MR - Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics

Volume Four 

Number Five 

October 2007 

Bimonthly 

Join SCCE! 

Are you a member of a 

professional compliance 

and ethics organization 

See pages 26–27 

Meet Joe Murphy 

Benefactor of 

The SCCE 

Compliance & 

Ethics Library

SCCE Advisory Board 

Urton Anderson 

Associate Dean for 

Undergraduate Programs 

and Clark W. Thompson 

Jr. Prof. of Accounting Ed. 

at the McCombs School 

of Business, University of 

Texas at Austin 

Marjorie Doyle 

Former Chief Ethics and 

Compliance Officer, 

Dupont 

Former Executive Vice 

President and Chief 

Ethics & Compliance 

Officer, Vetco 

Charles Elson 

Director of the 

John L. Weinberg 

Center for Corporate 

Governance and Edgar 

S. Woolard, Jr. Chair in 

Corporate Governance, 

University of Delaware 

Odell Guyton 

Senior Counsel and 

Director of Compliance, 

Microsoft Corporation 


Co-Chair 

Keith Halleland 

Ex-officio Advisory 

Board Member 

Founding partner of 

Halleland Lewis 

Nilan & Johnson, PA 

Gary Hill 

Vice President, 

Chief Ethics Officer, 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

Michael Horowitz 

Litigation partner, member 

of the Business Fraud 

and Complex Litigation 

Group, Cadwalader, 

Wickersham & Taft LLP, 

and Commissioner, U.S. 

Sentencing Commission 

Shin Jae Kim Hong 

Partner, 

Tozzini Freire Advogados 

São Paulo, Brasil 

Michael 

LaFontaine 

Chief Compliance Officer, 

U.S. Bancorp 

Sean Martin 

Vice President, 

Commercial Law, 

Amgen 

Shelley Milano 

Senior Vice President, 

General Counsel, Secretary, 

Eddie Bauer 

Joseph E. Murphy 

Co-Founder, 

Integrity Interactive 

Co-Editor, ethikos 

F. Lisa Murtha 

Managing Director, 

Huron Consulting 

Group 

James G. Sheehan 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, 

PA since 1980; 

Chief of the Civil 

Division since 1986; 

Associate U.S. Attorney 

since 2003 

Dennis Muse 

Chief Executive Officer, 

Global Compliance 

Leonard Shen 

Senior Vice President– 

Chief Ethics and 

Compliance Officer, 

American Express 

Mollie Painter- 

Morland 

DePaul University Associate 

Director, The Institute for 

Business and Professional 

Ethics; Director, Center for 

Business and Professional 

Ethics, University of 

Pretoria, South Africa 

Roy Snell 

CEO, Society of 

Corporate Compliance 

and Ethics 

Daniel Roach 

Vice President 

Compliance & Audit, 

Catholic Healthcare 

West 


Co-Chair 

Debbie Troklus 

Assistant Vice President, 

Health Affairs/ 

Compliance, University 

of Louisville Health 

Sciences Center 

Sheryl Vacca 

Practice Leader, Health 

Care & Life Science 

Regulatory Practice 

Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Cheryl 

Wagonhurst 

Partner, Foley & 

Lardner LLP, 

LA office, Regulated 

Industries Team 

Rebecca Walker 

Partner, 

Kaplan & Walker LLP 

Twenty-four professionals representing a broad range of industries make up this board. 

The level of diverse experience and professional accomplishment is impressive. These industry leaders are 

enthusiastic and poised to lead the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics into the future. 

SCCE promotes the compliance profession by offering valuable programs and tools to enhance knowledge and 

expertise in the compliance and ethics field. 

We are very excited to have such a diverse and experienced group of people leading this organization. 

