???“達(dá)成交易”已深深地溶入了高盛（Goldman Sachs）的血液，而且他們精于此道。但隨著周四高盛在印度召開董事會(huì)會(huì)議，日前達(dá)成的一宗協(xié)議即將首次試水，這宗協(xié)議可不是對(duì)誰(shuí)都是件好事，因?yàn)楦呤⒌墓局卫磉M(jìn)一步惡化。

????高盛似乎很滿意自己與美國(guó)州縣市雇員聯(lián)盟（American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees，簡(jiǎn)稱AFSCME）養(yǎng)老基金討價(jià)還價(jià)的結(jié)果。根據(jù)協(xié)議，美國(guó)州縣市雇員聯(lián)盟撤回了原先的建議，即應(yīng)讓股東投票決定是否要將高盛的首席執(zhí)行官和董事長(zhǎng)職務(wù)分別由兩人擔(dān)任。高盛的2011年和2012年公司治理指引稱，董事會(huì)將“至少每年對(duì)管理層架構(gòu)進(jìn)行一次評(píng)估”，在作出相關(guān)決定時(shí)會(huì)考慮“公司股東的觀點(diǎn)”。但發(fā)言人戴維?韋爾斯表示，高盛很高興今年能避免就這一話題進(jìn)行股東投票。他說(shuō)：“我們很高興與美國(guó)州縣市雇員聯(lián)盟進(jìn)行了富有建設(shè)性的對(duì)話?！?/p>

????作為交換，高盛同意將公司治理與任命委員會(huì)主席的職務(wù)名稱從“獨(dú)立主持董事（presiding director）”改為“首席獨(dú)立董事（lead director）”，并新增了一些職責(zé)。

????美國(guó)州縣市雇員聯(lián)盟養(yǎng)老金計(jì)劃的資本市場(chǎng)策略總監(jiān)麗薩?林德斯萊表示，她“很高興（雙方達(dá)成了這樣的諒解]），但它只是一個(gè)臨時(shí)性的安排，并不是最終的董事會(huì)架構(gòu)?！薄拔覀兿Ｍ吹揭晃华?dú)立的主席，”她說(shuō)?！岸聲?huì)存在一些嚴(yán)重的治理問題。一位董事會(huì)成員可能（涉嫌）在董事會(huì)會(huì)議期間進(jìn)行內(nèi)幕交易。而且他還是一位獨(dú)立董事。”

????林德斯萊稱，美國(guó)州縣市雇員聯(lián)盟養(yǎng)老基金之所以決定與高盛達(dá)成協(xié)議，是因?yàn)樗麄兿Ｍ堋案硇?、更有建設(shè)性地重建雙方的關(guān)系”。她說(shuō)，高盛已同意進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的討論，但目前時(shí)間還沒有確定，她希望能與高盛進(jìn)行持續(xù)的治理對(duì)話。

????不幸的是，這個(gè)協(xié)議細(xì)則遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不止是一個(gè)令人大失所望的臨時(shí)性安排，情況其實(shí)更糟糕。它將使原本就勢(shì)單力薄的獨(dú)立董事進(jìn)一步處于首席執(zhí)行官勞埃德?布蘭克費(fèi)恩的掌控之下。

????薩班斯-奧克斯利法案（Sarbanes-Oxley）規(guī)定，上市公司必須召開無(wú)公司高管在場(chǎng)的獨(dú)立董事行政會(huì)議，獨(dú)立董事普遍對(duì)此持歡迎態(tài)度。獨(dú)立董事應(yīng)該主導(dǎo)這些會(huì)議，包括會(huì)議的內(nèi)容和召開的時(shí)機(jī)。摩根大通（JP Morgan）在其指引中正確地描述了行政會(huì)議的操作模式。“獨(dú)立董事們通常會(huì)將行政會(huì)議作為每次定期董事會(huì)會(huì)議的一部分……這些會(huì)議將為獨(dú)立董事們提供一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)，討論他們認(rèn)為需要討論的話題?！痹谶@一點(diǎn)上，我贊成高盛復(fù)制摩根大通的做法。

????但根據(jù)本月生效的新方案，高盛首席執(zhí)行官布蘭克費(fèi)恩將會(huì)為獨(dú)立董事的行政會(huì)議確定議程。新的指引規(guī)定，將通過(guò)新的首席獨(dú)立董事要求布蘭克費(fèi)恩 “列出獨(dú)立董事行政會(huì)議討論的議題”。

????Deal making runs deep in the veins of Goldman Sachs -- and they are good at it. But one recent transaction which will be in play as the board meets in India today isn't a good deal for everyone: governance at Goldman just got worse.

????For its part, the bank seems to be pleased with its side of the bargain with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees pension fund. The agreement eliminates an AFSCME proposal, which would have given shareholders a vote on whether Goldman's CEO and chair roles should be split. Both the bank's 2011 and 2012 corporate governance guidelines say the board will "review its leadership structure at least annually" and the board will consider "the views of the Company's shareholders" in making that decision. But spokesperson David Wells suggests the bank is happy to have dodged a shareholder vote on this topic this year: "We appreciated the constructive talks with AFSCME," he says.

????In exchange for the withdrawal of the proposal, Goldman (GS) agreed to change the title of its chair of the corporate governance and nominating committee from "presiding director" to "lead director" and add a few additional responsibilities to the role.

????Lisa Lindsley, director of capital markets strategies at AFSCME's pension plan says she was "happy with [the compromise] as an interim step but not as an ultimate board structure." "We want to see an independent chair," she told me. "This board has some serious governance issues. A board member [allegedly] doing insider trading during a board meeting? And he was an independent director."

????Lindsley says the pension fund had decided to reach the agreement with Goldman because they wanted to "be reasonable, reframe their relationship and be more constructive." She says the bank had agreed to be more open to conversation but no schedule has been set for what she hopes will be ongoing dialogue on governance issues with the firm.

????Unfortunately, the fine print of the current agreement is much worse than a disappointing interim step. It places weak independent board members even more under the thumb of CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

????Sarbanes-Oxley mandated that public companies hold executive sessions in which a company's independent directors meet with no member of management present, which independent directors universally applaud. Independent directors should control those sessions, the content, and the timing. JP Morgan (JPM), in its guidelines, rightly describes how executive sessions should operate. "The independent directors will generally meet in executive session as part of each regularly scheduled board meeting... These sessions will provide the opportunity for discussion of such other topics as the independent directors may find appropriate." In this case, I would approve Goldman's copying off JPMorgan's paper.

????But under the new plan -- not in place until this month -- Blankfein will get to shape the agenda for those sessions. Through the new lead director, the CEO will be asked "to identify matters for discussion at executive sessions of the independent directors," the new guidelines state.