�౦��Ϸ����

Earlier today, the �౦��Ϸ���� Board voted on a resolution I proposed to establish an independent Board Committee to oversee the �౦��Ϸ����’s response¹ to allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, and other interpersonal misconduct.² The resolution would have ensured that management and oversight of the agency’s cultural transformation is independent of the Chairman, but unfortunately the proposal was voted down.³

It has been more than four months since an independent third-party review conducted by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (“Cleary Report”) found that “for far too many employees and for far too long, the �౦��Ϸ���� has failed to provide a workplace safe from sexual harassment, discrimination, and other interpersonal misconduct.”⁴ The Cleary Report included a section regarding allegations of misconduct against the Chairman spanning many years, and stated that “Chairman Gruenberg’s reputation raises questions about the credibility of the leadership’s response to the crisis and the ‘moral authority’ to lead a cultural transformation.”⁵ Two weeks after the Cleary Report was released, Chairman Gruenberg announced his intent to resign upon the confirmation of his successor.⁶ Four months later, Chairman Gruenberg continues to manage and oversee the day-to-day operations of the cultural transformation. 

At this point, it is time for the �౦��Ϸ���� Board to step in and establish a Board Committee, independent from the Chairman, to oversee our response to the workplace culture challenges we continue to face.  If this were a private sector company, there is no way a CEO who announced his or her intent to resign for reasons directly related to the company’s workforce culture issues would be permitted to continue to manage and oversee the company’s response to those issues for months on end.  We should hold ourselves to the same standard. 

The Board also voted on a “counterproposal” offered by Director Chopra at the direction of the Chairman⁷ that would “request” that the Transformation Monitor assess the Board’s role overseeing implementation of the Action Plan.  This does nothing to address the issue described above – the issue is the day-to-day management by the Chairman, not the higher level oversight by the Board.  The “counterproposal” is a vague, open-ended,⁸ and potentially costly⁹ attempt to distract from the actual issue.