Tag Archives: board portal

A good agenda leads to a successful meeting

Posted on by

An agenda is a one page document which sets the purpose of the board meeting. It is essential to prepare an agenda to lead a successful and high quality meeting.

Agenda sur iPad

The Chairman of the board is responsible for creating the agenda and must focus on the vision, mission and goals of the company. This agenda must be specific to each meeting and different from one meeting to another.

In this document must figure a useful and informative name explaining the purpose of the meeting, its details (date, start and end time, place) and all attendees expected.

All topics to discuss must be identified, the length of time expected for each topic and the person responsible for leading the discussion. The agenda must also include the appropriate documents for the board members to carry out a diligent examination of each issue.

The chairman must advise all members of the agenda in advance to get their feedback and so they can prepare the meeting and ask to include new topics they feel should be discussed.

Some tips to run a great meeting:

  • Beforehand, solicit ideas and topics from other members to get them involved and make sure all necessary documents are available.
  • Start in the morning by the most important topics to allocate enough time to them and have the full attention of the participants.
  • Don’t surprise the board: all issues even bad news should be shared before the meeting.
  • Set deadlines for the vote of each topic.
  • Focus on the future of the company not the past.
  • Allow sufficient time for discussion and opposing points of view.
  • End the meeting with a unifying issue and keep time for questions for the next meeting.

Having a good meeting agenda will allow an easier meeting and lead to effective everyday governance.

Note that the Leading Boards board portal allows you to submit and share your agenda including all documents with other members.

Several keys questions for board members and their comittees.

Posted on by

The PwC (refer to Price water house Coopers) has published a report about the keys questions that a board should consider in order to carry out their governance duty.

 

Here you have the questions and a link to read the Pwc answer to this thematic.

 

1/ how is management evaluating and executing its strategic plan and risk management practices to address today’s competitive global marketplace?

 

2/What is the company doing to comply with anti-corruption laws and regulations?

 

3/How is management addressing contemporary accounting hot topics, including asset impairments, income taxes, and segment reporting, and ensuring the transparency and appropriateness of the company’s disclosures?

 

4/Does the audit committee engage in sufficient discussions and interactions with the external auditor in response to the current dialogue relative to audit quality and the reliability of financial reporting?

 

5/Has management considered the financial and business implications of the new tax law, and what is it doing with respect to the impact of potential corporate tax reform?

 

6/is the company effectively addressing the key opportunities and risks of IT?

 

7/Does management have processes in place to address cybersecurity risks?

 

8/what is the board’s approach to communications with shareholders and other stakeholders, and should it be reconsidered?

9/As regulatory bodies and lawmakers continue to discuss, propose, and enact laws and regulations, and shareholders continue to be active, is management analyzing possible effects and considering “no regrets” moves?

 

Here read the all report and answers: Key questions for board and audit committee members

 

The 2013 Director Compensation and Board Practices Report

Posted on by

The Conference Board, NASDAQ OMX and NYSE Euronext jointly released the 2013 edition of Director Compensation and Board Practices, a benchmarking study with more than 150 corporate governance data points searchable by company size (measurable by revenue and asset value) and 20 industrial sectors.

The report is based on a survey of public companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, Stanford University’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance, the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI), the Shareholder Forum and Compliance Week also endorsed the survey by distributing it to their members and readers.

The following are the major findings from the 2013 edition of the study:

  • Directors are best compensated in the energy industry, but company size can make a huge difference. Computer services companies are the most generous with full value share awards, but equity-based compensation is widely used across industries and irrespective of company size.
  • Stock options are not as favored as they used to be, except by the smallest companies Increasing skepticism on the effectiveness of stock options and stock appreciation rights as long-term incentives has led to their decline, especially in the last few years.
  • Additional cash retainer for board chairmen is seldom offered by larger companies, which are more likely to reward lead directors.
  • A corporate program financing the matching of personal charitable contributions is the most common among the director perquisites reported by companies.
  • While many nonexecutive directors have C-suite experience, former or current CFOs are less represented than expected in the board of financial services companies.
  • Larger financial services companies often set stricter director independence requirements than national securities exchanges.
  • While larger companies continue to combine CEO and board chairman positions, three-quarters of financial institutions have appointed an independent lead.
  • Majority voting is being increasingly embraced even among smaller companies, but incumbents failing to obtain the required votes are rarely expected to resign.
  • According to the director nomination policy of large companies, diversity matters as much as business skills. Yet, aside from some level of female representation, corporate boards remain remarkably uniform.
  • Most smaller companies save board search firm fees and use personal connections to recruit new director nominees.
  • Proxy access rights and reimbursement of solicitation expenses remain marginal practices.
  • While traditional takeover defenses (including poison pills and board classification) are being dismantled, large financial companies tend to restrict action by written consent and prohibit special meetings called by shareholders.
  • Directors of large company boards take a corporate aircraft to travel to board meetings, unless it is a financial institution.
  • Financial services companies of all size are ahead in the use of secure online technology for intra-board communication.
  • While an annual say-on-pay vote appears to be the standard for most companies, almost one-third of the smallest financial institutions opt for a less frequent consultation of shareholders.
  • While designing new executive compensation policies, large financial companies set equity retention periods and go above and beyond regulatory requirements in the formulation of contractual clawback clauses.
  • Large companies are more likely to enforce anti-gross-up policies.
  • Compensation benchmarking disclosure also tends to be a feature of larger companies, with industry and company size the most frequently used criteria in the selection of the peer-comparison group.
  • Compensation consultant fees tend to be lower than the amount for which disclosure is required.
  • While directors of smaller companies collaborate directly with management in the business strategy setting process, larger company boards review strategy more frequently than others.
  • Frequency of risk reporting to the board and institution of chief risk office reveal the differing state of risk governance practices among industry groups.
  • Responsibility for sustainability oversight depends on company size, with larger companies elevating it to the board committee level and smaller companies delegating it to the CEO.
  • Environmental impact and, for financial services companies, data security are among the main sustainability items in board agenda.
  • Boards of directors at almost half of the smallest companies (as measured by annual revenue) do not review political contribution practices, while formal policies for senior business leader are seldom in place.
  • Small companies do not have a board process for the systematic and periodic review of their CEO succession plan.
  • Formal policies on board retention of the departing CEO are uncommon, except in large companies where the CEO is formally required to also leave the board.
  • Formal board-shareholder engagement policies begin to emerge, and may include the requirement for director to actively participate in annual shareholder meetings as well as the adoption of a protocol detailing when and how shareholder can reach out to directors and expect a response to a material query.
  • Large financial companies are less inclined to use an over-boarding policy as it may impair their ability to attract director talent.
  • More than one-third of companies with less than $100 million in revenue do not periodically evaluate their director performance.
  • Approximately two companies out of 10 require their board members to attend some type of continuing education programs to remain abreast of regulatory and compliance developments.
  • As the workload and challenges facing board committees increase, member rotation policies remain infrequent.

 

This article is an extract from : The 2013 Director Compensation and Board Practices Report , the harvard blog.

 

A small quizz about governance and boardroom !

Posted on by

Test your knowledge about governance and rules on boardroom !

Quick Quiz

1. Why should a board have independent directors?

A. They can take over for executives if necessary.
B. They are able to make decisions free of conflict of interest
C. They do not hold large share positions in the company

2. Who has primary responsibility for risk management in a company?

A. The CEO
B. Board of directors
C. Shareholders

3. Scorecards are useful ways to:

A. Determine whether companies are following good corporate governance practices
B. Figure out which companies’ shares are likely to go up
C. Find out which directors serve on multiple boards

4. What is the difference between an executive director and a non-executive director?

A. The executive director heads a board committee; the non-executive director does not
B. The executive director is also a member of management, while the non-executive director is not
C. There is no difference

5. Which characteristic would disqualify a director from being independent?

A. A member of the company’s management
B. An expert in the company’s industry
C. An executive at another company

6. One of the following committees is most common for a board of directors. The others are optional. Which one is most common?

