When Crisis Erupts: Surmount or Surrender?

“The easiest period in a crisis situation is actually the battle itself.

The most difficult is the period of indecision -- whether to fight or run away.

And the most dangerous period is the aftermath.

It is then, with all his resources spent and his guard down, that an individual must watch out for dulled reactions and faulty judgment.”  

~Richard M. Nixon, 37^th President of the United States

As a Chief Compliance & Ethics Officer, you know that the eventuality of crisis striking your organization is not a matter of “if”, but only of “when.” You spend your career crafting and implementing a governance system of policies & procedures, training, monitoring, and reporting whose value will ultimately be assessed in those moments and days following the crisis. Not all systems (nor all leaders) will survive the test.

Crisis will not politely schedule an appointment with you on a lazy afternoon, but will more likely descend upon you furiously, publicly and embarrassingly at the most inopportune of moments. Crisis will arrive in the guise of a viral tweet, a regulatory inquiry, or a criminal indictment. A loyal staffer will hesitantly summon you from a meeting into the hallway to advise you of the breaking news. And so begins the moment of decision.

As Compliance leaders we have trained our entire lives to guide and protect our organizations from harm. The very same principles that we have employed to prevent and mitigate risk will come into play when we must navigate our organization, its leadership and its board through and beyond the crisis. Decisive action that engenders trust must remain at the forefront of the response.

Thus, together we must continue to:

•        Act ethically and decisively;
•          Communicate frequently and transparently; and
•          Modify practices appropriately.

Act ethically and decisively

Crisis does not represent your organization in its entirety. Your mission, your values, and your people remain fundamentally sound, even when something has gone awry. Therefore, even as you and your leadership team are undertaking an investigation and crafting a response to the statement, incident, or charge, you will continue to direct your employees to perform their day-to-day responsibilities with the accustomed level of adherence to ethics, compliance, and mission-focus. Your organization will survive the crisis, and so the continued service to your employees, clients, customers, vendors and shareholders must remain highly-functioning.

Communicate frequently and transparently

Do not compound the temporary negative impact of a crisis by shrouding the crisis in a cloak of shame and secrecy. While not proud of the event that has triggered the crisis, you remain nonetheless committed to your employees, your customers, your brand, and your mission-focus for the long run. Within that long view context, communicate quickly that leadership is:

·         aware of the situation;

·         taking it seriously;

·         cooperating fully; and

·         is committed to resolving it.

Convey that future communications will follow as additional information becomes available, and adhere to that pattern, even if only limited information becomes available. Your stakeholders are better served by hearing the truth from you, than the mistrust that will take root if they begin to receive their information—accurate or misconstrued--from external sources.

Modify practices appropriately

While some crises will end with a conclusion that the crisis was merely malicious and unwarranted, often the investigation will reveal a compliance or control weakness that must be addressed by your organization. Once identified, own both the root cause and the solution, communicating the same to your stakeholders. Then set to work implementing the required changes that will ensure the situation has been appropriately addressed. If additional training is warranted, then make every effort to involve the affected employees in designing and testing the training before it is rolled out to the larger audience. Schedule subsequent time to review the modified practice and test its effectiveness, regardless of whether required to do so by a regulatory body or not.

***

Crisis will erupt. You will be called upon to act in the best interest of your organization and its stakeholders. If you have prepared yourself, your leadership team, and your board in advance of this moment, then you will pilot your organization to a brighter tomorrow with the flag flying high. Otherwise, armed only with dulled reactions and faulty judgment, you will find yourself waving the flag of surrender.

Starving for Compliance? Bring your Risk Appetite

“If it's your job to eat a frog, it's best to do it first thing in the morning. And if it's your job to eat two frogs, it's best to eat the biggest one first.”  ~Mark Twain

 

As Audit, Compliance & Ethics professionals, it is often our job to “eat a frog” and you likely find yourself sitting down to a banquet of frogs when crisis strikes your organization. Some of us consciously chose to enter the AC&E profession, while others with whom I’ve spoken tell me how their roles morphed into compliance functions. Either way, once we’ve accepted the responsibility to safeguard our organization’s enterprise risk management program, we must faithfully deploy an appropriate compliance framework.