Roy Snell, CEO

INSIDE 

Advisory Board 

Publisher: 

Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics, 888-277-4977 

Editor-in-Chief: 

Rory Jaffe, MD, MBA 

Executive Director of Medical Services for the University of 

California; Board Member, Health Care Compliance Assocation 

Executive Editor: 

Roy Snell, CEO, SCCE 

roy.snell@corporatecompliance.org 

Advisory Board: 

Charles Elson, 

Edgar S. Woolard, Jr. Chair in Corporate Governance, Director of the 

John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at University of 

Delaware. 

Jay Cohen 

Global Compliance Leader, Dun & Bradstreet 

John Dienhart, Ph.D 

The Frank Shrontz Chair for Business Ethics, Seattle University; 

Director, Northwest Ethics Network; Director, Albers Business Ethics 

Initiative; Fellow, Ethics Resource Center 

Odell Guyton, JD 

Senior Corporate Attorney, Director of Compliance, 

U.S. Legal–Finance & Operations, Microsoft Corporation 

Rick Kulevich, JD 

Senior Director, Ethics and Compliance, CDW Corporation 

Steve LeFar 

President, MediRegs; Board Member, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation 

Stephen A. Morreale, DPA, CHC 

Principal, Compliance and Risk Dynamics 

Marcia Narine, JD 

Vice President Global Compliance and Business Standards, 

Deputy General Counsel, Ryder System, Inc. 

Ann L. Straw, Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer, 

Laidlaw International, Inc. 

José A. Tabuena, JD, CFE, CHC 

Center for Corporate Governance, Deloitte & Touche USA LLP 

Greg Triguba, JD 

ERM, Ethics and Compliance Officer, Intuit 

Story Editor/Advertising: 

Marlene Robinson, SCCE, 888-277-4977 

marlene.robinson@corporatecompliance.org 

Copy Editor: 

Patricia Mees, SCCE, 888-277-4977 

patricia.mees@corporatecompliance.org 

Layout: 

Mitch Houle, SCCE, 888-277-4977 

mitch.houle@corporatecompliance.org 

Compliance & Ethics (C&E) (ISSN 1523-8466) is published by the Society of Corporate 

Compliance and Ethics (SCCE), 6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250, Minneapolis, MN 55435. 

Subscription rate is $195 a year for non-members. Periodicals postage-paid at Minneapolis, 

MN 55436. Postmaster: Send address changes to Compliance & Ethics, 6500 Barrie Road, 

Suite 250, Minneapolis, MN 55435. Copyright © 2007 the Society of Corporate Compliance 

and Ethics. All rights reserved. Printed in the USA. Except where specifically encouraged, 

no part of this publication may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without prior 

written consent of the SCCE. For subscription information and advertising rates, call SCCE 

at 888-277-4977. Send press releases to SCCE C&E Press Releases Department, 6500 Barrie 

Road, Suite 250, Minneapolis, MN 55435. Opinions expressed are those of the writers and 

not of this publication or SCCE. Mention of products and services does not constitute 

endorsement. Neither SCCE nor C&E is engaged in rendering legal or other professional 

services. If such assistance is needed, readers should consult professional counsel or other 

professional advisors for specific legal or ethical questions. 

4 Designing a compliance program for the small- to 

medium-sized private company — by Art Weiss 

Company size is not a determining factor for noncompliance. 

Will your compliance program keep you out of trouble 

6 Conducting FCRA-compliant employment 

screening — by Mary Poquette 

Proper use of investigative consumer reports and eight core principles 

will help you comply with employment screening regulations. 

9 Frankly Speaking — by Frank J. Daly 

What good political campaigns and effective compliance 

programs have in common. 

11 A training workshop that integrates ethics and compliance 

— by John Dienhart 

Decision making based on the alignment of four ethical 

dimensions creates a valuable lesson that attendees will remember. 

17 Letter from the CEO — by Roy Snell 

The government sends a message about conflict of interest when 

the General Counsel is also the Chief Compliance Officer 

18 Meet Joe Murphy—interviewed by Marlene Robinson 

Learn more about the man who donated a library to SCCE. 

21 Retaliation — by D. Jan Duffy 

Adverse action and revenge can have serious consequences. 

