有时候，头绪纷繁复杂，但其中有一个关系最为重大，足以决定一切的成败。上周，杰德•拉科夫法官要求美国证券交易委员会（SEC）解释，与花旗银行（Citigroup）达成的2.85亿美元和解方案如何才能保证花旗今后诚实对待客户？

    该和解方案针对的问题是：花旗银行被控在房地产市场危机爆发前夕曾经误导过抵押贷款证券投资者。有鉴于此，法官提出的问题合情合理。可是，表面上看来，SEC要回答这个问题并不容易，因此联邦法官是否会批准和解方案也就悬而未决。

    花旗2003年也曾与SEC达成一份和解协议，其中包括承诺公平而公开地向客户披露信息，可是，对于该公司治理与文化的实质性改革，最近这份和解协议要求甚少。要知道，最初正是公司治理方面的失败引发了种种问题。

    看来，拉科夫充分理解公司治理的重要性。他曾经负责世通公司（WorldCom）破产一案，并指派前SEC主席理查德•布里登担任法庭监督人员。这总破产案的副产品是一系列公司治理方面的建议，明智的董事会应当以此为准绳，可事实上他们总是抗拒不已。

    那么，在这个最新的案例中，SEC将如何回应呢？拉科夫又该注意什么？

以前的补救措施为何无效？

    花旗银行董事会有责任监管好公司的文化，而且，有两位董事早在2003年和解方案达成之前就已经在董事会任职，包括其董事长理查德•帕森斯。

    达成和解之后，花旗董事会采取了哪些行动来改变公司治理监管方式？显然，不管该董事会采取了什么补救措施，它们都说不上卓有成效，董事会应当重新进行评估，找出背后的原因。

    有可能董事会根本没有花费足够的时间来理解该行的工作文化，而是太过依赖于管理层的意见，或者说董事会本身就没有充分理解这一职责的关键性。

    Sometimes, in a sea of questions there is that one that makes all the difference. Last week, Judge Jed S. Rakoff asked the SEC to explain how its $285 million settlement with Citigroup would ensure that the bank would be upfront with its clients in the future.

    It's a fair question, given that the settlement is in response to charges that Citi (C) had misled its mortgage securities investors in the run up to the housing crisis. But at face value, the question may not be so easy for the SEC to answer, leaving the federal judge's approval of the settlement up in the air.

    Citi's 2003 settlement with the SEC also included a promise to provide fair and open disclosure to clients, but this recent settlement calls for little in the away of substantive reforms to the governance and culture at the company. But it is failures in governance that lead to these problems in the first place.

    Rakoff seems to understand just how important corporate governance can be. He oversaw the WorldCom bankruptcy and the appointment of former SEC chair Richard Breeden as court monitor. That case led to governance recommendations that boards would be wise to follow, but continue to resist.

    So how will the SEC respond and what should Rakoff be looking at in this latest case? Here's a start:

Why did previous remedies fail?

    Citi's board has a responsibility to oversee the company's culture. And two of its board directors have been on the board since before the 2003 settlement, including chairman Richard Parsons.

    What actions did the board take to change its cultural oversight after that settlement? Clearly, whatever remedies the board took have not been wholly effective and they should conduct a review to find out why.

    It's possible that the board has not spent enough time to understand the bank's work culture, relying too much on management's opinion, or the board itself may have failed to understand this critical responsibility.

管理层问责制

    另一个值得检视的关键领域是：董事会是否真正将责任落实到首席执行官和其他高管身上？如果答案是肯定的，具体是如何操作的？如何进行监管？如何通过升迁、薪酬调整和解雇等手段来执行？

    据花旗集团提交的文件描述道，在决定高管薪酬时，该行使用了一些风险因素作为“阈值或‘关卡’因素”。

    在薪酬方案中，阈值是指员工必须满足一定的基本要求，之后才有资格获得奖金。（Countrywide Mortgage公司也曾采纳类似薪酬方案，但未能防止高风险行为盛行。）