One cannot simply purchase a compliance program at an online retailer, download it to your tablet, and check that task off your list. There is no one-size-fits-all compliance program that is going to align perfectly with every organization’s ERM model. The design of the compliance program begins with a studied understanding of the organization’s risk appetite. Delivering an off-the-shelf or generic compliance program to an organization without factoring in its risk appetite is like delivering a freeze-dried meal to a guest’s table without inquiring of her culinary preferences.

Risk appetite is that level of risk that an organization is prepared to willingly accept before mitigating actions are required to reduce it. Formulating the risk appetite requires the Board of Directors to consciously identify its consensus balance between the anticipated benefits of a chosen course of action and the threats that an uncertain future inevitably brings. Each area of risk may enjoy differing risk appetites. For instance, a well-capitalized organization bearing a trusted brand may be more averse regarding reputation and litigation risks, but more inclined to accept a moderate degree of financial and strategic risks. Such may be the variations found also in compliance risk appetites.

A compliance purist—if such a person exists—would trend strongly toward risk aversion. A Gordon Gekko (credit to Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street” fame) would trend strongly toward risk hunger. Since compliance is not generally viewed as a profit center, a typical organization’s Board of Directors will formulate a compliance risk appetite that represents its view of an appropriate balance (i.e. expects ethical business conduct that achieves its mission). A publicly-traded company may seek to maximize shareholder value and profit, but likely seek to avoid criminal and civil prosecution. A non-profit organization may seek to maximize its impact serving the largest number of people in a community, but likely seek to minimize its administrative cost ratio and excessive CEO compensation.

Organizations that design, employ, and monitor compliance programs that align with the Board of Directors’ risk appetite will encounter fewer compliance failures over the long-term. I am careful to point out that all organizations, no matter how well-run, will experience a compliance failure at some time. A risk appetite acknowledges that while risk may be mitigated, it generally cannot be entirely eliminated. To eliminate all risk is to forgo meaningful opportunities that competing organizations would be willing to accept, thus neutralizing your organization’s effectiveness in the space in which it competes. This fact does not apply only to for-profit companies, because non-profit organizations also compete for scarce resources and relevancy. Risk must always be recognized as a factor to be managed.

Whether you are designing a new program or enhancing an existing compliance program, you will want to ascertain your organization’s defined compliance risk appetite. Your compliance program, including training, monitoring, and Board-level reporting, must align to that risk appetite to provide appropriate risk management tools to support your organization. Finally, periodically revisit the relationship between the stated risk appetite and your program elements to ensure that you are making appropriate adjustments.

Don’t starve your compliance program. Embrace the risk appetite. Be prepared to one day confidently defend your compliance risk management program to your external auditors and prudential regulators…and enjoy that frog sooner than later.

Ethical Business Conduct: Context Makes a Difference

"There’s a big difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do." ~ Potter Stewart, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice

“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ~ George S. Patton, former U.S. General


In this day and age, it is an increasingly popular sentiment for organizations to describe their workforce as entrepreneurial and empowered. Genuine engagement of today’s employees is a hallmark of the knowledge worker economy, and has led to continued innovation and heightened productivity. In conjunction with the advances made in employee engagement, many organizations have reduced layers of complexity and bureaucracy, and in some cases have even removed offices and walls to encourage greater collaboration between teams. Do not lose sight of the truth that roles and authority—whether explicit or implicit—continue to exist within these organizations.

Amidst this seemingly egalitarian shift in the workplace, organizations continue to implement and improve governance over ethical business conduct. Codes of Conduct flourish as more organizations recognize the real benefits, both tangible and intangible, or providing written guidance supported by training and modeled by leaders at all levels. While well-written Codes detail and illustrate appropriate business conduct guidelines and many prohibitions, these Codes do not seek to define every action for every situation. More importantly, Codes cannot be regarded in isolation of other pertinent organizational guidance and leadership structures.