Here are 17 tips to keep you out of hot water. 

24 Compliance professionals help Habitat for Humanity in 

New Orleans — by Gary Devaan 

SCCE members demonstrated once again that they are willing 

to go to great lengths – and heights – to help those in need. 

34 Compliance & Ethics Institute Recap 

A look at the 2007 CEI in New Orleans 

36 The Code of Ethics for Compliance and Ethics 

Professionals — by Rebecca Walker and Joe Murphyy 

Six members of the SCCE Advisory Board based the new 

Code on sound principles and rules. 

42 Compliance On Screen — by Theodore L. Banks 

and Gene Stavrou 

Building a compliance dashboard: a summary of the 

presentation given at CEI in New Orleans 

48 SCCE New Members 

50 SCCE Corporate Members 

Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics • +1 952 933 4977 or 888 277 4977 • www.corporatecompliance.org 

October 2007 

3

Designing a compliance 

program for the 

small- to medium-sized 

private company 

By Art Weiss 

Editor’s Note: Art Weiss is Chief Compliance and 

Ethics Officer for Tamko Building Products, Inc. 

in Joplin, Missouri. Art joined Tamko after six 

years as Senior Counsel for the Sears, Roebuck 

Co. Law Department. He served as Assistant 

Attorney General for the state of Texas and Missouri. 

Art lead the Consumer Protection Division 

of the Kansas Attorney General’s Office where he 

received the Marvin Award from the National 

Association of Attorneys General for his demonstrated 

leadership, expertise, and achievement. He 

may be contacted at: art_weiss@tamko.com. 

Why do you care 

If you work for a privately held small 

or medium-sized company, you most 

likely breathed a sigh of relief when 

Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted five years ago, 

but don’t hold your breath too long. The 

Federal Sentencing Guidelines still apply 

to you. And the U.S. Justice Department is 

just as interested in detecting and preventing 

violations of law in your company, as 

they are in the Fortune 500 Company down 

the street that is feverishly going over its 

stock option grant procedures. 

Justice Department attorneys were instructed 

in 2003 to not overlook any individuals when 

prosecuting criminal acts by corporations. U.S. 

Attorneys were told in the so-called Thompson 

memo that “…imposition of individual 

criminal liability may provide the strongest 

deterrent against future corporate wrongdoing.” 

Individuals targeted for prosecution 

might include a salesperson who suggested to 

his counterpart at a competitor that they could 

both make more money if they agreed not to 

discount their prices for the next six months; 

the plant foreman who told an employee to 

dump a barrel of hazardous waste in the field 

behind the warehouse; the accountant who 

inflated his company’s net worth just a bit in 

order to qualify for a much needed loan; or the 

board member who was tipped off about these 

issues and took no action. 

The decision to create a compliance program 

should be an easy one. The Federal Sentencing 

Guidelines and their amendments provide that 

an “effective compliance program” may mitigate 

punishment by either reducing the offender’s culpability 

score, or avoiding prosecution altogether. 

The same memo that instructed U.S. Attorneys 

to consider prosecuting individuals, also set forth 

factors to consider when determining whether 

to prosecute a corporation. Prosecutors were 

instructed to apply the same factors in either situation. 

One of the most prominent factors in the 

decision to prosecute is whether the corporation 

has an effective compliance program. 

Now that you have decided to create a compliance 

program, you must make sure it meets the 

minimum requirements set forth in the enactment 

of the Sentencing Guidelines in 1991. 

