管理層問責制

????另一個值得檢視的關鍵領域是：董事會是否真正將責任落實到首席執行官和其他高管身上？如果答案是肯定的，具體是如何操作的？如何進行監管？如何通過升遷、薪酬調整和解雇等手段來執行？

????據花旗集團提交的文件描述道，在決定高管薪酬時，該行使用了一些風險因素作為“閾值或‘關卡’因素”。

????在薪酬方案中，閾值是指員工必須滿足一定的基本要求，之后才有資格獲得獎金。（Countrywide Mortgage公司也曾采納類似薪酬方案，但未能防止高風險行為盛行。）

????花旗提交的文件中，并未澄清與客戶的溝通情況是否被用作該行業績評估的標準及決定獎金多少的因素。負責組織內部文化的企業高管理應清楚，自己的獎金直接與這方面的業績掛鉤。

????“統一團隊、負責任的金融、獨創性和領導力”，在花旗向SEC提交的文件中將上述四點列為公司戰略的基石，或許，道德與誠實品行應該列為第五點。

杜絕表面文章

????英國石油（BP）和安然（Enron）公司的行為準則堪稱完美，花旗銀行同樣如此，其內部準則概述了員工對客戶擔負的責任，為什么這一切還不夠呢？

????評估花旗的公司治理情況時應當分析：其董事會是否已確保高管們理解這些準則？是否明白這些規定不是一紙空文，必須嚴格執行？是否明白公司完全不容忍對客戶進行不可靠或誤導性的信息披露？

????此外，即使工作文化健全可靠，個別員工走上邪路的可能性也總是無法避免。花旗銀行應當檢查，內部是否有充分的制衡機制——以便核查與客戶溝通的方式，清除存在問題的行為。

為舉報者留下空間

????董事會還應當評估監控、處理舉報者投訴的方式。根據董事會的行為，員工們是否認為自己有責任報告向客戶進行不公平信息披露的情況？在他們看來，站出來舉報問題的話，是否會得到支持和獎勵（而不是遭到懲罰）？

對警示性的跡象保持警惕

????花旗銀行進行的改革還應納入幫助董事會和高管獲得早期警示的流程，使他們能盡早采取補救行動。例如，董事會如何監管員工的文化，了解他們的顧慮？董事會是否會分析匿名調查的結果？

????SEC則應當弄清，應當建立起怎樣的一套監管機制，來對花旗銀行的內部流程進行評估，確保公司的改革落到實處。

????拉科夫法官的問題很簡單，答案卻必須站得住腳。檢驗這一切的時間是11月9日：屆時SEC能做好準備嗎？

????本文作者愛麗諾?布洛斯罕為董事會咨詢公司價值聯盟與公司治理聯盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance）首席執行官。

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.