The Code of Conduct should be drafted so as to apply to all levels of employees within an organization. The CEO is no less subject to conducting her business affairs in an ethical manner than is the mid-level manager or line staff. All employees should adhere to business principles that support the legal and ethical attainment of the organization’s mission. But the authority, opportunity, and tools available to senior leaders and other employees within an organization may very well differ pursuant to board approval, corporate policy, or culture.

For example, a publicly-traded company remains committed to increasing shareholder value. While the senior leadership of that company focus upon profitable long-term strategy, and salespeople focus upon generating daily and monthly revenue, both groups’ actions should align with the best interests of the shareholders. To fail to act in the shareholders’ best interests would represent an unethical (and possibly illegal) breach of duty. That being said, the day-to-day roles and authority levels of the senior leadership differ from those of the salespeople and other employees.

One area where this difference may be illustrated is in the authority to enter into contracts that bind the company. A senior level executive may have been granted authority under corporate policy to negotiate and execute large-dollar multi-year contracts with external vendors, likely with additional internal controls in place. In contrast, a salesperson may have been granted authority under corporate or departmental policy to accept orders from customers, subject to additional internal review and approvals. Both groups, acting on behalf of the company and in the company’s best interest, have been granted contractual authority, but subject to different financial thresholds and internal controls.

Thus, were the salesperson to seek to negotiate and execute a contract with an external vendor in this scenario, he would have committed a breach of corporate policy, and likely the Code of Conduct. A senior level executive, though generally not engaged in sales to customers, might not be similarly constrained from accepting a customer order.

Codes of Conduct and corporate policies serve to educate and guide employees at all levels of an organization. While Codes and policies should provide clear guidelines, especially with regard to prohibited conduct, employees must recognize that excerpts of such documents should not be read in isolation or taken out of context when evaluating business conduct. The context—including role, implicit and explicit authorization, and culture—do provide a backdrop against which all business conduct must also be ethically evaluated. Every employee has the duty to act ethically; not every employee has the authority to engage in all actions. Thus, context does make a difference when it comes to interpreting your Code of Conduct and corporate policies.

Who Cares About Regulatory Compliance Anyway?!? (And Why Sales & Marketing Should)

"Culture drives great results.” ~Jack Welch

“Treasures of wickedness profit nothing: but righteousness delivereth from death.” ~Proverbs 10:2

Recall the last time you engaged in your organization’s annual budget process. If you are like many Chief Compliance Officers, your Chief Financial Officer probably wasn’t offering huge increases in your budget. In fact, you were likely asked (or told) how much of a budget reduction target you would be expected to achieve in 2014. It’s enough to make you want to declare, “Really?!?”

In this era of exponential increases in domestic and international regulatory compliance obligations, we are planning strategically to meet the monitoring and reporting challenges with enhanced governance, efficient technology applications, and increased staffing. Yet we are frequently challenged financially to justify our alleged expense-side burden on the income statement, while our revenue-producing friends across the income statement aisle often escape the budgeting process unscathed—or even emboldened. We must partner with them.

Why do I believe that we must engage our colleagues in Sales & Marketing to share our commitment to enterprise-wide regulatory compliance? Well, it certainly begins with the “tone at the top” set in the C-suite, thus implying that all production, revenue, and administrative leaders must be equally and uniformly committed to your organization’s Code of Conduct. And while I am not implying that our Sales & Marketing employees are solely responsible for regulatory fines and sanctions, exposure to the marketplace does generate the overwhelming volume of regulatory action for any organization.

So, let me ask you a few questions…

· What product or service does your organization sell?

· What is the profit margin on each unit sold?

· How many units must you sell to recover the income consumed by a large regulatory fine, attendant civil litigation, and associated loss of revenue from brand reputation depreciation?

