Beneatha Younger

Beneatha Younger, an important character in A Raisin In The Sun , values good people. She does not think   of herself as black, she thinks of herself as an American human. She knows George Murchison and Mama and Ruth want tem to get married. He's a black American as well, but sees absolutely no reason to honor their African heritage. George sees himself as an American first and foremost and thinks that blacks who spend a lot of time worrying about Africa are wasting their time.Unsurprisingly, Beneatha seems to not be into George at all. Then after a strange turn of events she starts to love Joeseph Asagai and wants to learn about Africa. Benetha values a great education. She is aspiring to be a doctor an is attending college. College education has helped to make her progressive, independent, and a total feminist. She brings politics into the apartment and always talks about civil rights. During this play, she fights with her identity as an African-American woman.Asagai criticizes h er, saying that she's â€Å"assimilated,† meaning that she tries to hide her African-ness by acting white. He uses her hair as an example. Asagai can't understand why she and most other black women in America straighten their hair instead of leaving it naturally curly. Unlike the rest of her family, Beneatha looks beyond her immediate situation in an effort to understand herself as a member of a greater whole. As she becomes more educated, it becomes increasingly hard for Beneatha to relate to the rest of her family.Sometimes she can be a bit condescending and seems to forget that her family members (especially her mother) all work very hard to help put her through school. However, this character flaw only serves to make her seem all the more understandable and human. Ultimately, Beneatha is a kind and generous person, who seeks to become a doctor out of a desire to help people. In conclusion, Beneatha Younger, a main character in A Raisin In The Sun values many things. She v alues good people , good education and Independence.

Boundary Issues Essay

When working in the human service profession you must understand the importance of setting boundaries. One of the most important aspects a counselor should instill into their work ethics is to build a strong, health line of communication and trust between themselves and their clients. This line of trust can determine whether there will be a therapeutic session and if it will end in success, or detriment. Professionals must understand that mixing a personal and professional relationship could produce a negative outcome. One of the easiest ways to prevent boundary crossing is to acknowledge, and adhere, to the Code of Ethics which is provided by the organization of employment. A Code of Ethics is a set of principles of conduct within an organization or business that guide decision- making and behavior. The purpose of ethic codes is to provide professionals, clients and other interested persons with guidelines for making ethical choices in conduct of his or her work. How can a counselor identify certain scenarios to protect themselves and their clients from such damage? As a counselor you should be clear on your limits as a provider. Make sure the client understands that boundaries are set to keep each party involved focused on the work at hand. Identifying poor boundaries: You and your client call each other friends and interact outside of the facility where you work. Valuable gifts are exchanged between you and the client. You reveal personal information that is not relevant to your client case. You find yourself discussing the client and his or her case during social interactions with your friends and family. Knowing the consequences of poor boundaries: Without professional relationship boundaries you may not provide appropriate services to your client. If you are acting as the client’s friend, and not his or her provider, you may not challenge the client to deal with presenting problems. Failure to set professional boundaries can cause you to burn out from caring for the client beyond what is required of a professional relationship. If you do not maintain a professional relationship you can find yourself acting in an unethical manner. How to prevent poor professional boundaries: Explain your role as provider and the limits of your availability to the client outside of office hours at the beginning of the relationship. Make it clear that the client will only be able to contact you at the facility and that your personal life (outside of  the relevant information you volunteer) is not up for discussion. Make sure any personal information you reveal (called self-disclosure) is helpful to the client’s case. For example if the client is a rape victim, it is important to talk about your history of rape (if any) and the resources you used to change your life. You are making the session about you if you discuss parts of your personal life that are not relevant to the client. When a client crosses the professional boundaries, redirect them by immediately clarifying your role and the limits of your relationships with the client. Discuss boundary issues with your supervisor, colleagues or your own therapist. Be sure to maintain good physical emotional and mental health so you work at your personal best. Review the code of ethics.

