Boards need fewer super-star directors who sport prestigious resumes but lack financial expertise, governance experts argue. They say the corporate scandals of recent years show that boardrooms should be filled with seasoned business people who can sift through complex financial matters.
"When you go from (being) a member of Congress to a board you better know finance and accounting," said Roger Raber, head of the National Association of Corporate Directors, an education and research group. "I suspect a lot of people from the Hill don't have finance and accounting backgrounds."...
The financial gains that ex-government officials reap from board service also can leave bad tastes in the mouths of investors who see potential conflicts of interest.
Former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik, who sat on the board of stun gun maker Taser International Inc., realized about $6.8 million from the sale of stock options.
You'd think that directors with little relevant experience and obvious potential for conflicts of interest would inherently be in very little demand. So far, the allure of big name directors has outweighed those concerns, but with enough attention to the process that could change.
Of course, it would help if the article actually pointed out the most obvious recent example of corporate/government overlap, but apparently Dick Cheney was out of bounds. Instead, the lesson for now seems to be that if you move among high enough positions, you'll escape the criticism given to everybody else.
No comments:
Post a Comment