    花旗提交的文件中，并未澄清与客户的沟通情况是否被用作该行业绩评估的标准及决定奖金多少的因素。负责组织内部文化的企业高管理应清楚，自己的奖金直接与这方面的业绩挂钩。

    “统一团队、负责任的金融、独创性和领导力”，在花旗向SEC提交的文件中将上述四点列为公司战略的基石，或许，道德与诚实品行应该列为第五点。

杜绝表面文章

    英国石油（BP）和安然（Enron）公司的行为准则堪称完美，花旗银行同样如此，其内部准则概述了员工对客户担负的责任，为什么这一切还不够呢？

    评估花旗的公司治理情况时应当分析：其董事会是否已确保高管们理解这些准则？是否明白这些规定不是一纸空文，必须严格执行？是否明白公司完全不容忍对客户进行不可靠或误导性的信息披露？

    此外，即使工作文化健全可靠，个别员工走上邪路的可能性也总是无法避免。花旗银行应当检查，内部是否有充分的制衡机制——以便核查与客户沟通的方式，清除存在问题的行为。

为举报者留下空间

    董事会还应当评估监控、处理举报者投诉的方式。根据董事会的行为，员工们是否认为自己有责任报告向客户进行不公平信息披露的情况？在他们看来，站出来举报问题的话，是否会得到支持和奖励（而不是遭到惩罚）？

对警示性的迹象保持警惕

    花旗银行进行的改革还应纳入帮助董事会和高管获得早期警示的流程，使他们能尽早采取补救行动。例如，董事会如何监管员工的文化，了解他们的顾虑？董事会是否会分析匿名调查的结果？

    SEC则应当弄清，应当建立起怎样的一套监管机制，来对花旗银行的内部流程进行评估，确保公司的改革落到实处。

    拉科夫法官的问题很简单，答案却必须站得住脚。检验这一切的时间是11月9日：届时SEC能做好准备吗？

    本文作者爱丽诺•布洛斯罕为董事会咨询公司价值联盟与公司治理联盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance）首席执行官。

Hold executives accountable

    Another critical area to examine is whether the board truly holds the CEO and senior executives accountable and, if so, how it does this, including its oversight and use of promotions, compensation and dismissals.

    Citigroup's proxy describes the use of certain risk factors as a "threshold or 'gating' factor" in determining compensation.

    Thresholds are used in compensation programs as hurdles that must be met before an employee is eligible for a bonus. (Countrywide Mortgage had a similar compensation approach, which failed to prevent risky behavior there.)

    Citi's proxy filing does not clarify whether communication with clients is used in performance evaluations and bonus determinations at the bank. Top executives who are responsible for the organization's culture should know that their bonuses are at stake.

    "Common purpose, responsible finance, ingenuity and leadership" are four key principles that Citi cites in its proxy as the basis of its strategy. Perhaps ethics or integrity should be their fifth.

Steer clear of lip service

    BP and Enron had excellent codes of conduct. The same goes for Citi. Its code outlines employees' responsibilities to clients. So why has this been insufficient?

    A review of Citi's governance should include whether the board has made sure that top management understands that these words are not lip service and that there is zero tolerance for unreliable or misleading disclosures to clients.

    Further, even if there is a sound work culture, there's always the possibility that an employee will go rogue. Citi should examine whether there are enough internal checks and balances in the way it communicates with clients to stamp out questionable behavior.

Leave room for the whistleblower

    The board should also review the way it monitors and handles whistleblower complaints. Based on the board's actions, do employees believe it is their obligation to report instances of unfair disclosure to clients and do they feel they will be supported and rewarded (rather than punished) for coming forward?

Keep an eye out for warning signs

    The reforms at the bank should include processes for the board and top management to receive early warnings and take remedial actions sooner. For example, how does the board monitor the culture and concerns of its staff -- does the board review anonymous surveys?

    The SEC should address what kind of regulatory oversight it will establish to review Citi's processes until the fixes at the company have been made.

    While the question Judge Rakoff poses is simple, the answers must be robust. Exam time comes on November 9: will the SEC be prepared?

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