Al Gore - Saving the Constitution Speech at Constitution hall

Al Gore Saving the Constitution Speech at Constitution Hall delivered 16 January 2006, Washington, D.C.Thank you very much. Id like to thank Michael Ostrolenk for that on-the-spot introduction, and Id like to thank Michael and the other leaders of the Liberty Coalition for the wonderful work that they are doing to try to help Americans bridge many gaps that have sometimes unnecessarily divided us. I want to thank them for co-sponsoring this event. I want to thank Lisa Brown for her friendship to me and for her outstanding leadership of the American Constitution Society. Tipper and I have long admired her work, and its a pleasure to work with her. To all of the distinguished guests who are here, Senator Dianne Feinsteinothers who are present [inaudible]. And I want to commiserate with Congressman Bob Barr, who was connected live when we walked out on the stage, but having had similar occurrences with live video feeds before, I know what can happen and what he must be feeling right now. And I want to thank all of you for coming. Id like to start by saying that Congressman Bob Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years. But we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens, Democrats and Republicans alike, to express our shared concern that Americas Constitution is in grave danger. In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power. As we begin this new year, the executive branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress precisely to prevent such abuses. It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored in our country. And that is why many of us have come here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences insofar as it is possible to do so and join with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved. It is appropriate that we make this appeal on the day our nation has set aside to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who challenged America to breathe new life into our oldest values by extending its promise to all of our people. And on this particular Martin Luther King Day it is especially important to recall for that for the last several years of his life Dr. King was illegally wiretapped, one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during that period. The FBI privately labeled King the and I quote the most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country and vowed to again, I quote take him off his pedestal. The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and tried to blackmail him into committing suicide. This campaign continued until Dr. Kings murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted this long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. Kings life was instrumental in helping to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping. And one result was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, often called FISA, which was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there was indeed a sufficient cause for the surveillance. It included ample flexibility and an ability for the executive to move with as much speed as desired. I voted for that law during my first term in Congress. And, for almost 30 years, the system has proven a valuable and workable means of affording a level of protection for American citizens while permitting foreign surveillance to continue whenever it is necessary. And yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that, in spite of this long-settled law, the executive branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on and I quote the report large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages and other Internet traffic inside the United States. The New York Times reported that the president decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program without search warrants or any new laws that would permit domestic intelligence collection. During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the president seemed to go out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place. But, surprisingly, the presidents soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the president confirmed the story was true but in the next breath declared that he has no intention of stopping or bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end. At present, we still have much to learn about the NSAs domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently. A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said, The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men. An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet on Common Sense ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described Americas alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that, in his phrase, the law is king. Vigilant adherence to the rule of law actually strengthens our democracy, of course, and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint under the rule of law. And make no mistake: The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the normal processes of government that are designed to improve policy and avoid error. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents overreaching and checks the accretion to power. A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability helps our country avoid many serious mistakes that we would otherwise make. Recently, for example, we learned from just-declassified documents after almost 40 years that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which authorized the tragic Vietnam War was actually based on false information. And we now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq war 38 years later was also based on false information. Now, the point is that America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. And that is the reason why following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable. The president and I agree on one thing: The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attacks on September 11th and we must be ever vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm. Where we disagree is on the proposition that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government in order to protect Americans from terrorism when, in fact, doing so would make us weaker and more vulnerable. And remember that, once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows, the greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its mistakes and reveal errors, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police its activities. And once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we do become a government of men and not laws. The presidents men have minced words about Americas laws. The attorney general, for example, openly conceded that the kind of surveillance, in his phrase, that we know they have been conducting, does require a court order unless authorized by statue. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act self-evidently does not authorize what the NSA has been doing and no one inside or outside the administration claims that it does. Incredibly, the administration claims instead that the surveillance was implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who attacked us on September 11. But this argument simply does not hold any water. Without getting into the legal intricacies, it faces a number of embarrassing facts. First, another admission by the attorney general: He concedes that the administration knew that the NSA project was prohibited by existing law and that that is why they consulted with some members of Congress about the possibility of changing the statute. Attorney General Gonzales says that they were told by the members of Congress consulted that this would probably not be possible. And so they decided not to make the request. So how can they now argue that the authorization for the use of military force somehow implicitly authorized it all along? Indeed, when the authorization was being debated, the administration did in fact seek to have language inserted in it that would have authorized them to use military force domestically and the Congress refused to agree. Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Jim McGovern, among others, made clear statements during the debate on the floor of the House and Senate, respectively, clearly stating that that authorization did not operate domestically and there is no assertion to the contrary. When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him the power he wanted when this measure was passed, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as Justice Frankfurter once wrote, To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between the president and the Congress. This is precisely the disrespect for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case during the Korean War. It is this same disrespect for Americas Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties. For example, as you know, the president has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that notwithstanding his American citizenship that person in prison has no right to talk with a lawyer, even if he wants to argue that the president or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person. The president claims that he can imprison that American citizen any American citizen he chooses indefinitely, for the rest of his life, without even an arrest warrant, without notifying them of what charges have been filed against them, without even informing their families that they have been imprisoned. No such right exists in the America that you and I know and love. It is foreign to our Constitution. It must be rejected. At the same time, the executive branch has also claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture and have plainly constituted torture in a widespread pattern that has been extensively documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world. Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by executive branch interrogators. Many more have been broken and humiliated. And, in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were completely innocent of any criminal charges whatsoever. This is a shameful exercise of power that overturns a set of principles that youre nation has observed since General George Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War. They have been observed by every president since then until now. They violate the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture and our own laws against torture. The president has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals on the streets of foreign cities and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes and nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture. Some of our traditional allies have been deeply shocked by these new and uncharacteristic patterns on the part of America. For example, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan one of those nations with the worst reputations for torture in its prisons registered a complaint to his home office about the cruelty and senselessness of the new U.S. practice that he witnessed. This material were getting is useless, he wrote. And then he continued with this: We are selling our souls for dross. It is, in fact, positively harmful. Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what cant he do? The dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the executive branchs extravagant claims of these previously unrecognized powers, and I quote Dean Koh, If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution. The fact that our normal American safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is itself deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the executive branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so, and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore a healthy constitutional balance. For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the president declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it. Similarly, the executive branch claimed this it could unilaterally imprison American citizens without giving them access to review by any tribunal. And when the Supreme Court disagreed, the president then engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the court from providing any meaningful content to the rights of the citizens affected. A conservative jurist on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the executive branchs handling of one such case seemed to involve the sudden abandonment of principle and, I quote him, at substantial cost to the governments credibility before the courts. As a result of this unprecedented claim of new unilateral power, the executive branch has now put our constitutional design at grave risk. The stakes for Americas democracy are far higher than has been generally recognized. These claims must be rejected and a healthy balance of power must restored to our republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation. For more than two centuries, Americas freedoms have been preserved in large part by our founders wise decision to separate the aggregate power of our government into three co-equal branches, each of which, as you know, serves to check and balance the power of the other two. On more than a few occasions in our history, the dynamic interaction among all three branches has resulted in collisions and temporary impasses that create what are invariably labeled constitutional crises. These crises have often been dangerous and uncertain times for our republic. But in each such case so far, we have found a resolution of the crisis by renewing our common agreement to live together under the rule of law. The principal alternative to democracy throughout history has, of course, been the consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strong man or small group who exercised that power without the informed consent of the governed. It was in revolt against just such a regime, after all, that America was founded. When Lincoln declared at the time of our greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in the Civil War was, in his memorable phrase, whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure, he was not only saving our union. He was recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they fall, as did Athens and the Roman republic upon whose designs our founders drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another strong- man regime. There have, of course, been other periods in American history when the executive branch claimed new powers later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president, John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents. And when his successor, President Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses, in his first inaugural, he said, The essential principles of our government form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. Should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain that road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety. President Lincoln, of course, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, and some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after World War I, with the notorious red scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II marked a shameful low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, of course, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTEL program was part and parcel of those abuses experienced by Dr. King and so many thousands of others. But in each of these cases throughout American history, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, our nation recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret. But there are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing so that this cycle may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a globe where there are nuclear weapons and Cold War tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever-enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counterintelligence activities and allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. But as Justice Frankfurter wrote in that famous steel seizure case, The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority. A second reason to believe that we may be experiencing something new, outside that historical cycle, is that we are, after all, told by this administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to last, in their phrase, for the rest of our lives. And so we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by other presidents to justify arrogations of power will in this case persist in near perpetuity. Third, we need to be keenly aware of the startling advances in the sophistication of eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to easily sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and then mine it for intelligence. And this adds significant vulnerability to the privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as the potential power of those technologies grows. Those technologies do have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways that are both subtle and profound. Dont misunderstand me. The threat of additional terror strikes is real and the concerted efforts by terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction does indeed create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the executive branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is an in fact an inherent power conferred by the Constitution to any president to take unilateral action when necessary to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat. And it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not. But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for many years and producing a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government. And there is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle. This administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential power is exactly what our Constitution intended. This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which ought to be more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the presidents powers until the contours of the Constitution that the framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the presidents authority when acting as commander in chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary, cannot be checked by Congress. And President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as commander in chief, invoking it as frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, both domestic and foreign. And when added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine. This effort to rework Americas carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all-powerful executive branch, with a subservient Congress and subservient judiciary, is ironically accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework Americas foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish a form of dominance in the world. And the common denominator The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control. The same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the executive branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals and to demand conformity from all executive branch employees. For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases. Ironically, that is exactly what happened to the FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoovers assertion that Martin Luther King was closely connected to communists. The head of the FBIs domestic intelligence division testified that his effort to tell the truth about Dr. Kings innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated within the FBI and pressured. And I quote: It was evident, he said, that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street. The men and I, he continued, discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men, he continued, were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes. They had children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. So they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in. The Constitutions framers, who studied human nature so closely, understood this dilemma quite well. As Alexander Hamilton put it, A power over a mans support is a power over his will. In any case, quite soon there was no more difference of opinion about Dr. King within the FBI, and the false accusation became the unanimous view. And in exactly the same way, George Tenets CIA eventually joined in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between Al Qaida and the government of Iraq. In the words of George Orwell, We are all capable, he said, of believing things which we know to be untrue and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time. The only check on it is that, sooner or later, a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. Two thousand two hundred American soldiers have lost their lives as this false belief bumped into a solid reality. And indeed, whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable, it almost inevitably leads to gross mistakes and abuses. That is part of human nature. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes, dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded. It is human nature, whether for Republicans or Democrats or people of any set of views. Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the administrations eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that, if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers. Tragically, he apparently still does not know that the administration did, in fact, have the names of at least two of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have led to the identification of most of the others. One of them was in the phone book. And yet, because of incompetence, unaccountable incompetence in the handling of the information, it was never used to protect the American people. It is often the case, again, regardless of which party might be in power, that an executive branch beguiled by the pursuit of unchecked power responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it be given still more power. Often the request itself is used to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has. Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. That is why many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this president means that the next will have unchecked power as well. And the next may be someone whose values and beliefs you do not trust. And that is why Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this president has done. If his attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, then our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next president or some future president will be able in the name of national security to restrict our liberties in a way the framers would never have imagined possible. This same instinct to expand power and establish dominance has characterized the relationship between this administration and the courts and the Congress. In a properly functioning system, the judicial branch would serve as the constitutional umpire to ensure that the branches of government observe their proper spheres of authority, observed civil liberties, adhere to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the unilateral executive has tried hard to thwart the ability of the judiciary to call balls and strikes by keeping controversies out of its hands, notably those challenging its ability to detain individuals without legal process by appointing judges who will be deferential to its exercise of power and by its support of assaults on the independence of the third branch. The presidents decision, for example, to ignore the FISA law was a direct assault on the power of the judges who sit on that court. Congress established the FISA Court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap. And yet, to ensure that the court could not function as a check on executive power, the president simply did not take matters to it. And did not even let the court know that it was being bypassed. The presidents judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure the courts will not will not serve as an effective check on executive power. As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a long-time supporter of a powerful executive, a supporter of that so-called unitary executive. Whether you support his confirmation or not and I respect the fact that some of the co-sponsors of this event do; I do not but whatever your view, we must all agreethat he will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. Likewise, Chief Justice Roberts has made plain his deference to the expansion of executive power through his support of judicial deference to executive agency rulemaking. And the administration has also supported the assault on judicial independence that has been conducted largely in Congress. That assault includes a threat by the majority in the Senate to permanently change the rules to eliminate the right of the minority to engage in extended debate of the presidents nominees. The assault has extended to legislative efforts to curtail the jurisdiction of the courts in matters ranging from habeas corpus to the pledge of allegiance. In short, the administration has demonstrated a contempt for the judicial role and sought to evade judicial review of its actions at every turn. But the most serious damage in our constitutional framework has been to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of Congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the executive to attain this massive expansion of its power. I was elected to the Congress in 1976. Served eight years in the House, eight in the Senate, presided over the Senate for eight as vice president. Before that, as a young man, I saw the Congress firsthand as the son of a senator. My father was elected to Congress in 1938 10 years before I was born and left the Senate after I had graduated from college. The Congress we have today is structurally unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished and outstanding senators and congressmen serving today. I am honored to know them and to have worked with them. But the legislative branch of government as a whole, under its current leadership, now operates as if it were entirely subservient to the executive branch. It is astonishing to me and so foreign to what the Congress is supposed to be. Moreover, too many members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of their time not in thoughtful debate on the issues but, instead, raising money to purchase 30-second television commercials. Moreover, there have now been two or three generations of congressmen who dont really know what an oversight hearing is. In the 70s and 80s, the oversight hearings in which my colleagues and I participated held the feet of the executive branch to the fire no matter which party was in power. And, yet, oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today. The role of the authorization committees has declined into insignificance. The 13 annual appropriations bills are hardly ever actually passed as bills anymore. Often, everything is lumped into a familiar single giant measure that sometimes is not even available for members of Congress to even read before they vote on it. Members of the minority party are now routinely excluded from conference committees, and amendments are routinely disallowed during floor consideration of legislation. In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the greatest deliberative body in the world, meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked, Why is this chamber empty? In the House of Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435. And too many incumbents have come to believe that the key to continued access to the money for re-election is to stay on the good side of those who have the money to give. And, in the case of the majority party, the whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization. So the willingness of Congress to challenge the executive branch is further limited when the same party controls both Congress and the administration. The executive branch time and again has co-opted Congress role. And too often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power. Look, for example, at the congressional role in overseeing this massive, four-year eavesdropping campaign that, on its face, seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights. The president says he informed Congress. What he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and, sometimes, the leaders of the House and Senate. This small group, in turn, claims they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to the vice president. And, though I sympathize with the awkward position, the difficult position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking sufficient action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program. Many did. Moreover, in the Congress as a whole, both House and Senate, the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption that some have fallen vulnerable to. The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg threatening the integrity of our legislative branch of government. And it is the pitiful state of our legislative state which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by the executive branch now threatening a radical transformation of the American system. I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the Constitution of our country. But there is yet another player. There is yet another constitutional player whose faults must also be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has accompanied these efforts by the executive branch to dominate our constitutional system. We the people, collectively, are still the key to the survival of Americas democracy. We must examine ourselves. We, as Lincoln put it, even we here must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and hollowing out and degradation of American democracy. Its time to stand up for the American system that we know and love. It is time to breathe new life back into Americas democracy. Thomas Jefferson said, An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will. America is based on the belief that we can govern ourselves and exercise the power of self-government. The American idea proceeded from the bedrock principle that all just power is derived from the consent of the governed. The intricate and finally balanced system, now in such danger, was created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a whole. The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely read newspaper essays. And they represented only one of 24 series of essays that crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia. And when the convention had done its best, it was the people in their various states that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of Rights was made integral to the documents sent forward for ratification. And it is we the people who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution. And here there is cause for both concern and for great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television, a distracting and absorbing medium which seems determined to entertain itself more than it informs and educates. Lincolns memorable call during the Civil War is now applicable in a new way to our present dilemma: We must disenthrall ourselves, he said, and then we shall save our country. Forty years has passed since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source of information. And its dominance has now become so extensive that virtually all significant political communication now takes place within the confines of flickering 30-second advertisements, and theyre not The Federalist Papers. The political economy, supported by these short but expensive television ads, is as different from the vibrant politics of Americas first century as those politics were different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages. The constricted role of ideas in the American political system today has encouraged efforts by the executive branch to believe it can and should control the flow of information as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in the hands of the people. The administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain secrecy in its operations. After all, if the other branches dont know whats happening, they cant be a check or a balance. For example, when the administration was attempting to persuade Congress to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit, many in the House and Senate raised concerns about the cost and design of the program. But rather than engaging in open debate on the basis of factual data, the administration withheld facts and actively prevented the Congress from hearing testimony that it had sought from the principal administration expert who had the information showing in advance of the vote that indeed the true cost estimates were far beyond the numbers given to Congress by the president. And the workings of the program would play out very differently than Congress had been told. Deprived of that information, and believing the false numbers given to it, instead the Congress approved the program and, tragically, the entire initiative is now collapsing all over the country, with the administration making an appeal just this weekend asking major insurance companies to volunteer to bail it out. But the American people, who have a right to believe that its elected representatives will learn the truth and act on the basis of knowledge and utilize the rule of reason, have been let down. To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House with no scientific training whatsoever. Today one of the most distinguished scientific experts in the world on global warming, who works in NASA, has been ordered not to talk to members of the press; ordered to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the executive branch can monitor and control what he shares of his knowledge about global warming. This is a planetary crisis. We owe ourselves a truthful and reasoned discussion. One of the other ways the administration has tried to control the flow of information has been by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. President Eisenhower said this: Any who act as if freedoms defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America. Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote, Men feared witches and burnt women. The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights. Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moments notice to completely annihilate the country? Is America really in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march, when the last generation had to fight and win two world wars simultaneously? It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. And yet they faithfully protected our freedom and now its up to us to do the very same thing. We have a duty as Americans to defend out citizens rights not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the executive branch and the presidents apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law. I endorse the words of Bob Barr when he said, and I quote, The president has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will. A special counsel should be immediately appointed by the attorney general to remedy these obvious conflicts of interest that prevents them from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the president. Weve had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special council with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, has shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the executive branch has violated other laws. Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of this special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by the warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the president. And it should be a political issue in any race, regardless of party, section of the country, house of Congress, or anyone who opposes the appointment of a special counsel under these dangerous circumstances when our Constitution is at risk. Secondly, new whistleblower protection should immediately be established for members of the executive branch who report evidence of wrongdoing, especially where it involves abuse of authority in the sensitive areas of national security. Third, both houses of Congress should, of course, hold comprehensive and not just superficial hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the president. And they should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the executive branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should under no circumstances be granted unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed. Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist the their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion in the privacy of American citizens. Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy. It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it. In closing, I mention that, along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established by the people and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed, I can feel it in this hall. As Dr. King once said, perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us. Thank you very much.