A. Mergers and acquisitions
B. Audit committee
C. Ethics

7. Tag-along rights means:

A. Public citizens may attend a company’s annual meetings
B. Minority shareholders can join in if a majority shareholder sells a stake
C. A method of voting on director nominations

8. Succession planning is the responsibility of:

A. Shareholders
B. Current managers
C. The board of directors

9. “Say on Pay” means:

A. Board chairman decides CEO compensation
B. Compensation committee makes a decision
C. Shareholders have an advisory voice in compensation issues

10. What is tunneling?

A. Separating management roles by function
B. Directing profits to company activities rather than dividends
C. Transferring the company’s assets to deprive shareholders of value

Answers:
1. B, 4. B, 7. B, 10. C
2. B, 5. A, 8. C,
3. A, 6. B 9. C,

Source: Who’s running the company ?

What should Frank do?

Posted on by

Here, this is a good study case about a current problematic on a boardroom… a Powerful CEO and useless board. Published by Julie Garland McLellan in www.mclellan.com.au

The case studies are based upon real life; they focus on complex and challenging boardroom issues which can be resolved in a variety of ways. There is often no single ‘correct’ answer; just an answer that is more likely to work given the circumstances and personalities of the case.

 

Although these are real cases the names and some circumstances have been altered to ensure anonymity. Each potential solution to the case study has different pros and cons for the individuals and companies concerned. Every month this newsletter presents an issue and several responses.

 

Consider: Which response would you choose and why?

 

Frank has been recently elected to a board position with a NFP, which is quite large with 500 employees and $70m in assets. The board has a strong CEO, who seems to do what she wants. In the past the board was relatively weak and the CEO needed to use her expertise without relying on theirs. The board could have been described as ‘light weight’ in regard to governance and corporate knowledge. One board member, for example, is a microbiologist with great critical thinking but no understanding of how to run a company. This led to a culture where the CEO would respond to board queries by asserting that the matter of interest was “an operational issue” and for board members to rationalise her response by accepting that the CEO “has it under control”.

 

The board recognised its weakness and sought out some new company directors with governance training and corporate understanding; hence Frank’s invitation to stand for election. Frank is encountering opposition in asking critical questions of the CEO and trying to probe for information, because the board says the business is under the CEO’s control.

 

He is concerned the board has a weak Chairman who does not support the board in taking effective control or oversight. He is seriously considering if he should stay and try to improve matters slowly or if he should leave as he truly feels the board is dangerously negligent. However, he likes a challenge, believes in the objectives of the NFP, and feels that his fellow directors are honest and well intentioned.

 

What should Frank do?

 

Here, you have three different expert answers: click here

Drag your corporate boards into the digital age

Posted on by

The Globe And Mail published the Monday, Feb. 25 2013 a new article about Leading Boards !!! By Ivor Tossell.

ipad-user

When corporate directors need to read up on company affairs in the run up to a board meeting, they can find themselves sitting on telephone books’ worth of paperwork. Never mind reading it – it also needs to be delivered and securely disposed of afterwards. Enter Leading Boards – content management software tailored to help boards of directors and built for the age of the iPad.

The goal is better governance, says Jean-Marc Félio, the company’s president: A more-informed board will make better decisions, and the sooner new directors can be brought up to speed on a board’s decision-making history, the sooner they’ll step up and offer effective guidance.

“Directors don’t have access to information. You have a new director coming in, it will take three to six months before they’re up to date,” he says. “Giving them access to their archives is already a big change.”

Leading Boards acts as both a security-minded information repository and a decision-making hub. Many of its features, which include access to old minutes and files, the ability to search documents by content and collaborative document-editing, are available through its regular web interface. But Mr. Félio puts his firm’s emphasis on its iPad app, which takes advantage of the touch interface to offer document-management tricks such as highlights and annotations. (In the interests of security, annotations are purged after a meeting has run its course, and documents returned to their original state.)