Apply that calculation to the recent J.P. Morgan Chase $13 billion U.S. Department of Justice settlement. Someone at that bank is going to have to sell a slew of mortgages and auto loans to recapture that lost revenue!

So, let me ask you a few more questions…

· What is the aggregate cost to invest in training each of your employees to comprehend and practice ethical and compliant behavior appropriate for their job classification at your organization?

· What is the aggregate cost to invest in implementing appropriate internal controls and continuous monitoring systems to prevent, detect, and mitigate compliance failures at your organization?

· Is the sum of those two investments less than the cost of a large regulatory fine, attendant civil litigation, and associated loss of revenue from brand reputation depreciation?

Notwithstanding the painful financial cost of fines and litigation, salespeople viscerally understand the burden of attempting to sell a product or service that has become a perceived societal pariah. [Think Arthur Andersen…Enron…the Ford Pinto.]

When we train our Sales & Marketing colleagues to understand pertinent consumer protection regulation and encourage those colleagues to leverage management, the Code of Conduct, and your Compliance team to detect, report, and mitigate compliance risks, everyone wins. Let’s face it…sales incentives and corporate bonuses are larger for everyone in the company when left undiminished by preventable costs of fines, litigation, and lost sales. And that, my friends, is why Sales & Marketing should care about regulatory compliance.

Regulatory Compliance: Tear Down That Ivory Tower!

I recently ran into a Compliance colleague, “Jill”, whom I hadn’t seen in a while. As we exchanged pleasantries, Jill explained how busy she has been at her organization, to a point where she “couldn’t even get out of her office for lunch most days.” I understood her sentiment, but I challenged Jill’s premise that her most effective oversight of her Compliance Management Program was being accomplished sitting at her desk with her nose to the proverbial grindstone.

“What do you mean?”, Jill inquired.

“For starters, how are you assessing the compliance culture within and across your organization?”, I responded. I waited for the predictable response.

“I receive reports from each department head on a quarterly basis. I meet with those same department heads at least annually as we update our risk assessment. “ And then she punctuated her response, “I always know what is going on from a Compliance perspective.”

We visited for a few more minutes before continuing on our respective journeys. I have the utmost respect for Jill, and the many colleagues with whom I’ve engaged in similar conversations over the years. But I was reminded again that day that differing viewpoints pervade our Compliance Management profession.

I liken the practice of our craft to that of a world traveler. In fact, given the international nature of Regulatory Compliance, many of us have become world travelers from time to time. But one cannot truly experience traveling the world by reading other people’s written accounts of foreign lands. Similarly, Compliance professionals cannot simply read stacks of reports, formally engage depart heads once or twice annually, and conclude that they have traveled the organizational “globe”.

We’ve got to come down out of our ivory towers. In fact, we’ve got to tear down our ivory towers in the Compliance Department and never return to our old ways. Instead, let’s engage leaders at all levels across our organizations as often as possible. Informal dialogue that may occur within the context of a scheduled project meeting, or a chance meeting in the hallway, can often generate useful information that lends itself well to a holistic risk assessment.

Leaders want to tell you what concerns they are facing, and when those concerns signal regulatory compliance exposure, you have an opportunity to collaborate further toward a resolution. Internal Audit provides another natural source of regulatory compliance risk data gleaned from its expansive reach throughout your organization. Regulatory Compliance also finds a natural ally in the Information Technology Department, where governance, risk management and compliance looms large over an ever-evolving landscape. Compliance professionals grow to become trusted confederates with leaders of lines of business, Internal Audit and Information Technology.

So join me! Grab your water bottle or coffee cup, and explore your organization more freely. Engage others daily and take a more genuine interest in the regulatory compliance challenges facing your fellow leaders. Collaborate with them to develop lasting compliance solutions. Your risk assessments and resultant regulatory compliance program will flourish, producing more meaningful results for the entire organization. You won’t want to return to the ivory tower.

Don’t make the wrong call!