Ethic report for wind and solar and hydropower Essay

Ethic report for wind and solar and hydropower - Essay Example an be produced in different scales namely large hydro (more than 10megawatts), small hydro (upto10 megawatts), micro hydro (up to 100kw), and pico hydro (up to 5kw). One major advantage of hydroelectric power is that the operational cost of a hydroelectric plant is almost immune to the increase in the cost of fossils fuel and, more so, absolutely no imports are required for the same. Hydropower is a clean source of energy with absolutely no emissions of Carbon Dioxide, and, therefore, no pollution to the environment. Global warming is also minimized. The hydropower dams can be used as a habitat for some fish and wildlife. More so, the water can be used for irrigation purposes, and they make the surrounding area around fertile (Ryan, 2009). Additionally, electricity can be produced at a constant rate and electricity generation can be stopped when it is not needed by closing sluice gates. Therefore, water can be stored for some time when there is less demand for electricity. Since dams can stay for a longer period it can be used to, store water there is no high demand of power. It is vital to note that many nations recommend hydropower because it does not emit any harmful chemicals and gases such as carbon dioxide and it is not a major contributor to global warming via carbon dioxide. Hydropower is a renewable source of energy or power because rivers and streams are naturally available. Further, hydropower is not expensive as compared to energy produced from nuclear energy or fossil fuels. The advantage of hydroelectric reservoirs is that they are able to tackle daily, seasonal, and peak loads. For instance, when the demand of electric falls, the reservoirs or dams store water while some installed electricity generators are used to store excess energy (Ryan, 2009). The cost of generating hydropower is low making it the most preferable source of the world’s renewable energy. Further, hydroelectric plants are said to have long economic lives with some plants

