competencies; or
  • Availability of advice of advisers to provide missing expertise or competencies.
6. Urge your board to grant authority by setting goals and enforcing limits.

The board should not prescribe “how” management should conduct business. Instead, it should set the goals or identify the benchmarks to be achieved by management, allowing management to determine “how.” A board that has the available expertise to understand the organization’s business model and strategic direction can set economic and non-economic goals. This is often done annually through adoption of a business plan, which should articulate the goals for the ensuing year. The board should measure the CEO and management’s performance based upon their achievement of these goals.

Although the board should not prescribe “how” management achieves these goals, management should understand that the board expects these goals to be achieved legally, ethically and in compliance with the organization’s policies. This is typically accomplished with articulated codes of conduct and internal controls enforced through forfeitures and even clawbacks of compensation.

7. Consider the first rule of executive compensation.

The CEO of a publicly held company observed in a directors’ education session conducted at The Ohio State University Fisher College of Business stated that, “the first rule of executive compensation is that shareholders get paid first.” Restated for a mutual insurance company, the first rule is that “the claims of policyholders get paid first.”

The point of this rule is that the executives are not entitled to performance or incentive compensation unless the executives are leading the operations of their organization to have earnings available for dividends to shareholders.

If boards and compensation committees had made this simple rule a condition to any of their executives receiving performance or incentive bonuses, there would not have been the AIG or Merrill Lynch bonuses that outraged the public.

The rule applies to any organization – for-profit or nonprofit. The organization’s leaders should not be entitled to performance or incentive compensation or bonuses unless they are leading the operations of their organizations to result in growing net worth, capital or surplus.

Boards and compensation committees should consider making this rule a condition to payment of any performance or incentive compensation: Compensation committees should consider defining as a “stop” to any incentive compensation failure for net worth (or, for non-stock organizations, capital or surplus) to increase for any performance period. In addition, boards and compensation committees should articulate codes of conduct and internal controls enforced through forfeitures and even clawbacks of compensation.

8. Encourage regular meetings with key management.

To regain the knowledge lost by boards as employed officers were replaced with independent directors, encourage your board to meet regularly with key management other than the CEO. Some of the key oversight committees, such as audit and compensation, should consider meeting in executive sessions separately with key management and without other management members being present.

Benefits of regular meetings with key management are that:

  • It opens communication channels between the board and key management;
  • Doing so regularly usually does not offend the CEO;
  • It facilitates the board’s federal and state obligations not to impede whistleblowing by encouraging communication both from employees to the board, hopefully without anonymity, and from the board to employees; and
  • Board and management will each learn from the other.
Generally, familiarity of management with the board and vice versa will not breed contempt but will foster trust and eliminate contempt.

9. Don’t forget about mentorship.

Mentorship is one of the major functions of board members (the others being direction and oversight). Mentorship is making available to management each board member’s knowledge, skills and the experience of having been there and having done it before.

Benefits of mentorship include:

  • Expanding the board’s effectiveness as an “expertise” board by making available for the benefit of the organization the collective knowledge, skills and experience of each of its members;
  • Making it less lonely at the top of management;
  • Providing coaching and fostering relationships between board members and management; and
  • Making board members and management each accessible to the other.

10. Remember that “one size does not fit all,” and improvement won’t happen overnight.

Governance is the aggregate of an organization’s culture, methods, processes, systems and controls for:

  • Providing direction to the business, operations and other affairs of the organization (i.e., the organization’s mission or purpose); and
  • Executing or carrying out that direction (including the organization’s mission or purpose).
However, it is important to note that because governance of an organization is the aggregate of many things, including its culture, what may be appropriate in terms of governance of one organization may not be appropriate for another.
Culture usually cannot be changed overnight. Just as it typically takes two generations of football coaches to find a successful replacement to a great coach, it takes two generations of board members to institutionalize a change: One generation initially adopts the change, but it does not become institutionalized until a succeeding generation agrees to retain it.


