This blog is now located at http://blog.pollyhgreen.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.pollyhgreen.com/feeds/posts/default.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System said it opposes the re-election of two Citigroup Inc. (C) directors, in part because of their roles in the recent financial crisis.
The nation's largest public pension fund, which owns about 61.2 million Citigroup shares, plans to cast 'withhold' votes for board nominees Andrew Liveris, chairman and chief executive of Dow Chemical Co. (DOW), and Judith Rodin, Rockefeller Foundation president, at the annual shareowners meeting Tuesday.
Both served on the company's audit and risk committee before the financial crisis. During the crisis, the banking giant accepted a total federal government infusion of $45 billion, which it has repaid.
'It's time for new blood in the boardroom,' said Anne Simpson, the senior portfolio manager who heads the Calpers corporate governance program....
"Citi never sleeps," says the bank's advertising slogan. But its directors apparently do. While CEO Vikram Pandit can argue that many of Citi's problems were created before he arrived in 2007, most board members have no such excuse. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has served on the Citi board for a decade. For much of that time he was chairman of the executive committee, collecting tens of millions to massage the Beltway crowd, though apparently not for asking tough questions about risk management.
Chairman Sir Win Bischoff has held senior positions at Citi since 2000. Six other directors have served for more than 10 years -- including former CIA Director John Deutch, Time Warner Chairman Richard Parsons, foundation executive Franklin Thomas, former AT&T CEO C. Michael Armstrong, Alcoa Chairman Alain Belda, and former Chevron Chairman Kenneth Derr.
When taxpayers are being asked to provide the equivalent of $1,000 each in guarantees on Citi's dubious investments, how can these men possibly say they deserve to remain on the board?
While other banks can claim to be victims of the current panic, Citi is at least a three-time loser. The same directors were at the helm in 2005 when the Fed suspended Citi's ability to make acquisitions because of the bank's failure to adhere to regulatory and ethical standards. Citi also needed resuscitation after the sovereign debt disaster of the 1980s, and it required an orchestrated private rescue in the 1990s.
Citigroup Inc. investors should vote against re-electing four of 14 board members, including John Deutch and Michael Armstrong, to improve management of the company�s risks, a shareholder advisory group said.
Deutch, former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency director, Armstrong, former AT& T Inc. chief executive officer, and Alain Belda, chairman of Alcoa Inc., should be opposed 'for poor risk oversight,' RiskMetrics Group Inc.�s ISS Governance Services said today. Xerox Corp. CEO Anne Mulcahy shouldn�t be re-elected because she sits on more than three boards, which may limit her effectiveness, the group said.
'The pattern of chronic oversight failure at Citi and the magnitude of the corresponding shareholder losses warrant removal from the board of directors most responsible for risk oversight,' RiskMetrics said in the statement.
'Despite the fact that the board has many incumbent directors that have been successful in their respective fields and have been on the board for some time, their track record taken as a whole is dismal given that the company is currently surviving on federal assistance,' RiskMetrics said.
Mr. Armstrong, who has been a director since 1989 is no longer part of the Audit Committee, as of this year, continues his 'service' to our Company on the Nomination as well as the Compensation Committee. Much as this company has suffered under an illusion of prosperity, it appears to continue to suffer under an illusion of competence.
John [Deutch] has served on the Audit Committee of our Company since 1997 and hence, likely drank the Kool-Aid as to the Illusion of Prosperity.
I note that the audit and risk management committee has many members who, like Mr Deutch and MrArmstrong presided over this seemingly out of control disaster.
Andrew Liveris since 2005 on Audit
Ann Mulcahy since 2007 on Audit
Dr Judith Rodin since 2004 on both Executive and Audit Committees.
"... CPOE alert and decision support features make doctors better ... CPOE is critical to the success of the electronic health records initiative. We need to support it and make sure it happens. How fast and in what form remains to be seen."
I have written that our approaches to IT in medicine lack the scientific approach we use in medicine itself. The foundation of that approach is the use of evidence.
Yet the evidence base is increasingly shedding doubt on statements such as yours, including studies and articles I've been compiling at http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/failurecases/?loc=cases&sloc=2009 . This growing corpus of literature suggests these statements may be premature regarding the health IT experiment.
I also share a belief that HIT potentially holds great promise towards improving healthcare quality, safety and costs. However, my beliefs are based on my experiences developing such technology for highly specialized clinical settings, but specifically not based on my experiences with commercial HIT upon which your office is leading a multi-billion dollar spending frenzy. My experiences with that sector have been disappointing as I have repeatedly documented at the Healthcare Renewal blog of the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine.
As we enter the second decade of the 21st century this potential has been largely unrealized. Significant factors impeding HIT achievement have been false assumptions concerning the challenges presented by this still-experimental technology, underestimations of the expertise essential to achieve the potential benefits of HIT, and the current orthodoxies around leadership for this grand social reengineering experiment.
The enabler and driver of these factors has been a lack of critical thinking about the technology, about social informatics and its implications, and a marketing and HIMSS driven 'irrational exuberance.'
We really need to return to critical thinking and to a scientific approach to our evaluations and prognostications about HIT.
With that in mind, please show us the hard evidence, now, that would support such statements, or please stop making statements to an unwitting medical audience and public that "CPOE is critical to the success of the electronic health records initiative."
Such statements sound more and more like marketing, not the measured statements on experimental technology I would expect to hear from a Harvard physician-scientist.