Safe vs. Safety

Given that we recently passed the six year anniversary of 9/11, we visit the question of how safe our nation is today and our own perceptions of safety.

At the precise moment a threat is initiated, we, as a species, enter a state of heightened arousal in which our autonomic nervous system goes into a hyperactive mode. In plainer words, we prepare for fight or flight. There are many advantages to being constantly vigilant; we are able to focus on our immediate survival needs, our muscles work with superhuman strength, our senses are heightened, and our endurance surpasses that of even Lance Armstrong. However, because our bodies and minds are not meant to be tested over the long haul in this way, we grow weary. Instead, we begin to acclimate to our surroundings and our baseline settles into a new normal, leaving us in a closer to normal state of arousal, albeit with some fatigue and anxiety.

Six years after the worst attack our country has faced on our own soil, we still hear media buzz words like “war,” ”terror,” and “heightened alert,” but we don’t seem to flinch as hard, or pay attention as long. In the beginning, there was widespread panic and devastation. Today we hear that the current threat level is orange and we don’t feel anxious. We don’t feel anything at all.

Legislation has been pushed, and passed, using the keyword of safety (“It’s for the safety of our nation and for the American people…”). Over the years, however, safety has slowly transformed into safe. Two letter difference between “safe and “safety” may seem small, and yet the whole meaning has changed. Our nation has become safer in many ways, if nothing else because of increased awareness and education, and yet, we are still vulnerable. Feeling safer and being safer have slowly been morphed into the idea that we are safe. As a nation we have acclimated.

Six years after 9/11, much has changed in our nation and it is up to each of us to promote constant vigilance that is intellectual rather than emotional in our every day lives, rather than acclimating and assuming that we are safe. It is our responsibility to push ourselves and our country further, towards “prevention” and not simply “response.”

top

---

Chasing the Options

Options Backdating is the practice of granting an employee stock options dated prior to the date in which the company actually granted it. This phenomenon has had some drama and high media attention devoted to the practice and include high profile C-Level Executive such as the now deceased Kenneth Lay of Enron, Sharlene Abrams of Mercury Interactive, and Jacob “Kobi” Alexander of Comverse Technology, just to name a few.

Backdating was imposed by the SEC in 1992, though it took several years before companies were actually held accountable for their financial behaviors. As of November 17, 2006, 130 companies had been identified for backdating “errors”. Backdating:

Raises a number legal and accounting issues

May or may not be unlawful depending on the circumstances, however improper disclosure is patently illegal

Important Vocabulary:

Bullet Dodging: delaying an options grant until just after bad news

Spring Loading: timing an options grant to precede good news

Symmetric Spring Loading: members of the Board who approve the grant are aware of the forthcoming good news

Asymmetric Spring Loading: members of the Board who approve the grant are unaware of the forthcoming good news.

The important piece of this puzzle is the whistleblower, the laws surrounding Sarbanes-Oxley and other compliance initiatives, and the outcome to the loyalty of such employees. Reporting employees represented 21% of fraud detection in past years. Of those cases, 82% of the cases with named employees saw the whistle blowers alleging that they were fired, had received severely altered responsibilities within their positions, or were made to quit under duress. The goal is to better protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

top

---

Section 508, ADA Compliance

In this business of information technology, compliance is essential with regards to providing our clients with the best possible practices and standards. With our anonymous incident reporting system, we meet the web-based intranet standards under Section 508 of the ADA Compliance regulations.

This section, which was added as an amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, requires Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities, including Federal employees and members of the public accessing government information and services. Broad in scope, it requires user interface functionality in the design of electronic and information technology including hardware, software, operating systems, web-based intranet and Internet information and applications, telephone systems, video and multimedia products and self-contained products such as fax machines, copiers, hand-helds, and kiosks.

The act was created as an attempt to eliminate barriers and to create new opportunities for disabled individuals. This section has been the cause for some confusion as the difference between being compliant with legal provisions and meeting the standards for technical compliance are two separate issues. Legal compliance is addressed through the idea of market research and governmental procedures, but technical compliance is also a factor, as to whether or not a product meets the accessibility standards put in place by the Access Board.

Since Section 508 only applies to Federal agencies, private sector agencies are not required to adhere to this standard unless they are receiving federal funds, or are under contract with a federal agency. This being said, commercial practices provide voluntary standards that strongly suggest these private companies follow best practice guidelines, in order to maintain the most ethical standards possible.

---

LEARN MORE > > >