Drugs Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 1

Drugs - Research Paper Example Legislation was then passed and the creation of the FDA was created in order to oversee and regulate these drugs (Lowinson, Ruiz, Millman, & Langrod, 2005). One of the biggest debates in the United States regarding a specific kind of drug has been whether it should be deemed legalized or whether it should remain illegal. This drug, Cannabis, has sparked such a controversy that many people are ambivalent about whether it should be legalized or not. In order to make an informed decision as far as whether Marijuana should be legalized or not, there are some key notes and facts that must be noted about the drug. Marijuana is a drug which originates from the Cannabis plant. This is the first argument regarding the legalization of the drug is that it occurs in nature without human intervention or alteration. Marijuana originally is from Central and South Asia (ElSohly, 2007). Through trading and the expansion of humanity across the world, it was only a fact that the use of the drug would spread through trade. Its psychoactive properties are what made it such a valuable plant in that it was used in many rituals which involved the transcendence of the soul and allowed communication with other states of being (Booth, 2003). In the United States, the largest uses of marijuana have been from the so called â€Å"Hippie era† to even now. The use of marijuana was criminalized in the 1900s, but has recently leaded to some states wanting to make an exception for the use of marijuana for only medicinal purposes. Most notably, this controversy over some states making the use of marijuana for medic al purposes has lead to the issue of an old problem which plagued America even at the founding, the issue of the right’s of the states versus the power of the federal system. This was seen when California legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes and the federal government stepped in to

Provide an insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses of Essay

Provide an insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses of internal and external recruitment - Essay Example sed to legally get hold of an adequate number of qualified individuals at the right place and time so that the people and the organization can select each other in their interests. This means that the recruitment process gives the organization a number of potentially qualified job candidates from which employers can make well judged selection to fill available jobs (Dessler, 2002). Recruitment might be carried out through internal or external sources. In instances when internal recruitment does not generate the number or quality of staff needed, the organization has to recruit from external sources (Community for human resource management, 2008). Internal recruitment is recruitment which takes place in the organization. It is the hunt for in-house personnel who have the skills and attitudes to accomplish the requirements needed and to facilitate the organization attain its goals.  Internal vacancies can be promoted within the business through staff notice boards, intranets (website whose viewing is limited to the organizations members), in-house magazines, newsletters and staff meetings. In case of internal recruitment, employees are transferred from one department to another based on their competence and knowledge. The can also be promoted from one department to another with additional benefits and greater responsibility according to his or her competence and skill. This can be done through job postings which is advertising a vacant position to employees and mentioning its requirements. Upgrading or demotions are another example of internal recruitment. Retired and retrenched employees may also be recruited once again if there is a scarcity of competent personnel or the work load increases. Recruitment of such individuals saves time and costs of the organization as they are previously conscious of the organizational set up and the regulations. The dependents and relatives of deceased employees and disabled employees are also employed by numerous organizations

Analysis of Relational Technology Tool Research Paper

Analysis of Relational Technology Tool - Research Paper Example These aspects are covered with an eye towards being able to understand the achievement of the function of Facebook as a relational technology; the application of Facebook to one aspect of computer-mediated communication or CMC; critiquing how Facebook supports the achievement of the goals of CMC; and making recommendations on better means of accomplishing the goals related to CMC (Lord, 2003; Barnes, 2002). Facebook touts itself as being in the business of creating products that provide utility value to advertisers, developers and end-users, through the Facebook platform. That platform is a social media platform that end-users utilize to be able to connect and interact with their families and friends, as well as to know more about the world through the news and the shared information from friends and created pages that are made possible through their being posted on the social media platform. Developers have a stake in making use of the platform to create applications that leverage t he user base and the technical and social media strength of the platform. Advertisers on the other hand, as the third leg of the ecosystem after users and developers, can leverage the large user base of Facebook and the social nature of their interactions to reach large targeted audiences for their products and services (Google, 2013). The end-user focused products are many and have been well-developed and evolved after many years of use by millions of users around the world. Those products are made available to users on the Facebook platform, which in turn can be accessed from a host of devices, from personal computers to tablets to smart phones by the largest providers of devices in the world, from Apple to Android devices to other operating system platforms and form factors. The key end-user products include Timeline, News Feed, Places, Pages, and the photo uploading service. There is also an email and a chat facility to complement the other forms of sharing and communication on the platform. News Feed is a personalized platform for the sharing of information, news and status posts from friends, from various Pages, and from other parties that have presence on Facebook. Pages are user-created Facebook pages that cater to various content and interests providers and enthusiasts, and include Fan pages for artists, pages for news and media organizations, official pages of artists and public figures, and the like. The scale of the Pages product is demonstrated in the stat which says that as of the second quarter of 2012, about 42 million pages exist on Facebook, that have ten or more Likes. Likes is a Facebook feature that allows users to tag posts and Pages that they like. The photo service is another end-user product that allows users to upload, share and archive digital images on Facebook. The Places product, meanwhile, allows users to share their locations and the places that they visit to friends and family. The tagging functionality in the Photos app allows for another layer of social sharing of photos that include information on the users who are in the photos. This is a social way of annotating and sharing the photos (Reuters, 2013). II. History of the

Transformational leadership Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 1

Transformational leadership - Essay Example 38). The transactional leadership theory involves exchange between labour and rewards while the transformational leadership theory is mainly based on placing concern for intellectual stimulation, employees and offering vision to a group (Bass, Avolio and Atwater 2006, p. 99). James Macgregor Burns, who was a leadership expert, introduced transformational leadership theory concept. According to him, transformational leadership is manifested in a situation where a leaders and followers lead to the advancement of one another in motivation and morality (Bass and Riggio 2006, p. 64). A transformational leader uses different mechanisms to improve performance, morale and motivation of his followers. The mechanisms include being a good role model to followers which inspires them, having a connection to the followers’ self-identity, striving to understand weakness and strength of the followers and challenging followers to have more ownership of the business(Bass, Avolio and Atwater 2006, p, 94). Transformational leaders, foster moral values of loyalty, honesty, and fairness and at the same time they preserve end values of equality, justice and respect to human rights (Yates 2012, p.53). Transformational leaders have strong character and vision. This power helps them inspire their followers to change the perception, motivations and expectations to work toward the set purpose (Yukl 2009, p.28). The transformational leadership theory is based on the leadership trait;character and ability to bring about change through energized vision, articulation and challenging goals. For a leader to be considered transformational, he must be idealized in the sense that he is a moral exemplar of striving toward benefits of an organization, a team or a community (Sanders, Hopkins, and Geroy 2013, p. 21-31). The impact that the leader has on his followers’ performance and motivation is what determines

2,000 word Conflict Analysis and Research Proposal

2,000 word Conflict Analysis and - Research Proposal Example To many, natural resources are a vital resource for development and seems as the sole sure path to poverty reduction and economic growth. The increased awareness of the correlation between natural resources, security, and conflict continues to serve as reinforcement for the perception that natural resources are now a security issue (Bannon and Collier 2003 ). While appreciating that there are other drivers, this proposal suggests a detailed research to establish the interrelationship between distribution of economic resources and conflict. A succinct understanding of this relationship is considered necessary especially when formulating and implementing policies to mitigate the risk of conflict whether within a country or region. Limited knowledge of the correlation has resulted into misaligned policies and strategies that fail to achieve their objectives on prevention of conflicts related to natural resources distribution. The contemporary society is concerned that tension and conflicts continue to persist despite the formulation and implementation of conflict prevention policies in various world regions and countries. Much has been done to combat conflicts although researchers have shown that tensions and threat of violence are still high. An understanding of the correlation between conflicts and various drivers is considered as a vital step towards sustainable conflict prevention strategies and policies (Odhiambo 2011). It is necessary that the society adopt strategies that comprehensively address regional conflicts regardless of the dynamics of the contemporary world. All aspects of life are experiencing fast changes largely because of globalization. This research proposal in an attempt to establish the linkage between natural economic resources and conflicts presents a succinct literature review, research methodology, and possible results in subsequent sections. The literature refers to earlier re search studies to give insight on how different regions and

Why are informants necessary to effectively combat organized crime Essay

Why are informants necessary to effectively combat organized crime - Essay Example To gain this information, designated authorities have recourse to tried and tested methods. These methods include physical and technological surveillance, infiltration of the organization by undercover agents, and last, but not the least, the use of informants. Informants used against organized crime are usually members of these criminal organizations, who decide to talk to the authorities for a variety of personal and financial reasons. Critics have often criticized the use of informants: it is believed that most informants are unreliable because they work for selfish motives, either to gain revenge on their parent organization, or in search of incentives like money and exemption from charges and punishment. Since the whole process of using informants is confidential, critics fear the abuse of the system, whereby criminals go scot free despite heinous activities because of their cooperation with the authorities in netting criminal organizations. According to critics, informants tend to blur the lines between what is lawful and what is not. But despite these objections, there are reasons why authorities continue to use intelligence from informants, and we will now discuss why despite having other options like technical and physical surveillance and undercover operations, police and other authorities continue to use informants. Technological and physical surveillance is often unable to capture the entirety of the organization, as the members use coded communication. Moroever to initially establish surveillance especially in a suspects private space, the authorities must be able to obtain proof of criminal activity in the form of advance reliable intelligence. This is where the informants come in handy, because a reliable informer is able to provide a translation for the inner codes of a criminal organization, as well as supply tangible proof against a organized crime suspect to be brought under surveillance.