Ensuring compliance with the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA)

* The FTC has long blazed a trail of consumer protection aimed at unscrupulous telemarketers.
* The FCC has strengthened its arsenal of weapons aimed at robocallers.
* Failure to incorporate the 2013 requirements can cost your company millions of dollars.
* Compliance Departments must engage all stakeholders in the organization.
* Building a compliant outbound calling & texting program will protect profits and the brand.


No longer can any sales and service organization naively believe that it will escape the notice of United States federal consumer protection regulators. If your organization uses a telephone to reach consumers, then the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are two such agencies for which regulatory compliance professionals must maintain a watchful eye.

In conjunction with the robust outbound communication activities that our sales and service operations undertake, careless violations of FTC and FCC consumer communications laws garner sizeable financial penalties. To understand the impact of the October 2013 FCC amendments, it is helpful to review the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule requirements.

FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule 2008 Amendments

The FTC administers the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). Amended in 2008, the TSR governs outbound telephone calls initiated by a telemarketer, including those involving dialing technology (“autodialers”) and pre-recorded messages. As defined by the FTC:

• “Outbound telephone call” to mean a telephone call initiated by a telemarketer to induce the purchase of goods or services or to solicit a charitable contribution;
• “Telemarketer” means any person who, in connection with telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor; and
• “Telemarketing” means a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call.1

Some prerecorded messages still are permitted under these rules — for example, messages that are purely informational. That means a consumer may still receive calls to let him/her know a flight’s been cancelled, reminders about an appointment or messages about a delayed school opening. But the business doing the calling still isn’t allowed to promote the sale of any goods or services. Political calls, calls from certain healthcare providers and messages from a business contacting a consumer to collect a debt also are permitted. Prerecorded messages from banks, telephone carriers and charities also are exempt from these rules if the banks, carriers or charities make the calls themselves.2

While notifying consumers of a store address change is considered informational (thus not telemarketing), inviting them to a grand opening celebration at the new address could be considered part of a “plan, program or campaign” to induce the purchase of goods or services. That is, merely mentioning the grand opening could be the “hook” for a court or regulator to determine that the entire script is “telemarketing.”

The amended TSR expressly bars telemarketing calls that deliver prerecorded messages, unless a consumer previously has agreed to accept such calls from the seller.3 As a result, most businesses became required to obtain the consumer’s written permission before they could call a consumer with prerecorded telemarketing messages, or “robocalls”. In fact, a business has to make it clear it’s asking to call a consumer with these kinds of messages, and it can’t require a consumer to agree to the calls in order to get any goods or services. If the consumer initially agrees to receive robocalls, the consumer also retains the right to change his/her mind and rescind his/her opt-in.

The FTC takes enforcement of the TSR very seriously when it comes to robocall violators. A May 2013 FTC action resulted in a Department of Justice settlement4 resulting from an FTC-led complaint.5 Specifically, citing 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l )(v)(A), the Defendant company was permanently restrained and enjoined from engaging in, causing others to engage in, or assisting other persons to engage in:

A. Initiating any outbound telephone call that delivers a prerecorded message to induce the purchase of any good or service unless, prior to making any such call, the seller has obtained from the recipient of the call an express agreement, in writing, that:
1. the seller obtained only after a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the purpose of the agreement is to authorize the seller to place prerecorded calls to such person;
2. the seller obtained without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service;
3. evidences the willingness of the recipient of the call to receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of a specific seller; and
4. includes such person’s telephone number and signature.

The Defendant was ordered to undergo federal compliance monitoring, extensive recordkeeping and detailed reporting for 10 years. Additionally, the settlement included judgment in the amount of $75,000 entered in favor of the FTC against Defendant as a civil penalty. The Defendant’s judgment was far more lenient that the $16,000 per call that the FTC is authorized to assess under the TSR.