Posted by J. Beavers in  Governance Best Practices   |  Permalink


Apr 06, 2015

Rules to Avoid Compliance Issues with Minutes and Conduct of Meetings: Use of a Consent Agenda

This blog on “Use of a Consent Agenda” is the last of a multiple-part series on rules to avoid compliance issues with minutes and conduct of meetings of boards and their committees. The series focused first on minutes with a posting on “Basic Rules for Minutes,” because minutes should be the official and only record of meetings. We then had postings on special considerations for minutes with “Considerations for Minutes of an Adjourned Meeting” and “Reflecting in Minutes Documents Made Available for Meetings.” The penultimate posting provided some suggestions for conducting meetings to result in minutes that will constitute the desired official record. The rules presented in this series are intended for boards of non-governmental organizations because city councils, public school boards and other governmental bodies are subject to open meeting and other laws that are not applicable to non-governmental organizations.

All authority for decision making as to matters of policy, direction, strategy and governance (the “important matters”) and oversight as to matters critical to the health of the organization for its various stakeholders (the “critical matters”) is to be exercised under the direction of the organization’s board. The best way to facilitate a board’s focus on the important and critical matters is the skill of the chairperson to “diplomatically move the proceeding along” when the board gets sidetracked on minutia, as discussed in our last posting, “Suggestions for Conducting Meetings.”

Also, our last posting recommended not blindly adhering to Robert’s Rules of Order in determining the order of an agenda, because it does not distinguish between important and unimportant matters. We prefer an ordering of the agenda so that important matters are discussed earlier in the meeting, and that similar matters are grouped together, regardless of whether they are new or unfinished. 

A tool that can be used to focus on the important and critical matters is to incorporate a consent agenda as part of the agenda for any meeting. A consent agenda is a collection of all routine matters not expected to require discussion into one agenda item. The consent agenda can either come at the beginning or the end of the meeting. Matters on the consent agenda are not discussed by the board and are all approved in one vote.

However, either before or at the meeting, board members may move any matter from the consent agenda to be discussed by the board. Unless the board has taken formal action to identify the matters collected in the consent agenda, any board member may remove the matter for discussion. If the board has taken formal action to identify the matters collected in the consent agenda, some boards may require that the removal must receive the vote of a majority of directors present at the meeting at which the agenda is being considered, though this may stifle discussion. A consent agenda typically includes:

  • Minutes of a previous board meeting
  • Acceptance of minutes of committee meetings
  • Routine committee, management, or staff reports not requiring any action by the board other than acceptance or ratification
  • Acceptance of resignations from the board
  • Updates or background reports provided for information only
  • Routine contracts in the regular course of business that fall within policies and guidelines

Certain items should have significant discussion before they find their way onto a consent agenda. These items include:

  • Audit, financial, risk management and similar reports that may require management or professionals to present information or answer questions
  • Executive committee decisions or management actions which are necessary for the board to understand
  • Any important matter or critical matter for which the board as a whole is the highest authority

Rather than being imposed by the chairperson, we recommend that a board agree to implement a consent agenda to see if it saves time for the important and critical matters. As the board gains experience with the consent agenda, it can adopt policies for what should be included in a consent agenda.

A consent agenda only works if the documents related to the matters collected in the consent agenda are made available to the board reasonably in advance of the meeting, and if each director actually reviews the matters and conducts whatever due diligence the director reasonably believes is necessary to approve the matters. Failing to do this could result in breach of the duty of care for a director and the board. 

If a director has a question for clarification of a matter on the consent agenda, the director’s duty of care generally requires the director to ask the question before the meeting. If the answer clarifies the matter, the matter remains on the consent agenda without taking time at the meeting. Otherwise, the matter should be discussed and any issues addressed.

When properly applied and understood, the use of a consent agenda can dramatically improve the efficiency of board meetings. Most boards find the result is that they are more productive in considering the important and critical matters.


Posted by J. Beavers in  Governance Best Practices   |  Permalink




Copyright © 2014     
INCompliance Consulting     
All Rights Reserved     

Read our Disclaimer