Indigenous Tradition Essay Example for Free

Indigenous Tradition Essay In the past people have mistaken about their tradition Indigenous originality or occurring naturally (country, region etc) To be indigenous kinship (relation to one another) and location(connection of particular place) Indigenous religion beliefs, experience and practices concerning non-falsifiable realities of people who have kinship and location Syncretism: Syncretism merging of elements from different religions. Eg : north American tradition have been influenced by Christianity, some African rituals are influences by Islam. * Change occurs everywhere. * Traditions are less authentic (accurate) than thousands year ago Indigenous can be found anywhere: * Anishinaubae: drumming ceremony in Toronto * Yoruba: Funeral rites in London * Maori: Purification ritual in opera house Sydney Australia Misconceptions * Common to Indigenous traditions is colonialism * Oglala (Indigenous community) – a theorist explained them as â€Å"warriors without weapons basically they were incapable to adapting a new economy lifestyle they focused on how to make them â€Å"modern Indians† * Outsider lack insider knowledge. * Scholars often used terms such as fetish, myth, mana, taboo to explain Indigenous traditions. * Eg â€Å" Indigenous stories are called myth where the bible is considered to be true. Primitive Cultures that are unchanged from the beginning primitive Christians, who believed in god and their tradition, had superiority and began to spread their religion to who didn’t know about gospel Indigenous traditions are tend to think more primitive Due to non-literate * But writing to not better than oral speaking * Mayan did use writing * Most Indigenous people are very literate. Indigenous tradition are tend to think more primitive – consider everything to be sacred (untrue) * Eg : Navajo : ceremony that transforms normal house into a scared place. So everything such as eating, sleeping is considered to be sacred. * Australian aborigine knows where to pray(know the difference between sacred and non sacred mountains) Primitive term is now disagreeing by many scoloars Mohawk and Cree (Dr Clare Brant) Mohawk: Indigenous traditions who give more food to their guest to show their wealth. Cree: Indigenous tradition who eat all the food offered to show scarcity. These two traditions did not go well together and this shows that Indigenous traditions are different from each other. Another point is that we see other cultures according to our own cultures. Gender roles: * Male: hunting and warfare * Female: healing and food preparation * Maori carvers were men and weavers were women. Bunu men frow cotton and women turn it into clothes. * Sometimes the roles switch just like other traditions * Usually religions practices are different for men and woman too. Power of speech Oral speaking is very imp for Indigenous traditions things are passed down oraly. Many people think oral primitive (untrue). Both Quran and Bible was passed down orally before written into text Stories : After life : * Kewa: a man finds a tunnel where his dead people wre living together and they gave them many things and asks him not to speak of it. When he goes and tell everyone about the tunnel, he breaks the promise and when he returns the tunnel is gone. * Anishinaubae : young man fiance died, and he go on a journey to find her and when he found her , he returns home heartbroken, keeping his promise. * These stories tell us about importance of relationships tell us about how we should live than about dying Writing stores often â€Å"fixed in time†. Trickster: * Considered as â€Å"culture heroes† because they are the central figures in many stores * Usually shape shift usually into animals * Can change genders sometime biological and sometime just clothes changing * Outer form is reflected into infidelity * They can appear as fools, selfish, kind, scandalous etc. * Usually driven by self interest alone * Trickster stores show us how we should behave and how we should not * The stories often explain the origins of world and connect to a community more deeply. * Embodies the extremes of humanity: human weakness and strength Practice (rituals). Indigenous tradition rituals are very similar to our traditions * Rituals remind us on what is imp in our life. * In religious terms, rituals, communicate some ways with gods, ancestor and spirits. * Rituals are roots in the human needs and relationship Rituals : * Every rituals varies * Usually involves food Muslim and Jews have specific food eating habits * Many Buddhist set food portions aside for ancestors * Anishinaubae put small amount of food for the spirits * Some rituals are more complicated * Such as marriage, death, birth * Sometimes these rituals mark transformation and sometimes they help to bring the transformation about. * Indigenous tradition rituals serve in some ways to recreate some aspects of the world, order and life Journey: * Going on a journey/quest: rites of passage * Journey to a new place is where a transformation occurs. * The person returns home with physical change, such as tattoo, scar or a body part to symbolize their new self. * Pondos: moved into a special hut to become sacred healers- if they go into town before they must be covered in white * White usually symbolize the color of transformation in Africa * Anishinaubae vision quest – yong man travels far away from home only with water and be completely alone. Then late he become a â€Å"adult man† and comes home with food and the ritual is complete . Sacrifice Mel Gibson: sacrifices in Indigenous traditions are vey common Bear sacrifice: raise a young cub, and raise it for two day and kill it. Head is emptied and filled with flowers and then the animal is cooked and eaten. They think that the bear is the gold’s spirit and they see it as freeing the spirit. Sun dance : dance till days and community provide support. Some sun dance involves sacrifice . the pole and lodge are buil to show the creation of the world Nuer : sacrifice ox for healing. Xhosa : when a woman fall ill the community gathers and kill a cow and do many rituals. This is due their thinking that the ancestor or spirit is angry with the women. * above rituals shows the involvement of community even though there is sacrifice involved. * The rituals ultimately brings people together * Sacrifice like rituals create order and meaning * Those rituals join people to the past and respond to current situation Cultural Expression What you see is not always what you get Art in Indigenous traditions is aout relationship objects are coonected to people Weaving : * Intertwine and connect * Weavers work together , helping one another , passing knowledge. * Shows bonds among people Maori Tradition : * All weavers are female * A girl is said all about weaving more said more discouraged if people saw true commitment then they let the girl into whare pora(caretakers of the weaving) * Whare pora have rules no sex before dying, no food allowed during weaving, special garment should be weaved during the day and not strangets can view the weaving * Traditional colors : black, red and white * Sacred thread is sewed on all garments to show the bond Underlying cloth : * Clothing declare who we are and how we fit into social fabric * Has two side : can hide much as it reveals and help us create a public face * Lady gaga : he masks and clothes hide part of her but also reveals her identity that she wishes to show * Special clothes are associated with imp rituals * Bunu : believes that the special clothes are kind of womb, enveloping the body as like a fetus is being born. Clothing only wears it does not die old cloth is replaces by new, as old spirits is reborn Spirit basket : * Oldest arts * In pomo community men makes the heavy basket for hunting and fishing * Women were responsible for religious baskets. * Mable mckey : was a traditional healer in pomo community and famous basket weaver in the world. Masks : * Masks are used in imp rituals wedding , funerals, hunting celebration etc * Masks are ment to ring spirit into the community lesser deities (gods) * Mask represent certain animals does not mean they worship the animal * Epa mask in Yoruba community extremely heavy show the strength require to dance with the mask and enter the adult hood with responsibility. * Carvers are usualy male Totem poles : * Very specific to each communities * Function of totem poles also varies in each tradition. * Meaning varies serve as a supporting structure or grave makers and other as a symbol for power * Most also tell stories such as historical, achievements and religious * Grizzly bear at the base holding a human represents self-preservation or survival. Moko * Maori carvings are less likely to be displayed outside the original physical context * Moko tattoos * In the beginning the women were only allowed tattoos around their lips and chin where men can have tattoos all over their face * Moko story remind the Maori people their ancestor and importance of meeting ones obligation and treating one another with respect Ancestoral House. * Marae Maori religious and social home. Site of wedding , funeral, celebration. * Authority is held by community elders where they use the space to pass n traditions, stories and arts, carving, weaving. * If the artist when wrong painting the place, they could be put to death. * Location is very imp it must be located in a place where the previous generation carried out the religious and social activities. * Whare Whakairo physical form which represents the body of the ancestor * The building is divided into body parts of the ancestor Three points and Shrine : * Some traditions are very plain, harder for an outsider to see * Three issues : * Most rituals are performed outside * Think bout the function of religious structures that are used in the rituals * What you see is not often what you get * Mbari shrine : represents the founder of the community, a great healer and was forced to flee because they were attacked by another community. Elder stands her to protects the shrine all the time. * The guard signify the change modern development Hogans * Navajo Hogan traditional living space as well as the site for many rituals. * It is the site for daily activities and some are religious and some are not * Before new Hogan is occupied a song is performed. * Known as Blessing way ceremony four divining earth, mountain woman, water woman, corn woman also the song speaks everyday things * According to them world is structure – Hogan All these things symbolizes: * Link btw past and present * Btw community and place * Btw our world and world of spirits Colonialism * Colonialism process where people from one place maintain a settlement in another and to the effects of people who were already there. * Changes include – subjugation or removal , new laws, social practices and new economy. * Power and profit are factors that drive colonialism. * Religion is also one of the reason Colombus : * He destroyed a community Arawaks * He wanted to tell him where the gold was people who gave him gold were left alive and people who didn’t were killed(by cutting hands) * Then he realized that the most valuable are the people, so he sent them back to Europe by the boat land. Genocides : * 20 million African were taken as slave and only 11 million returned * 96% od aboriginals were dead in Australia * factors of depopulation : military action, torture, starvation, suicide and slavery. * More aboriginals are killed when the Americans want more land Masters of continent : * As settler population growed the indigenous population reduced less friendly for land * Terra nullius no ones land was the phrase that European settlers used no owner ship primitive – they do not count as people Conversion : * Many converted to different religion due to colonialism * In Indonesia indigenous tradition is not recognized by lay so all are counted as muslim Loss of religion : * Europeans tried to convert them into chistianity rarely worked * Europeans used military strengeth and religion â€Å"our people is tronger because our god is stronger â€Å" * Missionaries. * Also sometimes the colonial government made the indigenous religion illegal * Eg : potlatch and sundance was made illegal ? Die to the felf harm and economic hardship is potlatch(poverty) * Colonialism lead to patriarchy The potlatch : * Feast that are hosted by a family and hosting family presents the guests with gifts * Demonstrate hospitality and redistributing wealth. Loss of language : * Colonialism language disappeared forever * 20 languages extinct * when communities died, the languages died with them * children’s were forbidden to speak their own languages â€Å"Stolen generation† Loss of Land: * Many religious and indigenous land were taken and was destroyed * Two problems that non-indigenous people had: * Very common belief, no specific belief and are mostly about practice * Religion such as Christians can pray anywhere but indigenous people had to pray at a specific site Identity : (the sympols of indeginous people in sports) * Cleveland Indians play at Atlanta braves : it’s a reminder of ongoing colonialism that has been taken from the indigenous people. * Indigenous oriented names : â€Å"eskimo pie† to market the products evoke a primitive stereotype that is best suited for the product.