FCC Telephone Consumer Protection Act 2012 Amendments

The FCC administers the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In alignment with the FTC position, revised FCC TCPA rules took effect on October 16, 2013 and require “prior express written consent” for pre-recorded telemarketing calls using autodialer technology made to both cell phones and land line phones. This rule change expressly amends the previous FCC rule which (1) had not required written consent; and (2) had allowed prerecorded telemarketing calls to land line phones where a business relationship existed.

The FCC has taken a very broad view of the use of autodialer technology. Although the rules provide a very specific definition of autodialer, regulators and the courts have interpreted the definition so broadly that any computerized dialing device could be viewed as an autodialer. It is advisable not to make non-consented calls to cellphones, unless your organization has an entirely manual process for initiating the call.

Misuse or misunderstanding the use of autodialer technology in the absence of receiving prior express written consent has expensive consequences. The TCPA has a private right of action and recent class action lawsuits have settled for tens of millions of dollars.6

Costly non-compliance

Non-compliance with the TSR and the TCPA exposes your organization to civil liability and regulatory sanctions and fines. At up to $1,500 per violation, non-compliance with the TCPA text message requirements alone could expose your organization to a sizeable civil judgment. A company that sends a mere 7,000 non-consented text messages could statutorily incur a fine in excess of ten million dollars.

This TCPA text message revision is anticipated to also invite predatory class action litigation as enterprising plaintiff attorneys seek to capitalize on the technical change to the law. Regulatory penalties and class action lawsuits give rise to negative publicity that have the potential to damage your organization’s profitability and its brand.

Build compliance into your outbound calling and texting programs

To address this potential reputational, regulatory, and legal risk exposure, compliance professionals should partner with the stakeholders in the organization who have a vested interest in outbound calling and texting programs. These stakeholder functions will likely include Sales, Marketing, E-Commerce, Call Centers, and Information Technology (yes, IT! They own the autodialer and messaging hardware and software your organization relies upon). And don’t forget those third-party service providers that may actually be managing your call lists, opt-ins, and outbound calling and texting programs.

Once you have marshaled your stakeholders, you will want to undertake:

(1) a review of existing outbound calling and texting programs, approval processes, and vendor contracts; and
(2) provide detailed guidance to management regarding required current changes and safeguards for current and future programs.

You will specifically want to address pre-recorded messages sent to both land line and cellular phones, as well as text messages sent to cellular phones.

Compliant pre-recorded messages

Your organization may call consumers who have provided written permission after being fully informed that they have expressly assented to receive prerecorded calls regarding your products and services. If your organization has not obtained such “prior express written consent” since October 16, 2013, you will want to solicit a revised affirmative written opt-in. Guidance interpreting the amended TCPA treatment of prerecorded calls suggests that a consumer must have the option to affirmatively check an unchecked box beside verbiage that explicitly and plainly explains that the consumer is opting into receiving prerecorded calls to his/her cell phone and/or land line phone.

A prerecorded message system must also adhere to the following opt-out language and activation safeguards:

• Businesses using robocalls are required by law to tell a consumer at the beginning of the message how to stop future calls, and must provide an automated opt-out the consumer can activate by voice or key press throughout the call.
• If the message could be left on voicemail or an answering machine, businesses also have to provide a toll-free number at the beginning of the message that will connect to an automated opt-out system the consumer can use any time.

Compliant text/SMS messages

Changes to existing text message marketing opt-in processes may be required at your organization to conform to the new “prior express written consent” standard. Recognizing that text messages are limited in character length, these changes should be customized for your purposes, but may resemble:

• New text/SMS enrollee receives: “Reply ‘AGREE’ to receive wkly XYZ Discount Alerts. Periodic msgs may be sent using autodialer. Consent not required for purchase. Msg&Data rates may apply” (to fulfill the FCC requirement of obtaining express written consent after the initial request is received AND that his/her consent is not required in conjunction with any other purchase)

• Once the consumer replies with ‘AGREE’, enrollee receives: “Thanks for confirming! You will receive weekly XYZ Discount Alerts! Stop reply ‘STOP XYZ’. Msg&Data rates may apply.” (to fulfill the FCC requirement of explicitly informing the requestor how he/she may rescind the opt-in)