In addition to offering full access for board members, the software can act as a venue to create a virtual meeting space that puts specific users together with just the documents they need to see; anxious stakeholders, for instance, can be invited to a session with two or three directors, and just the relevant documents from the archives. Alternately, a suitor interested in buying a stake in the company could be given an account on the system allowing access for due diligence.

It also tackles the decision-making process itself, letting boards create structured debates, in which a question is mooted and members can add arguments into ‘pro’ and ‘con’ lists. After the meeting, the decision-making process is expunged, leaving only its result for the record.

The six-person startup’s software is used by about 60 companies in Canada and beyond. Mr. Félio says its touch-based capabilities are important in speeding adoption among board members – not always the youngest members of an organization, nor the most eager to embrace technology. The company experimented with buying small computers for clients, but found that, regardless of the training Leading Boards offers, the iPad was far more intuitive.

“There is one old board member who called and said ‘I don’t need your training any more. My five-year old granddaughter taught me.’”

See the article: Montreal startup drags corporate boards into the digital age

Peter Hadekel: Montreal startup develops governance tool

Posted on by

 

This article come from Thegazette, write by Peter Hadekel

MONTREAL — Better corporate governance has become a top objective of just about every publicly traded company. Boards of directors are more scrutinized than ever before by analysts, shareholders and regulators.

Amid an outbreak of corporate fraud over the last decade, legislative changes have placed a lot more responsibility and accountability on the shoulders of directors.

Now, a small Montreal startup has identified a way to help boards work more efficiently and with greater transparency

The business, known as Leading Boards, started four years ago under entrepreneur Jean-Marc Félio after he had served as director of a non-profit organization.

At the time, the organization needed to distribute a number of documents to directors and Félio realized that a digital system for sharing and archiving documents would make sense.

He spent a couple of years developing a software program with an information-technology specialist and then took eight months testing the product with a range of small, medium and large enterprises.

At the end of 2010, Leading Boards began to commercialize the system and has signed 60 clients so far — many of them either publicly traded firms or non-profit institutions.

The system is a secure “board portal” that reduces or eliminates printouts and multiple copies of documents. It can eliminate courier service costs and reduce meeting preparation time, Félio says.

“Just look at the amount of paper that is sent to the board of a large company — it’s the equivalent of about two telephone books every month.”

Directors often find they need to consult a corporate document of some kind only to find that it’s not at hand and they need to have it sent. They get another set of the same binders when they come to a board meeting.

That wastes even more money. Document costs can run to more than $15,000 a year for a single committee of seven directors.

Leading Boards puts together a complete archive of documents ranging from agendas and minutes of meetings to financial statements, directors’ committee reports and corporate policy statements.

The system has been developed with the practical needs of directors in mind. “You get powerful search engines, information sharing, quick, easy access,” Félio says. Agendas are interactive and directors can write personal or shared notes in a “Post-it” style.

Perhaps the biggest gain is increased transparency. The system can be set up to allow different levels of access, whether by shareholders, regulators or fellow directors.

It’s best suited for iPads and tablets, he says.

Félio worked in film and television and taught communications at the university level before taking the entrepreneurial plunge. He financed the startup out of his own pocket but recently got an additional investment from an angel investor to help him develop the market.

Leading Boards is not the only player in this game. Two other software providers — BoardBook and BoardVantage — service the market for Fortune 500 companies in the U.S.

But Félio hopes to capitalize on the market in Canada for smaller, listed companies that need to save time and money on governance and compliance.

Among clients that have recently signed up are two publicly traded mining companies in Quebec: Argex Titane Inc. and St-Georges Platinum & Base Metal Ltd. Both companies said they expect the software package will wind up improving board governance.

The trilingual nature of the software package, offering English, French and Spanish capabilities, will open up new avenues of growth in Europe and Latin America, as well the Middle East and North Africa, Félio believes. He is already in discussions with a firm about a joint venture to sell the product in France.

The company hosts the web-based system for clients who pay an annual service fee. It has about half a million dollars in annual revenue so far and six employees, expecting to double in size every year.

Among the non-profit or public organizations using the system is Montreal’s Palais des congrès, he said. Expressions of interest have come from a number of other provincial agencies.