Corporate governance Essay Example for Free

Corporate governance Essay Corporate governance is concerned with the structures and systems of control by which managers are held accountable to those who have a legitimate stake in an organization. It has become an increasingly important issue for organizations for three main reasons. The separation of ownership and management control of organizations (which is now the norm except with very small businesses) means that most organizations operate within a hierarchy, or chain, of governance. This chain represents those groups that influence an organization through their involvement in either ownership or management of an organization. Increased accountability to wider stakeholder interests has also come to be increasingly advocated; in particular the argument that corporations need to be more visibly accountable and/or responsive, not only to ‘owners’ and ‘managers’ in the governance chain but to wider social interest Corporate scandals since the late 1990s have increased public debate about how different parties in the governance chain should interact and influence each other. Most notable here is the relationship between shareholders and the boards of businesses, but an equivalent issue in the public sector is the relationship between government or public funding bodies and public sector organizations. As the key purpose of Corporate governance drive the benefit of shareholder of the company all members of corporate governance model responsible and accountable for driving this primary objective. 1.1 Five Golden Rules of Corporate Governance And best corporate governance practice is not simply about a battle between distant, disloyal institutional shareholders and greedy directors but about the ethos of the organization and fulfilling its clearly agreed goals. 5 golden rules of Corporate Governance of successful organization are: 1. Ethics: a clearly ethical basis to the business 2. Align Business Goals: appropriate goals, arrived at through the creation of a suitable stakeholder decision making model 3. Strategic management: an effective strategy process which incorporates stakeholder value 4. Organization: an organization suitably structured to effect good corporate governance 5. Reporting: reporting systems structured to provide transparency and accountability 2 Objectives of study Objective of this case study is to understand and critically examine flaws, failure of Corporate Governance on Satyam Computer’s strategic decisions. Also analyze what are the areas those can be influenced by proper Corporate Governance. This case also helps understanding Governments roles to tackle firms or intervene in firm’s functionality in the interest of internal and external stakeholders. Not only were there failures at the regulatory level, but also at the executive level. With no express code for corporate governance in India, the company failed to follow the industry standard best practices and as a result, collapsed. This study would be useful in identifying the different kind of failures in a family owned business like Satyam and to policy makers in designing and implementing corporate governance frameworks for professionally managed as well as family managed businesses like Satyam. This case also reveals how wrong decisions can damage entire organization and dent the image of company. This case also focuses certain legal issues related to roles and responsibilities of Chairman and other top management including critical role of independent directors of organization. This Case Study focuses laws and gaps in the Indian context. 3 Historical Evolution of the company Satyam was incorporated on June 24, 1987 as a private limited company providing software development and consulting services based out of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. Ramalinga Raju and his brother Rama Raju were the promoters of the company. Before starting Satyam these duo were involved in other businesses like construction and textiles. This company was started with 20 employees 1991, this company went in for IPO where it was oversubscribed by 17 times. Same year it could bag clients like John Deere co which is fortune 500 company. This is the first time it adopted offshoring model. 1993, Satyam formed joint ventures with clients like D B and also with GE. In 1996 Satyam started its on shore offices in US and Japan. And its first development center in New Jersey, 1998. By 1999 it had operations in 30 countries and was assessed SEI CMM Level 5, one of the very few companies to get this accreditation by then. In 2000, Satyam grew by 10000 employees and got listed in NASDAQ ( National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations) in 2001. 2004 Satyam was providing services in 45 countries with employee base of 15000. At that time Company was operating in various verticals with 18 development centers. Company crossed 1Billion revenues by 2006. Satyam’s revenues grew to 2 billion by 2008 with a net income of 417mn. Gained 186 of fortune 500 customers. Sailing in the industry with 46000 employees by March 2008 with operations across 66 countries. By September 2008 it recorded revenue of 28.19Bn. 3.1 Corporate Governance Practice at Satyam To explain the level of commitment and ethics to society it was mentioned by both inside and outside members of Satyam that on the day of Ramalinga Raju father’s cremation he attended shareholders meeting. Company’s ethics and level commitment were stressed in many annual reports. Corporate Governance was driven by its core values Associate Delight Investor Delight Customer Delight Pursuit of Excellence Company stated that† it believes that corporate governance practices provide an important framework to help the board of directors to fulfill its responsibilities† Main duties of the board were to set strategic direction to the company and leading the organization in the right direction there by ensuring long term interest of investor and other stakeholders of the company. Source: Satyam Computer Services, Report on Corporate Governance 2006-07 For independent functioning, the board comprised of both executive and non-executive members. Board also comprised several committees like Investor Grievances committee Compensation Committee Audit Committee The board was governed by code of conduct, which specified that all employees, directors needed to carry out their duties legally, honestly and ethically. It also specified all clauses that avoid any code of conflict etc.., Company’s Whistle Blower policy was also in place. According to experts though sound policies were in place none of the directors were objecting Raju’ s decisions even though they are against the interest of investor. It continued till the time when Raju was planning to acquire Maytas where the biz of Target Company was not aligning to Satyam and also those companies are promoted by Ramalinga Raju’s family members. 3.2 Role and Powers of Independent Directors (clause 49 of SEBI) SEBI had constituted a Committee on Corporate Governance under the chairmanship of N R Narayana Murthy to improve standards of corporate governance in India. SEBI introduced some major amendments based on the report on this committee on 26th August, 2003, in clause 49 of its listing agreement. Applicability of Clause 49 All companies which were required to comply with the requirement of the erstwhile clause 49 i.e. all listed entities having a paid up share capital of Rs 3 crores and above or net worth of Rs 25 crores or more at any time in the history of the entity, are required to comply with the requirement of this clause. This clause does not apply to other listed entities, which are not companies, but body corporates, incorporated under other statutes. Clause 49 will apply to these institutions as long as it does not violate their respective statutes, guidelines or directives. Clause 49 of the SEBI’s listing agreement relates to Independent Directors. Clause 49 Corporate Governance The company agrees to comply with the following provisions: I. Board of Directors (A) Composition of Board (i) The Board of directors of the company shall have an optimum combination of executive22 and non-executive23 directors with not less than fifty percent of the board of directors comprising of non-execu tive directors. (ii) Where the Chairman of the Board is a non-executive director, at least one-third of the Board should comprise of independent directors and in case he is an executive director, at least half of the Board should comprise of independent directors. (iii) For the purpose of the sub-clause (ii), the expression ‘independent director’ shall mean a non-executive director of the company who: a. Apart from receiving director‘s remuneration, does not have any material pecuniary relationships or transactions with the company, its promoters, its directors, its senior management or its holding company, its subsidiaries and associates which may affect independence of the director; b. Is not related to promoters or persons occupying management positions at the board level or at one level below the boardx` c. Has not been an executive of the company in the immediately preceding three financial years; d. Is not a partner or an executive or was not partner or an executive during the preceding three years, of any of the following: 1. The statutory audit firm or the internal audit firm that is associated with the company, and 2. The legal firm(s) and consulting firm(s) that have a material association with the company. e. Is not a material supplier, service provider or customer or a lessor or lessee of the company, which may affect independence of the director; and f. Is not a substantial shareholder of the company i.e. owning two percent or more of the block of voting shares. OTHER DEFINITIONS The Department of Company Affairs (DCA) had appointed a Committee headed by Mr. Naresh Chandra along with the distinct professionals from various fields. Apart from this, the Kumaramangalam Report also has suggestions about Independent Directors. Some definitions on Independent Directors. THE CADBURY REPORT (1992) Apart from their directors‘ fees and shareholdings, they should be independent of management and free from any business or other relationship which could materially interfere with the exercise of their independent judgmentâ€â€". THE KUMARAMANGALAM REPORT (1998) ―Independent directors are those directors who apart from receiving director‘s remuneration do not have any other material pecuniary relationship or transactions with the company, its promoters, its management or its subsidiaries, which in the judgment of the board may affect their independence of judgment THE NARESH CHANDRA REPORT (2003) Apart from receiving director‘s remuneration, does not have any other material pecuniary relationships or transactions with the company, its promoters and senior management.â€â€" It is significant to mention hear that the Naresh Chandra Committee report has opined that the recommendations made by the Kumaramangalam Committee in relation to independent directors are not precise and cannot fulfill the requirement of the independency as compared to the International best-in-class definitions and other pragmatic factors.25 An independent director is characterized by the following principle features: COMPANIES ACT, 1956 INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS Under the Companies Act,1956 the powers and duties of directors has evolved under interpretation of various Sections such as 291, 297, 299, 397, 398, 408, 629A, to name a few which have recognised and upheld directors‘ fiduciary duties to shareholders, to act with due care, skill and good faith. Sections 297 and 299, for example, are intended to eliminate possibility of conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the Act does not envisage a proper remedial regime, providing for rescission of underlying transactions, compensation for corporate and stakeholder losses, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains etc. Theoretically, some of these reliefs can be agitated for before the Company Law Board – but courts are hesitant to pass such drastic orders, in cases of such large, reputed companies ROLE OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR TOWARDS SHAREHOLDERS Corporate Governance principles all over and listing requirements assign tasks that have a potential for conflict of interest to independent directors, examples of these are integrity of financial and non-financial reporting, review of related party transactions, nomination of board members and key executives remuneration. The shareholders, especially the minority shareholders, look to independent directors providing transparency in respect of the disclosures in the working of the company as well as providing balance towards resolving conflict areas. In evaluating the board‘s or management decisions in respect of employees, creditors and other suppliers of major service providers, independent directors have a significant role in protecting the stakeholders interests. One of the mandatory requirements of audit committee is to look into the reasons for default in payments to deposit holders, debentures, non-payment of declared dividend and creditors. Further they are required to review the functioning of the ―Whistle Blower mechanismâ€â€" and related party transactions. These, essentially, safeguard the interests of the stakeholders 4 Major strategic decisions and its consequence December 16th 2008, Chairman Ramalinga Raju in a surprise move announced intent to acquire Maytas Properties and Maytas construction companies for a whopping 1.6Bn. While it is evident that these two companies are promoted by Ramalinga Raju’ s family in the industry circles it was not clear why should a IT services company