Obtain new consent from current text/SMS subscribers

Your organization may currently have thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of subscribers. When the new rules took effect on October 16, 2013, all consent obtained under the old “prior express consent” standard were invalidated. When the FCC issued its revised rules in February 2012, the agency conveyed that once the new written consent rules became effective, companies would be required to obtain the revised “prior express written consent” before sending additional marketing messages. An established business relationship will also no longer relieve advertisers of prior written consent requirement after the effective date. You may thus seek to ensure that all current subscribers also receive the message inviting them to reply ‘AGREE’.

New text/SMS message marketing programs

These same FCC principles would apply to new text marketing programs that your organization may launch in the future. The FCC interprets “marketing” very broadly in its own favor, so you will want to ensure that your Compliance Department is involved at inception to review new text messaging programs.

Conclusion

As compliance professionals, we must daily balance our organization’s customer-focused mission with the consumer protection regulatory requirements. By taking swift action with your stakeholders now regarding the TSR and TCPA, you can reduce the risk that your organization will make the wrong call.

Notes

1 The Telemarketing Sales Rule, September 2009, http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0198-telemarketing-sales-rule.

2 Ibid.

3 FTC Issues Final Telemarketing Sales Rule Amendments Regarding Prerecorded Calls, August 19, 2008, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/08/tsr.shtm.

4 United States of America v. Skyy Consulting, Inc., also d/b/a CallFire, a California corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case4:13-cv-02136-DMR, Document 3, Filed 05/13/13, http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1223011/130514callfirestip.pdf.

5 United States of America v. Skyy Consulting, Inc., also d/b/a CallFire, a California corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case4:13-cv-02136-DMR, Complaint, Filed 05/09/13, http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1223011/130514callfirecmpt.pdf.

6 Pari Najafi v. SLM Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 10-cv-0530 MMAAmended Settlement Agreement, October 7, 2011, http://www.manatt.com/uploadedFiles/Content/4_News_and_Events/Newsletters/AdvertisingLaw@manatt/Sallie%20Mae%20amended%20settlement%20agreement.pdf.

WHEN ETHICS AND EXPEDIENCY COLLIDE

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” ~Aristotle

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” ~Ronald Reagan


As Compliance and Ethics Professionals, we are daily reminded that violations of law and dignity are no less common now than they were in ancient civilizations. We report upon and read about corporate, government, and personal scandals that boggle the mind. Acts and omissions that defy common sense are nonetheless undertaken out of expediency, greed and ignorance, only to eventually expose the perpetrators in the public square.

Why?

Why--with all the failed historical examples, complex laws, regulatory bodies, education and training—do some organizations continue to succumb to poor judgment and wrongdoing, while other organizations rise above?

While we speak often about the ‘tone at the top’, we must also acknowledge that ideas and actions emanate at all levels of our organizations. Driven by deadlines, profits, corporate goals, marketplace competition, etc., individuals contemplate ideas and execute upon those ideas. But not all ideas for generating revenue, decreasing expenses, or streamlining processes merit the same consideration.

An organization’s culture, modeled by its leaders at all levels, must unambiguously communicate that execution must meet its values. A healthy exchange of ideas should always be weighed sufficiently and transparently by knowledgeable stakeholders, so as to expose potential ethical, legal and financial pitfalls. Though we are charged with educating our operational and administrative colleagues about our Code of Conduct and our Legal and Regulatory obligations, we have the additional obligation to actively counsel them as well.

Leveraging our Anonymous Reporting Hotlines, Internal Audit Departments, and industry and regulatory trends, we ourselves must be prepared to actively engage our colleagues across our organizations to probe for prospective lapses. In a highly-charged competitive environment, we cannot idly sit by and fail to question if expediency is trumping ethical decision-making. Let’s not forget that we are the protagonists—not the villains—in this story.