Your program must establish standards and 

procedures that prevent and detect violations 

of law. Such standards and procedures should 

include promoting an organizational culture 

that encourages ethical conduct and compliance 

with the law; ensuring that the corporation’s 

governing body is knowledgeable about the 

compliance program and exercises oversight; 

ART F WEISS 

appointing a qualified individual, with adequate 

resources, appropriate authority, and direct 

access to upper management to oversee the 

program; training high-level personnel in the 

workings of the program; monitoring and auditing 

the program to ensure it is able to detect 

criminal conduct; periodically evaluating the 

program’s effectiveness; periodically assessing the 

risk of criminal conduct and taking appropriate 

steps to reduce that risk; maintaining a system 

that allows for confidential and anonymous 

reporting of suspected violations without fear 

of retaliation; promoting and enforcing the 

program through appropriate incentives; and 

taking appropriate disciplinary and corrective 

action when criminal conduct is discovered. 

Your program should not stop there; the 2004 

amendments to the Guidelines also require that 

corporations go beyond just preventing and 

detecting violations of law. You must also promote 

a business culture that encourages ethical conduct 

and a commitment to compliance with the law. 

You must also periodically train your governing 

body and upper management so that they are 

knowledgeable about the content and operation of 

your compliance and ethics program. 

How are you going to do all of this 

One of the first things you should do when 

establishing a compliance program is to 

perform a risk analysis. Based upon how your 

October 2007 

4 

Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics • +1 952 933 4977 or 888 277 4977 • www.corporatecompliance.org

company conducts business, ask yourself 

what legal and ethical risks you face. For a 

manufacturing company, you would probably 

identify environmental and safety issues. 

If you sell a product, you should identify 

antitrust. There are areas that every company 

faces, such as discrimination, harassment, and 

fraud. Whatever risks your company faces, 

you must identify and prioritize them. You 

will never be able to totally eliminate every 

risk, so start with those that are the most serious 

and the most likely to occur. 

Assemble your legal department and the 

business units together to establish processes 

in addressing and reducing those risks which 

you have identified. You will probably want 

to create training programs, as well as business 

policies and procedures. You will also 

need to develop an audit process to measure 

the program’s effectiveness. Once you have 

accomplished this, you are well on your way 

to creating a compliance program that will 

detect and prevent violations of law. 

At the same time, you should begin to work 

with your governing body and upper management 

to set forth the ethical philosophy that you 

want your employees to follow. Many prosecutors 

consider the “tone at the top.” Set out the 

type of conduct that you expect and demand 

from your employees. Lay out management’s expectations. 

Develop a set of rules and principles. 

These simple philosophies will be the basis for 

your company’s Code of Ethics. 

How do I prove my program’s 

effectiveness 

This is not an easy task. A benefit of having 

a compliance program is avoiding prosecution 

altogether by demonstrating that you 

have an effective program. Unfortunately, 

prosecutors have not readily disclosed what 

they think constitutes an “effective” compliance 

program. The statistics reported by the 

Department of Justice to the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission only deal with sentencing. 

Early versions of many corporate compliance 

programs read like the Sentencing Guidelines 

themselves, merely turning guideline 

language into statements of what the corporation 

would and would not do. Your message 

must be more thoughtful and comprehensive. 

There may come a day when you need to 

demonstrate that your compliance program 

is “effective.” At this point, it should be clear 

that you need more than a “check the box” 

compliance program. 

For example, it is not enough that your 

Code of Ethics says harassment will not be 

tolerated. You must also train your employees 

to recognize and avoid harassment. A “check 

the box” program might include sending out 

a statement that your company prohibits harassment, 

or having your employees watch a 

video of someone reading the policy and then 

sign and return an acknowledgment. 

An “effective” program might include live 

scenario-based interactive training conducted by 

the compliance staff. If you test your employees’ 

knowledge of the subject before and after the 

training, you should be able to demonstrate 

a measurable increase in their knowledge of 

the policy. Also, by having a member of the 

compliance staff conduct the training, you 

demonstrate management’s commitment to the 

policy. Provide the opportunity for feedback 

and questions during the training, and a means 

to test the employees’ knowledge both before 

and after. All of these combined will help you 

develop trusting relationships with employees. 