E-Governance: Boards of directors now turn to board portal to work smarter, safer and… greener !

Posted on by 

Published in 20/20, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME) magazine.

A recent Deloitte study indicates technology is getting more and more popular in boardrooms. For a long time, directors were resistant to changes

If, nowadays, laptops and tablets are commonly used by directors in many companies, the major change is really the emergence of board portals. It’s more than a “tech trend’’ — it’s about governance.

Among the tough new regulations that have appeared in recent years, the Sarbanes-Oxley regulation started a new era for companies (public or private), governmental agencies, and even non-profit organizations. Their directors now all face the same challenge and have to perform their duties in a productive and safe environment. Forget time and distance, they have to be available and up-to-date with the organization’s documentation to make accurate decisions when needed, and sometimes — most of the time — fast. They are advisors and also decision-makers.

To address this new paradigm, board portals have ­recently appeared in the boardrooms of companies among the Fortune 500. A few American competitors actually share their same “sweet-pot’’ — the international financial centers like New York, London and Singapore — but ignore the balance of the market.

Leading Boards, a Canadian company based in Montreal, provides a powerful, easy-to-use and secure board portal to meet the needs of an untapped market in Canada and abroad, especially in emerging countries. Leading Boards realized that not only the Fortune 500 but also medium-sized companies and junior public companies were in need of tools like board portals to better equip their boards and committees.

Leading Boards designed a priced multi-language unique board portal to address that market. And the demand is growing with companies always looking to be one step ahead.

“It’s more an investment than a cost,” says CEO Jean-Marc Felio. “With the introduction of the iPad version, directors are browsing in archives with the keyword search tool. They are a lot more efficient for the benefit of all.”

Argex Titanium has recently decided to have their audit committee and board of directors work with a board portal, and chose Leading Boards.

“At Argex, we have directors and committee members in different cities and even different countries,” explains Robert Guilbault, chairman of Argex Titanium. “Leading Boards helps them work, collaborate, and prepare their meetings wherever they are, anytime they want. It’s easy-to-use, available on iPad, and bilingual. Leading Boards was a natural answer to our needs, and comes with great training and support service.’’

The board portal also makes life easier to newly ­appointed directors who can, at their leisure, have access to the “memory” of the company and become familiar with past issues, decisions, and documents, and be well prepared to take decisions on current situations.

Last but not least, Leading Boards brings a “paperless’’ solution to boards and committees which helps control their financial impact as well as their ecological impact. A green ­solution turns out to be an investment that will carry its own returns.

After a year of commercialization and several hundred users later, Leading Boards entered into a partnership with Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) and now equips the CME board of directors and its audit committee as well.

“This partnership enables CME to provide our members ­preferred prices with Canada’s best software for the ­management of boards and committees,” says CME President & CEO, Jayson Myers.

To learn more about Leading Boards or to ask for a live demo, call 1-855-404 5377
or visit its website: www.leadingboards.com

Source: 2020magazine

How Build Your Advisory Board

Posted on by

In every business, there are some areas where they could use some strategic guidance and assembling an advisory board is a great way to fill in some of those holes.

Stephanie Burns is the founder and co-owner of Chic CEO wrote an article about elements you should consider when you choose your Advisory Board and try to answer to the question: How Build Your Advisory Board?

Here, you are a summary of the 5 elements that you should consider when you choose your Advisory Board.

 

1. Compensation

The most common way to get an advisor on board is to offer a percentage of equity. That percentage can be anywhere from .5% – 2% typically, but it’s entirely up to you. If you have an advisor that is extremely involved in your business, consider giving more – it’s worth it.

 

2. Credibility

Bringing on a well-respected advisor can establish credibility much faster and easier than you building it on your own. Getting this instant clout helps you attract key talent, investors, partners and customers.

 

3. Connection

Obviously, you want them to be synergistic to your mission and purpose, but their sole role could be to introduce you to top investors, key clients, new markets and customers. CEOs, celebrities and well-respected founders can help you spread the word, make introductions and share experience.

