From the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs:
- Autonomy and Resources
Stature – How has the compliance function compared with other strategic functions in the company in terms of stature, compensation levels, rank/title, reporting line, resources, and access to key decision-makers? What has been the turnover rate for compliance and relevant control function personnel? What role has compliance played in the company’s strategic and operational decisions?
Experience and Qualifications – Have the compliance and control personnel had the appropriate experience and qualifications for their roles and responsibilities?
While the DOJ’s stated position that it does not concern itself with whether the CCO reports to the General Counsel (GC) or reports independently, but it is more concerned about whether the CCO has the voice to go to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or Board of Directors directly, without going through the GC first. Even if the answer were yes, the DOJ would want to know if the CCO has ever exercised that right. Yet the Evaluation comes as close to any time previously in articulating a DOJ policy that the CCO be independent of the GC’s office. Therefore, if your CCO still reports up through the GC, you must have demonstrable evidence of both CCO independence and actual line of sight authority to the Board.
With the operationalization of compliance, the DOJ wants to know if the if business unit of a company is responsible for at least a part of compliance. Put in the manner of the Evaluation, is compliance operationalized within your organization? An interesting angle is the real problem for a CCO if compliance is not embedded into the business; that problem is that the CCO simply becomes a policeman, telling the business unit what it cannot do. Or as I would say, being Dr. No from the Land of No.
Here are some questions you should consider in evaluating this prong. First and foremost, is the CCO a part of the senior management or the C-Suite? Is the CCO part of regular meetings of this group? Who can terminate the CCO; is it was the CEO, the Audit Committee of the Board or does CCO termination require approval of the entire Board? Most importantly, could a person under investigation or even scrutiny by the CCO fire the CCO? If the answer is yes, the CCO clearly does not have requisite independence.
Additional questions to consider are (a) Who can over-rule a decision by a CCO within an organization? and (b) Who is making the decisions around salary and compensation for the CCO? Is it the CEO, the GC, the Audit Committee of the Board or some other person or group?
An evolution in thinking by the DOJ is looking at turnover rates, as this is not something the DOJ has previously focused upon. For any company which simply lays off its entire compliance function and rolls it into the legal department; how do you think that would appear to the DOJ if it came knocking to investigate a potential FCPA violation?
Also to be considered is the compensation, both in salary and benefits paid to the CCO and compliance practitioners within an organization. In the FCPA Pilot Program, under Prong 3, Remediation, the DOJ said it would consider “How a company’s compliance personnel are compensated and promoted compared to other employees”. This was carried forward in the Evaluation so you will need to consider benchmarked studies or other evidence of an appropriate level of pay for a corporate compliance function.
Finally, what resources have been made available to the compliance function. This would include both monetary budget for operationalization but also head count resources. One might hope the days have long since pasted when companies would come into the DOJ and plead the compliance function ‘only’ had $100,000; $200,000 or you name the figure in resources; to be met with the prosecutor’s question “What was your annual spend on yellow-sticky note pads?” When the inevitable response was considerably more than the entire compliance budget, the prosecutor’s response was something along the lines of “Which is more mission critical for complying with the law?”
Another evolution in the DOJ’s thinking was in experience and qualifications for the compliance function. In the Pilot Program, Prong 3 was the following, “The quality and experience of the compliance personnel such that they can understand and identify the transactions identified as posing a potential risk”. This has been broadened to “Have the compliance and control personnel had the appropriate experience and qualifications for their roles and responsibilities?”
The Evaluation demonstrates the continued evolution in the thinking of the DOJ around the CCO position and the compliance function. Their articulated inquiries can only strengthen the CCO position specifically and the compliance profession more generally. The more the DOJ talks about the independence of, coupled with resources being made available and authority concomitant with the CCO position, the more corporations will see it is directly in their interest to provide the resources, authority and gravitas to compliance position in their organizations.
Three Key Takeaways
- How can you show compliance really has a seat at the senior executive table?
- What are the professional qualifications of your CCO and compliance team?
- What are the resources made available to your compliance function?
This month’s podcast series is sponsored by Oversight Systems, Inc. Oversight’s automated transaction monitoring solution, Insights On Demand for FCPA, operationalizes your compliance program. For more information, go to OversightSystems.com.