The Sentencing Guidelines also require 

that you periodically evaluate the program’s 

effectiveness. To follow this requirement, 

survey your employees. Ask them to rate their 

knowledge of your Code of Ethics. Ask your 

employees if they know what is expected of 

them. Ask if they know how to report a violation, 

or if they know that they are protected 

from retaliation. Do they believe that the 

rules apply to everyone in the company, from 

the board of directors to outside contractors 

The answers to these types of questions will 

not only help you direct your compliance 

efforts, but can play a vital role in the risk 

assessment required by the Guidelines. 

Some tips to make your compliance 

program “effective” 

n Make your Code of Ethics a guide for 

your employees rather than a restatement 

of the law. 

n Have a regularly scheduled meeting with 

your CEO or governing body. Use 

this time to discuss elements of your compliance 

program. 

n Meet periodically with your company’s 

general counsel. Many of the things you 

do as part of your compliance program 

have legal consequences. Check to see if 

those things are helping to reduce risk. 

n Prepare and deliver an annual compliance 

report to senior management and the governing 

body. They are required to remain 

informed and to monitor the program. 

n Collect and analyze data from training, 

employee surveys, hotline reports and 

disciplinary actions. 

n Deliver your compliance message at every 

opportunity. The message should be featured 

in the company newsletter, e-mails, posters, 

speeches and Intranet. Use every communication 

medium available to deliver the 

message that your company is committed to 

obeying the law and acting ethically. 

n Never be satisfied. When you think you have 

everything you need in place, go back and see 

how you can improve upon your program. 

Continued on page 9 


October 2007 

5

Conducting 

FCRA-compliant employment 

screening 

By: Mary Poquette, CIPP 

Editor’s note: Mary Poquette is Chief Compliance 

Officer for Verifications, Inc. in Minneapolis. 

Mary is on the Board of Directors of 

the National Association of the Professional 

Background Screeners, a member and former 

Chair of the Minnesota Chapter of ASIS International 

(formerly the American Society for 

Industrial Security), and a former member of 

the Security Advisory Panel for the Minnesota 

Commissioner of Public Safety and Homeland 

Security. Mary may be reached by e-mail at 

mary.poquette@verficationsinc.com. 

This article is a follow-up to “Compliance 

and Ethics – A Function of People,” which 

appeared in the August 2007 issue of this 

publication. The premise of the first article 

was that people are responsible for compliance 

and ethics within an organization and 

that the mere existence of a policy or program 

does not result in an ethical enterprise. As a 

result, employees must be selected carefully 

and screened appropriately. 

An effective screening program is a 

critical element of employee selection, 

retention, and promotion. It helps 

ensure candidate qualifications and experience 

meet position requirements. Further it helps 

ensure that individuals whose actions may reflect 

negatively upon the organization do not become 

part of the organization. 

international locations. These employers must 

be cognizant of and compliant with international 

privacy and data transfer requirements 

when handling candidate and employee 

data. From a broad perspective, state, federal, 

and international requirements are strikingly 

similar in principle. The laws and regulations 

supporting these similar principles, however, 

are significantly different. The primary focus 

of this article is the US federal Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et 

seq. and its compliance requirements. 

FCRA is the over-arching US federal law 

which governs background screening for 

employment purposes. FCRA1 uses the 

following terms: 

n Consumer report – another name for a 

background report or background check. 

n Investigative consumer report – another 

type of a background report or background 

check. 

n Consumer – the person who is the subject 

of the background report and is seeking 

employment or continued employment. 

n Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) – the 

background screening company that 

prepares the consumer report and provides 

it to the employer. 

n User of consumer reports – the employer 

who has ordered a consumer report for use 

in an employment decision. 

Mary Poquette 

reports and investigative consumer reports. 

