高盛董事会改革越改越独裁

    高盛的这项新协议令人质疑首席独立董事真正的独立性。“独立董事们当前决定，应由公司治理与任命委员会的主席出任首席独立董事。”但劳埃德•布兰克费恩称，董事会选择委员会主席“会参考董事长的意见”。

    根据新的指引，首席独立董事将向“董事长和首席执行官汇报独立董事们的所有想法、顾虑和事宜。” 不加区分、凡事一律汇报的要求并不符合董事会的独立宗旨，不仅不能促进、反而可能会扼杀独立董事间良好的沟通。首席独立董事只有在征得独立董事允许的情况下，才能进行这样的汇报。因为很可能会有一些敏感事宜，独立董事们希望先形成自己的观点，然后再与首席执行官讨论。独立董事至少应该有机会权衡各种各种选择。

    根据高盛新的方案，首席独立董事也会负责一年一度的首席执行官评估。但是，还是那个问题，这位董事能有多独立呢？

    高盛的这项幕后协议也反映了当前的一股趋势。今年以来，美国股东们与公司的对话比以往任何时候都要活跃。这在某种程度上是因为“薪酬投票权”以及代理投票权措施为新的对话提供了可能——而且如今美国股东们也越来越习惯这个流程了。随着股东参与度的增加，必然会有一些失败的实验。林德斯莱称，在“提交美国州县市雇员联盟提案前”没有和高盛进行过“高级别”对话，甚至根本就“没有进行过这样的尝试”。

    美国股东们应仔细考虑他们愿意和谁谈判以及什么时候是合适的谈判时机。美国州县市雇员联盟关于这一提案的讨论是与高盛高管成员约翰•罗杰斯进行的，林德斯莱称罗杰斯“通情达理”。根据结果判断，如果当初股东和独立董事都能坐下来参与协商，可能会取得更好的成果。

    美国股东们还必须警惕小胜即安，事态往往容易被大人物所左右。

    美国很多公司都已拆分了首席执行官和董事长的职务，因此，美国州县市雇员联盟的建议绝对谈不上牵强。高盛的企业治理现状也早该有人管管了。看在所有人的份上，我们希望高盛达成的下一宗交易不会只对其首席执行官有好处。

    本文作者埃莉诺•布洛斯罕是董事会咨询机构——价值联盟及公司治理联盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance）的首席执行官。

    译者：早稻米

    Goldman's new scheme calls into question the true independence of the lead director. "The independent directors have currently determined that the chairperson of the corporate governance and nominating committee shall be the lead director." But the board chooses committee chairs "taking into account the views of the Chairman," Lloyd Blankfein

    And the lead director, under the new guidelines, will be "reporting to the Chairman and CEO any views, concerns and issues of the independent directors." A blanket requirement to report is not in the best interest of the board's independence and may, in fact, stifle rather than foster good communication among the independent members. The lead director should not be making such a report unless the independent directors agree. There could very well be sensitive matters that the independent directors may wish to form an opinion on before they discuss them with the CEO -- and the independent members at least should have the opportunity to weigh those options.

    Under Goldman's new plan, the lead director is also now responsible for leading the annual CEO evaluation. But again, it's unclear how independent this person will be.

    The behind-the-scenes agreement with Goldman is part of a trend. U.S. shareholders have been more active than ever in conversations with companies this year. In part, this is because "say on pay" votes and proxy access measures have created openings for new dialogue -- and in part, because U.S. shareholders are just more comfortable with the process now. As engagement increases, there are bound to be experiments that fail. Lindsley says there had been no "high level" dialogue with Goldman "prior to the filing of [AFSCME's] proposal" and "none had been attempted."

    U.S. shareholders should consider carefully who they are willing to negotiate with and when negotiations are appropriate. In discussions about this particular proposal, AFSCME negotiated with John Rogers, a member of Goldman's management, whom Lindsley says was "reasonable". Based on the outcome, both shareholders and independent directors might have achieved a better deal if they had been the ones at the table.

    U.S. shareholders must also be careful to weigh the serious downsides of appeasement with the joy of minor victories. It is easy to be swayed by personalities.

    Given the large number of companies that have split the CEO and chair roles, the AFSCME proposal was not far-fetched. Given the state of Goldman's governance, it should have been a lay-up. Let's hope, for everyone's sake, the next deal Goldman cuts will benefit someone other than its CEO.

    Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance , a board advisory firm.