Directors believe refreshing the board’s ranks is important
51 percent of surveyed directors believe it is important to refresh the boards ranks periodically. An additional 16 percent view it as critically important.
March 11, 2014 at 07:52 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Sure, it's always important for the board and in-house counsel to work together to achieve optimum solutions. And just as there should be a clear succession plan in place for general counsel, is it also just important to replace board members in a timely, effective manner? One survey says that happy boards are refreshed boards.
According to the 2013 “What Directors Think” survey, undertaken by NYSE Governance Services in association with SpencerStuart and released on Feb. 27, 51 percent of surveyed directors believe it is important to refresh the board's ranks periodically. An additional 16 percent view it as “critically important.”
Getting there, says the survey, requires objective assessment of the board's activity and goals. 85 percent of directors called board assessment and evaluations “effective tools” to encourage board refreshment, while only 49 percent believed an age ceiling is effective and only 24 percent supported term limits.
So how, then, do boards select new members if they strive for high turnover? The survey says, perhaps surprisingly, that financial expertise is even more important than industry experience or CEO experience. 79 percent of directors claimed that financial experience was either critically important or important when selecting a new board member, as compared to only 75 percent for industry experience and 57 percent for CEO experience. Only 4 percent of respondents said financial expertise was “not important.”
Directors are also seeing the benefits of an increased emphasis on risk. 39 percent of directors believe they could improve their risk oversight if they better understood the risk oversight process itself, and 33 percent were in favor of a separate risk committee to improve risk oversight.
Unsurprisingly, one of the most cited areas of risk noted in the survey was in the cybersecurity realm. Information technology experience ranked as the fourth-most important attribute for a potential board member, with 54 percent of respondents calling it important or critically important. In addition, the survey said, IT security was among the top five items directors would choose to top next spring's agenda.
The survey, in its 11th year, collected the opinions of directors on the boards of U.S. publicly-traded companies. 592 directors participated in the survey.
For more numbers to know in the legal world, check out some of the best Facts and Figures we have collected over the past month.
Sure, it's always important for the board and in-house counsel to work together to achieve optimum solutions. And just as there should be a clear succession plan in place for general counsel, is it also just important to replace board members in a timely, effective manner? One survey says that happy boards are refreshed boards.
According to the 2013 “What Directors Think” survey, undertaken by NYSE Governance Services in association with SpencerStuart and released on Feb. 27, 51 percent of surveyed directors believe it is important to refresh the board's ranks periodically. An additional 16 percent view it as “critically important.”
Getting there, says the survey, requires objective assessment of the board's activity and goals. 85 percent of directors called board assessment and evaluations “effective tools” to encourage board refreshment, while only 49 percent believed an age ceiling is effective and only 24 percent supported term limits.
So how, then, do boards select new members if they strive for high turnover? The survey says, perhaps surprisingly, that financial expertise is even more important than industry experience or CEO experience. 79 percent of directors claimed that financial experience was either critically important or important when selecting a new board member, as compared to only 75 percent for industry experience and 57 percent for CEO experience. Only 4 percent of respondents said financial expertise was “not important.”
Directors are also seeing the benefits of an increased emphasis on risk. 39 percent of directors believe they could improve their risk oversight if they better understood the risk oversight process itself, and 33 percent were in favor of a separate risk committee to improve risk oversight.
Unsurprisingly, one of the most cited areas of risk noted in the survey was in the cybersecurity realm. Information technology experience ranked as the fourth-most important attribute for a potential board member, with 54 percent of respondents calling it important or critically important. In addition, the survey said, IT security was among the top five items directors would choose to top next spring's agenda.
The survey, in its 11th year, collected the opinions of directors on the boards of U.S. publicly-traded companies. 592 directors participated in the survey.
For more numbers to know in the legal world, check out some of the best Facts and Figures we have collected over the past month.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250