Contrary to its name, the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act applies to all consumer 

reports, not just those which contain credit 

information. It also applies to consumer 

reports which are comprised entirely of public 

record information. Under the FCRA, a 

“consumer report” is: 

…any written, oral, or other communication 

of any information by a consumer reporting 

agency bearing on a consumer’s credit 

worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, 

character, general reputation, personal 

characteristics, or mode of living which is 

used or expected to be used or collected in 

whole or in part for the purpose of serving 

as a factor in establishing the consumer’s 

eligibility for 

(A) credit or insurance to be used 

primarily for personal, family, or 

household purposes; 

(B) employment purposes; or 

(C) any other purpose authorized 

under section 604 [§ 1681b].2 

An employment screening program must 

comply with federal and state laws and 

regulations. Further, a growing numbers of 

companies are considering candidates with 

experience outside the U.S or are expanding 

a domestic screening program to include 

Other federal laws and regulations, such as 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), 

impact the employment process and must 

be accommodated. FCRA, however, governs 

the actual procurement and use of consumer 

The phrase, “by a consumer reporting agency,” 

in the definition above is an important qualifier. 

This means that if an employer obtained 

information directly from an information 

source, such as a previous employer or county 

courthouse and did not use a CRA, the in- 

October 2007 

6 


formation would not constitute a “consumer 

report” under the FCRA. 3 It is the introduction 

of a third party (the consumer reporting 

agency) to the employment process and that 

third party providing information about the 

consumer that creates a “consumer report.” 

Contrary to its name, 

the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act applies 

to all consumer reports, 

not just those which 

contain credit 

information. 

Under FCRA, the distinction between a 

“consumer report” and an “investigative 

consumer report” is based largely on the 

method used to obtain information. A 

consumer report becomes an investigative 

consumer report when some of the information 

in the report is obtained “… through 

personal interviews with neighbors, friends, 

or associates of the consumer…” 4 As a 

practical application, when a CRA inquires 

about a candidate’s dates of employment, 

a consumer report is being created. If the 

CRA asks and receives information about the 

quality of candidate’s performance, the report 

becomes an “investigative consumer report” 

because of the personal interview. 5 Under the 

FCRA, investigative consumer reports have 

more stringent requirements than consumer 

reports. (For purposes of consistency and 

simplicity, employers may wish to handle all 

reports as “investigative.”) 

Core Requirements for Users of 

Consumer Reports 

OFCRA defines specific requirements for 

employers who use consumer reports and 

investigative consumer reports as part of 

their employee selection process. With the 

objective of consumer protection, the FCRA 

includes the following requirements: 

1. Disclosure. The FCRA does not provide 

any specific language for a disclosure. 

Rather, it requires the employer make 

a clear and conspicuous disclosure in 

writing to the consumer and to advise the 

consumer that a consumer report may 

be obtained for employment purposes. 6 

This disclosure may be combined with the 

authorization, but other than that single 

exception, the disclosure must be in a document 

consisting “solely of the disclosure.” 7 

In practical terms, the disclosure may not be 

imbedded in an employment application, 

be co-mingled with corporate policies, or be 

presented in any manner which is not clear, 

conspicuous, and separate. 

2. Authorization. The consumer must 

authorize in writing 8 the procurement of 

a consumer report by the employer before 

the consumer report is procured. As a 

standard practice, the authorization should 

enumerate the types of background checks 

which will be conducted (academic, 

employment, criminal, etc.) and name the 

authorized employer and the consumer 

reporting agency. As with the disclosure, 

no specific language is required by FCRA. 

3. Adverse Action. Before taking any adverse 

action based in whole or part upon information 

in a consumer report, the employer 

considering the adverse action must: 

A. Provide to the consumer who is the 

subject of the report: 

i. A copy of the report. 

ii. A Summary of Your Rights 

under the Fair Credit Reporting 

Act, as authored by the 

US Federal Trade Commission 

and released November 

19, 2004. 

iii. Although not required, it is 

recommended that a written 

notice be provided informing 

the consumer that adverse 

action is being considered 

and providing directions to 

the consumer as to how they 

may dispute information in 

the report. 

B. Delay a final employment decision 

until the consumer has had the opportunity 

to dispute information in 

the consumer report. This includes 

not filling the open position with 

another candidate. 