focus on infra and property business. As the decisions was opposed by investors and clear indication of market fluctuation made Ramalinga Raju to revert his decision in 12 hours. Share prices plunges by 55% on concerns about Satyam’s corporate governance. In a surprise move, the World Bank announced on December 23, 2008 that Satyam has been barred from business with World Bank for eight years for providing Bank staff with â€Å"improper benefits† and charged with data theft and bribing the staff. Share prices fell another 14% to the lowest in over 4 years. The lone independent director since 1991, US academician Mangalam Srinivasan, announced resignation followed by the resignation of three more independent directors on December 28 i.e. Vinod K Dham (famously known as father of the Pentium and an ex Intel employee), M Rammohan Rao (Dean of the renowned Indian School of Business) and Krishna Palepu (professor at Harvard Business School)6. At last, on January 7, 2009, B. Ramalinga Raju announced confession of over Rs. 7800 crore financial fraud and he resigned as chairman of Satyam. A week after Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju’ s scandalous confession, Satyam’s auditors Price Waterhouse finally admitted that its audit report was wrong as it was based on wrong financial statements provided by the Satyam’s management’s On January 22, 2009, Satyam’s CFO Srinivas Vadlamani confessed to having inflated the number of employees by 10,000 Satyam share price have seen sharp decline within hours of the outburst of the incident and further deteriorated after Ramalinga Raju’s confession Source: http://akpinsight-ijcbs.webs.com 5 Implementation of strategic decision On 30th Sep 2008, Satyam reported that it had cash reserves of 1.2Bn and on December 16th company expressed intent of acquiring Maytas Properties and Maytas Constructions for 1.6Bn. While Maytas infra a public listed company operating for two decades Maytas properties s only 6 months old which declared a revenue of 7.37Bn and net profit of 370 mn. On December 16th 2008 Satyam board approved acquisition of Maytas. The cash reserve to be used by Satyam to buy 51% of equity stake in Maytas infra for 1.3Bn USD and for Maytas properties 300 mn USD. Satyam planning to acquire 31% of the holding of the Raju family in Maytas Infra and another 20% through open offer to shareholders. The promoters held 36.64% equity stake in Maytas infra . Satyam planning to pay 475 Rs per Share which was 1.25% less than closing value December 16th and open offer made at 525 rs from the existing Maytas infra shareholders. After approval from board Ramalinga Raju announced this as a strategic move to de-risk core business by bootstrapping a new business vertical. He also called out that this would de-risk the recessional impacts on the current vertical of core business. Announcement however trigger negative reaction from industry, investors and stock markets. Satyam’s stock got severe beating on December 16;.The ADR fell from 12.55 to 5.70 after this announcement . On Bombay Stock Exchange the stock fell from 226 to 158 rs. It went down further to 134 on December 24th 2008. The decision attracted lot of criticism that promoters who has only 8.74% equity stake in the company were being allowed by the board to transfer a considerable amount of money from Satyam to Maytas where Ramalinga Raju’ s family own more stake. Analysts called that this is act of siphon to move cash from Satyam into a place where Raju’ s family has more stake. Experts also called that if board is convinced with the deal then it is their responsibility to inform major investment institutions which is a good sign of proper corporate governance. Valuation of Maytas was not transparent and this was not even informed to investors in advance. Investors called this process as act of misuse of Satyam funds and it’s a nepotism. Registrar of Companies asked Satyam to submit minutes of board meeting for validity and review held on December 16th 2008. However Satyam could not provide minutes of meeting in the said deadline given by RoC. These reactions compelled Satyam to roll back the decision within 12 hours .These accusations lead to few international issues where the long battle between British Virgin Island Based Upaid system and Raju and Satyam CFO. There are three cases breach of contract, forgery filed by filed by UPaid and one disparagement filed by Satyam. On December 23 2008 World Bank announced that it will bar Satyam to take any of its contracts for next 8 years due to improper invoice and benefit to employees. It was reported that Satyam sold its preferential shares to World Bank CIO. Before Maytas controversy got over DSP-Merlynch announced that it is terminating its advisory agreement with Satyam. In its communication it said considering various strategic options it had terminated its advisory agreement also quoted that it was to their understanding that there are accounting irregularities which prompted them above decision. Analysts said that this move compelled Raju to confess as SEBI asked DSP-Merlynch asking why it had to withdraw the agreement. 6 Merits/Flaws of implementation Following are the Governance Flaws noticed in the case of Satyam computer Services Limited 6.1 Unethical Conduct It is evident that founder of the company wanted to make money any which way by avoiding taxes, cooking books , creating false payrolls and pay offs. Shareholders, employees and clients realized steady diet of (A)Satyam. He was not following the spirit behind its name. Along with his brother Rama Raju who is his also managing director of the company disguised all this from company’s board , senior managers and auditors for several years. Confession revealed the fraudulent and unethical behavior of the duo who bagged many awards and rewards for his best corporate governance including prestigious Golden Peacock award. Both CEO and CFO charged for putting self-interests ahead of company’s interests. 6.2 A case of insider trading Both central and state investigation agencies and also audit firms revealed and established that promoters indulged in the nastiest kind of insider trading of company’s shares to raise money for building large land banks. It was established that money raised by Ramalinga Raju and Rama Raju along with his relatives used to buy lands in 330 binami companies. 6.3 Case of False Books and Bogus Accounts The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), 23 a multi-disciplinary investigating arm of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, set up in 2003 with officials from various law enforcement agencies, was asked to investigate the fudging of accounts as admitted by B. Ramalinga Raju. the consent of the board was unanimously accorded after which Raju proposed the merger of MIL and MPL to the shareholders, which came in for stiff resistant, and issue of corporate governance was raised.† A couple of weeks later, Ramalinga Raju dropped a bombshell by sending a letter of admission to SEBI and the board of directors that he had fudged the accounts of Satyam and that the balance sheet as on September 30, 2008 carried an inflated (non-existent) cash and bank balances of Rs 5040 crore, non-existent interest of Rs 376 crore and understated liability of Rs 1230 crore Source: http://www.applied-corporate-governance.com/best-corporate-governance-practice.html 6.4 Lax Board The Satyam Board was composed of ‘chairman-friendly’ directors who failed to question managements strategy and use of leverage in recasting the company; they were also extremely slow to act when it was already clear that the company was in financial distress. The glue that held the board members together was Ramalinga Raju. Each of the board members were there on his personal invitation and (that) made them ineffective. The Board ignored, or failed to act on, critical information related to financial wrongdoings before the company ultimately collapsed. It was only when Ramalinga Raju in the December, 2008 announced a $1.6 billion bid for two Maytas companies i.e. Maytas Infra and Maytas Properties, and while the share market reacted very strongly against the bid and prices plunged by 55 % on concerns about Satyam’s corporate governance, that some of the independent directors came into action by announcing their withdrawal from the Board 6.5 Unconvinced Role of Independent Directors The Satyam episode has brought out the failure of the present corporate governance structure that hinges on the independent directors, who are supposed to bring objectivity to the oversight function of the board and improve its effectiveness. They serve as watchdogs over management, which involves keeping their eyes and ears open at Board deliberations with critical eye raising queries when decisions scent wrong. Stakeholders place high expectations on them but the Satyam’s case reveals such expectations are misplaced. Six of the nine directors on Satyam’s Board were independent directors including US academician Mangalam Srinivasan (the independent director since 1991), Vinod K. Dham (famously known as father of the Pentium and an ex Intel employee), M Rammohan Rao (Dean of Indian School of Business), US Raju (former director of IIT Delhi), T.R. Prasad (former Cabinet Secretary) and Krishna Palepu (professor at Harvard Business School). They were men of standing reputation. To avoid any controversy, the two founder directors did not participate in the decision making process for the reason that the provisions of the Companies Act and SEBI regulations mandate presence of only disinterested directors in board meeting where the agenda of such a nature is discussed. This naturally causes suspicion on the role performed by the independent directors present in that meeting. What concerns everyone is that those independent directors allowed themselves to be party to the mysterious designs of the promoter directors. It is hard to believe that such eminent and experienced personalities could not discover the well-planned massive fraud and manipulations. 6.6 Questionable Role of Audit Firm/Committee The true role of audit committee in prà ©cis is to ensure transparency in the company, that financial disclosures and financial statements provide a correct, sufficient and creditable picture and that, cases of frauds, irregularities, failure of internal control system within the organization, were minimized, which the committee failed to carry out. The timely action on the information supplied by 18 a whistleblower to the chairman and members of the audit committee (an e-mail dated December 18, 2008 by Jose Abraham), could serve as an SOS to the company, but, they chose to keep silent and did not report the matter to the shareholders or the regulatory authorities. The Board members on audit committee who failed to perform their duties alertly be therefore tried out under the provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (an unimaginable fine extendable to rupees 25 crore by also including imprisonment for a term, which may extent to 10 years). 6.7 Suspicious Role of Rating Agencies Credit rating agencies have been consistently accused of their lax attitude in assessing issuers and giving misleading ratings without thorough analysis, as has been the case of Enron and now in Satyam, they failed to warn market participants about the deteriorating condition of company. On December 2, 2001, Enron Corporation, the USA’s 7th largest corporation declared bankruptcy when it was rated investment grade by all the credit rating agencies even four days before its bankruptcy. None of the watchdogs barked, including the credit rating agencies, which had greater access to Enron’s books. In the case of Satyam, credit rating agencies have been heavily criticized as regards their role and for the accuracy of their ratings. The rating agencies were allowed to look into company’s books for making assessments but they never investigated the financial condition of Satyam. The rating agencies displayed lack of due diligence in their coverage and assessment of Satyam. They based their analysis on fraudulently prepared and audited financial statements and thereby failed to warn investors about Satyam’s deteriorating condition. 6.8 Questionable Role of Banks The ICAI Probe Panel has hit out at banks for not doing due diligence on Satyam Software Services Ltd before giving it loans. While sanctioning short term loans why not the banks posed any question as to why the company which was supposedly cash rich as per the financial statements was taking loans from them. The Panel wondered why the government put Deepak Parikh on its Board despite his HDFC group being a major creditor to the company. The banks that gave loans to Satyam during 2000-08 despite the company claiming huge surpluses were HDFC Bank (Rs 530 Crore, Citibank (223.87 Crore), Citicorp Finance (Rs222.28 Crore), ICICI Bank (Rs 40 Crore), and BNP Paribas (Rs 20 Crore) totaling Rs 122.161 Crore. 6.9 Fake Audit PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)’s audit firm, Price Waterhouse, was in the auditor for Satyam and have been auditing their accounts since 2000-01. The fraudulent role played by the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in the failure of Satyam matches the role played by Arthur Anderson in the collapse of Enron. S Goplakrishnan and S Talluri, partners of PwC according to the SFIO findings, had admitted they did not come across any case or instance of fraud by the company. However, Ramalinga Raju admission of having fudged the accounts for several years put the role of these statutory auditors on the dock. The SFIO report stated that the statutory auditors instead of using an independent testing mechanism used Satyam’s investigative tools and thereby compromised on reporting standards.