 

4. Establish Your Needs

Get crystal clear on your short and long term goals and then be honest with a potential advisor about what you need to get there. Before you bring on an advisor, be honest with them about where your strengths and weaknesses lie and how they can help. Advisors know that your business isn’t perfect, so be as honest as you can so they can be effective.

5. Involvement

Before approaching an advisor, establish levels of involvement and assign an equity percentage. The more they want to be involved, the more equity you exchange. Some advisors are too busy to really dig in, but one connection can be worth thousands even millions to you.  Create a tiered involvement schedule and assign an appropriate equity percentage for each tier. Give them some options of how much they can be involved and let them choose which tier they can handle.

 

This article is extract from: Build Your Advisory Board by Stephanie Burns

Five principles for getting the most out of a board assessment

Posted on by

Corporate boards today are expected to be more engaged, more knowledgeable and more effective than in the past. One tool that a growing number of boards are using to examine and improve their effectiveness is the board evaluation.

How can boards make sure that they get the most out of the assessments, so that they really improve board effectiveness?

 

1. The board agrees on clear objectives for the assessment.

One of the most common mistakes boards can make when embarking on an assessment is failing to agree at the outset on the purpose and objectives of the process. While it may seem obvious, coming to a shared agreement about what directors collectively want to accomplish through the assessment encourages board members to commit time to the process and to provide the candid feedback that is essential to identifying and addressing potential roadblocks to board effectiveness. Without the commitment from the board as a whole and directors individually, an assessment is unlikely to yield the desired results. Clarifying objectives and defining the scope of the assessment also helps to avoid a situation in which the board is using the process as a way to put off dealing more directly with non-performing directors.

 

Among the questions boards should consider at the outset:

What is the scope of the assessment?

What’s the most appropriate assessment approach for the board?

Should board leaders be assessed?

What areas does the board want to delve into more deeply?

What gaps exist in the current assessment process?

 

2. A board leader is responsible for driving the process.

 

Essential to a successful evaluation is having an independent board leader champion the assessment process. The independent board chair, chair of the governance committee or the lead independent director is in a position to drive the process — involve the right people, ask for directors’ time, schedule time on the agenda to discuss the results and ensure that the board follows up on the issues that emerge. And while the CEO should be an integral part of the process, he or she should not be leading it.

 

3. The process incorporates perspectives beyond the board directors themselves, including those from senior management and best practices from outside the company¸

 

Another way the board can limit the value of a board assessment is to look only inwardly at its own effectiveness. An emerging best practice among U.S. boards, although still less common in European boards, is to seek input about the board’s effectiveness from the key senior management team members who interface with the board.

 

4. The assessment process should go beyond compliance issues to examine board effectiveness.

 

Many boards have relied on director questionnaires to conduct their assessments. This paper-and-pencil approach can provide a sense of how directors are feeling about compliance issues — whether or not the board is involved in strategy discussions or CEO evaluations, for example — but they are less valuable in revealing issues or concerns that are affecting the board’s effectiveness.

 

5.  Directors commit to reviewing the results of the assessment and prepare an action plan for addressing issues that emerged.

 

Another way assessments can fall short is when boards do not commit the time to review the results and address the issues that are raised. Some boards, for compliance reasons, begin an assessment process, but then spend little or no time on discussing the findings.

 

Conclusion

 

Done properly, a board assessment is not a report card for the board as a whole or for individual directors. Furthermore, a board portal should help administrators to set up assessment with some tools as pool or debates…  Instead, it should be viewed as a tool for continuous improvement and learning. Successful assessment processes:

Þ     Reflect the culture of the organization and its board

Þ     Are championed by a chairman or other board leader who participates actively in the process

Þ     Have shared support among all directors

Þ     Begin with clearly stated objectives for the board assessment process

Þ     Include adequate time on the board’s agenda to discuss the results and establish a clear approach for acting on the findings, including developing an action plan with a timeline and milestones

Þ     Are characterized by confidentiality throughout the process

 

This article is an extract from: Improving board effectiveness: Five principles for getting the most out of a board assessment