C. If the final employment decision 

is negative, send the consumer a 

written notice of adverse action and 

include specific instructions as to the 

consumer’s ongoing rights. 

4. Applicable Law. The employer must not 

violate any applicable federal or state equal 

employment opportunity law or regulation. 

The four requirements detailed above are 

considered so important within FCRA that 

consumer reporting agencies are required to 

obtain a signed certification from the employer 

stating that the employer will comply 

with these FCRA requirements: 

§ 604(b)(1): Certification from user. 

A consumer reporting agency may 

furnish a consumer report for employment 

purposes only if 

(A) the person who obtains such report 

from the agency certifies [emphasis 

added] to the agency that … 

The FCRA does not provide a specific length 



October 2007 

7

Conducting FCRA-compliant employment screening: ...continued from page 7 

of time which must be provided for an applicant 

to dispute information in the consumer 

report prior to final adverse action being 

taken. The FTC, however, has suggested five 

business days as reasonable. 

The Importance of Adverse Action 

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is 

the federal entity responsible for the enforcement 

of FCRA. Following FCRA amendments 

in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, the 

FTC issued opinion letters to help consumer 

reporting agencies and others understand 

FCRA requirements. Among the most 

frequently addressed topics was that of “adverse 

action.” Adverse action means that an employer, 

before taking a negative employment action 

(i.e., not hiring, not retaining, or not promoting) 

based in whole or part on information in 

a consumer report, must give the consumer 

the opportunity to dispute the information in 

the consumer report before filling the position 

with another candidate. 

The FTC has vigorously protected the concept 

of “adverse action” and in a June 27, 1997 

letter to Eric J. Weisberg wrote: “The disputed 

rights are among the most important the 

FCRA gives consumers…” The FTC further 

emphasized the importance of adverse action 

by filing a complaint against Imperial Palace 

Casino and Imperial Palace of Mississippi in 

which the FTC alleged the casinos had not followed 

proper adverse action procedures. The 

defendants agreed to pay $325,000 in civil 

penalties and were barred from future FCRA 

violations. 10 Whether an employer chooses to 

outsource an adverse action to their consumer 

reporting agency or handle it internally, the 

importance of documented proper adverse 

action cannot be overly emphasized. 

A Global View 

Many employers are procuring consumer 

reports which contain information from 

sources outside the U.S., a practice which 

continues to be more common. Additionally, 

many employers are “going global” with their 

screening programs. In doing so, employers 

and their CRA partners must ensure that 

consumer’s personal information is properly 

protected in all phases of use, international 

transmission, retention, and destruction. 

Privacy and data protection laws vary by global 

region and country. In fact, many countries, 

particularly those in the European Union, take 

a much broader view of privacy rights and go to 

greater lengths to protect personal information 

than the U.S. Prior to embarking on an effort to 

collect information from sources outside the U.S., 

employers would be well advised to familiarize 

themselves with the local privacy laws, because they 

can restrict the types of information available to 

the employer, may limit the use of that information, 

and may require that the employer provide 

certain assurances (and assume certain liabilities) 

regarding the security of the information in advance 

of receiving it. Commonality exists in privacy 

principles around the world. The foundation of 

many of these principles was first detailed by the 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OCED) in their 1980 “Guidelines 

on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows 

of Personal Data.” The OCED recognized eight 

core principles: 11 

1. Collection Limitation Principle: 

Limits should be established for the 

collection of personal data and any 

such data should be obtained by lawful 

and fair means and, where appropriate, 

with the knowledge or consent 

of the data subject. 

2. Data Quality Principle: Personal 

data should be relevant to the purposes 

for which they are to be used 

and, to the extent necessary for those 

purposes, should be accurate, complete 

and kept up-to-date. 

3. Purpose Specification Principle: The 

purposes for which personal data are 

collected should be specified not later 

than at the time of data collection 

and the subsequent use limited to the 

fulfillment of those purposes or such 

others as are not incompatible with 

those purposes and as are specified on 

each occasion of change of purpose. 

