I’m a retired ‘old’ engineer and have been watching the Enbridge and Kinder
Morgan pipeline debates in BC–even sending letters here and there.
No one has answered a basic question for me-yet; that is, how and
why Enbridge got caught so off guard –particularly in the Kalamzoo pipeline oil spill
fiasco—was the Board somehow doing what Boards of the day DO/DID?---and do you
see where todays Board is likely to pay more attention to matters ‘not ONLY
related to fiduciary matters'----I have been reading online about changes in the
UK and USA that may require Boards to pay more attention to the BROADER ASPECTS
of business-can,should these changes be adopted in Canada?
A Board of Directors(BOD), in a
publically held company, has a fiduciary has responsibility to the
shareholders...the concept of the Board suggests to me that there will be a
consensus when BROADER issues arise -something like that-right? Some suggest
that the Board, in reality, is more often like an Old Boys Club(OBC)—where the
Chairman or (CEO ?) calls the shots---and matters such as our system 'condition' is left to the operating plebs!
The Corporate Financial OFFICER(CFO) has great influence when counselling the Board I assume--BUT where's the Corporate Technical Officer (CTO) who is RESPONSIBLE to counsel the Board about the 'STATE OF OUR PHYSICAL PLANT?'For instance ,the CTO may say "members,we have AREAS OF CONCERN that need attention --here's the list --please advise when we can proceed with the action plan attached"! Ha!Ha! you say. How many complex technical ,physical plant ,organizations ever hear such a request??
This procedure would make the Board ACCOUNTABLE for deciding about system integrity--an ACCOUNTABLE BOARD--what a novel concept??
How is the typical big company(business) ‘run’---I see three
scenarios,below;
1.A large investment or financial business will have many
accounting,economists, financial specialists folks offering advice to the Board(via the CFO)—great--hell
some of these mega companies have survived—with help from Joe Bloe’s tax
dollars(recall the ‘handy’ government bailouts)..?
2.A large public utility
(electric,gas,water typically)can be under the jurisdiction of a Public
Utilities Commission and is allowed fixed return on their investment and no
more—The utility must yield to Public Utilities Commission(PUC) directions as to it’s operating practices,and
expenses...the PUC basically is required to assure the users(ratepayers) that
the Utility is providing the service at a reasonable cost ...the PUC may compare
operating costs with other similar utilities nationwide ...the typical Hearing
will examine utility company officials on any and all matters raised by
customers and the public..all testimony(transcripts) is recorded and offered to
the public for their information...the problem sometimes lies with governments
of the day that have their own agenda—and decide ,for their own political
reasons to ,curtail the PUC ‘powers’---so the scrutiny of the PUC then becomes
moot...like in British Columbia today!
3.A typical large pipeline company—a complex business with huge
financial investments and very significant public issues to manage.I don’t know
how the typical pipeline company Board operates.Yes the board has fiduciary
responsibilities AND public issues also—There have been recent changes in the UK
and USA for Boards—in the UK the Board needs to consider “the impact of the
company’s operations on the community and the environment”—and there are five
other interesting ‘factors’.—In the U.S. there is the Sarbanes –Oxley Act which
broadens the Boards area of responsibility,(resulted from the recent financial
crisis in the U.S.-and signed into law by George W. Bush)-looks to me to be
directed primarily at large financial public companies.
In light of these’
trends’ for Boards will this spill over into Canada and put more pressure on the
Enbridges and Kinder Morgans to consider more” the impact of the company’s
operations on the community and the environment”—I’m assuming that some of these
changes will happen in Canada??
Or am I living in a fairy land--still??
No comments:
Post a Comment