Introducing risk management to the board (and executives)

Two blog post links, discussing introducing risk management to the board, and I added “and executives.”  The initial link is to a discussion by John Fraser; the second link is to a discussion by Norman Marks commenting about Mr. Fraser’s discussion.

Discussion by John Fraser, Click Here.

Discussion by Norman Marks, Click Here.

And a follow-up blog post by Norman, Why it makes sense to consider GRC, Click Here.

Also interesting, but not discussed in detail here, new guideline requirements enacted for offshore drilling operations: train/instruct employees and contractors about safety, injury and environmental risk/uncertainty management, risk/uncertainty management is ongoing all the time 24/7, all employees and contractors can/should report any situation that presents safety, injury or environmental risk or danger, evaluate risks (e.g., likelihood of occurrence and possible resulting injury or damage) and design and implement risk/uncertainty plans and processes, have those plans and processes audited to determine sufficiency and need to modify and improve, appoint people who are unilaterally authorized to stop operations at anytime when they deem appropriate, etc.  Sounds good to me.  I support drilling; I have also previously written about the need for improved risk/uncertainty management, and safety and risk/uncertainty management cooperation and collaboration between operators and operations.  Also good stuff for boards to oversee.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)

LawRiskGov – $200 Million Annually For Non-Oil Research

In all three LawRiskGov categories, proposed federal payment of $200 million annually for research to get cars off oil,  Click Here For Story, yes, might be a grand idea, but only with worthwhile and profitable new results that actually work in the near future.  I would love to see ordinary cars that get 60 to 100 mpg.  Some of the questions that Congress and the President might want to ask or answer:  legally, who owns the technology that would be developed (the taxpayers?); why $200 million; who decides where the money is invested and in which projects; how do we judge success and the value of success; what new ideas and technologies are going to be developed, how much will actually have to be spent on the development to finished product, and what and when will the likely technology be put into commercial use for personal cars; what and when is the likelihood of success or achievement; how is putting an additional $200 million per year into this sufficiently better than what is being worked on now; what is the anticipated return on investment; etc.  You get the picture – the same type of ordinary prudent things that you would ask and want to know if you were CEO, the board, investors, VC, etc.

Please click, use, and pass along to anyone who might be interested:

1. New Board of Directors Annual Self-Evaluation Form, Board Of Directors Annual Self Evaluation Form David Tate Esq 03142013

2. Slightly revised and updated Audit Committee Annual Self-Evaluation Form, Audit Committee Annual Self Evaluation Form David Tate Esq 031413

Dave Tate Esq. (San Francisco)