4. Use Limitation Principle: Personal 

data should not be disclosed, made 

available, or otherwise used for 

purposes other than those specified in 

accordance with Paragraph 9 [Purpose 

specification principle] except: a) with 

the consent of the data subject; or b) 

by the authority of law. 

5. Security Safeguards Principle: 

Personal data should be protected by 

reasonable security safeguards against 

such risks as loss or unauthorised access, 

destruction, use, modification, or 

disclosure of data. 

6. Openness Principle: A general policy 

of openness about developments, 

practices, and policies with respect to 

personal data should be established. 

Means should be readily available to 

establish the existence and nature of 

personal data, and the main purposes 

of their use, as well as the identity and 

usual residence of the data controller. 

7. Individual Participation Principle: 

An individual should have the right to: 

a) Obtain from a data controller or otherwise 

confirm whether or not the data 

controller has data relating to him; 

b) Have communicated to him, data 

relating to him 

n within a reasonable time; 

n at a charge, if any, that is not excessive; 

n in a reasonable manner; and 

n in a form that is readily intelligible to 

him; 

c) Be given reasons if a request, made under 

subparagraphs(a) and (b), is denied 

October 2007 

8 


and to be able to challenge such denial; and 

d) Challenge data relating to him and, if 

the challenge is successful, to have the 

data erased, rectified, completed, or 

amended. 

8. Accountability Principle: A data controller 

should be accountable for complying 

with measures which give effect to the 

principles stated above. 

These principles are reflected in the FCRA, 

FCRA State Analogues, and in countryspecific 

data privacy laws around the globe. 

Compliance and ethics professionals are encouraged 

to ensure these principles are reflected 

in their own organizations and that screening 

programs are fully compliant with FCRA 

requirements and all applicable law. n 

References 

1. Many US States have their own version of the FCRA and other employment 

laws which require compliance. Further, employers in regulated 

industries (financial services, healthcare, education, etc.) must also 

comply with industry-specific laws and regulations. A discussion of state 

and industry requirements is beyond the scope of this article. 

2. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc. 

pdf, page 3. 

3. The State of California does not consistently provide this exception in 

their consumer reporting law. 

4. FCRA, page 5 

5. The California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act 

(ICRAA) defines all consumer reports as “investigative consumer 

reports.” 

6. Disclosures do not have to be presented in written form for positions 

regulated by the US Secretary of Transportation. 

7. FCRA, page 14. 

8. Written authorizations are not required for positions regulated by the 

US Secretary of Transportation. 

9. FCRA, page 14. 

10. FTC Press Release, “Job Applicants Not Informed of Their Rights under 

Federal Credit Law, FTC Alleges.” http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/07/imperial.shtm, 

July 14, 2004. 

11. OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows 

of Personal Data; September 23, 1980. Available at http://www.oecd. 

org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html 

Designing a Compliance Program: 

...continued from page 5 

In Summary 

Don’t take a cookie cutter approach to 

creating your compliance program. Don’t 

find one you like and change the company 

name. The legal risks your company faces are 

different than those facing other companies. 

The way you do business and your company 

culture are also different. Create your compliance 

program around your philosophy 

and the specific legal risks you face. Teach 

your employees how to avoid violating the 

law, and show them, by example, that you 

are serious about ethics.n 

Call for Authors 

Compliance & Ethics 

The Society of Corporate 

Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) 

is seeking authors for upcoming 

issues of Compliance & Ethics. 

We welcome all who wish to 

propose corporate compliance– 

related topics and write articles. 

Topics to consider: 

• Acquisitions, mergers, RFP, insurance, 

incorporating 

compliance review in 

processes 

• Compliance training—senior 

management versus nonmanagement 

• Security 

• Investigations—attorney 

privileges 

• Evaluation of software and 

technology relevant to 

compliance 

• Professional liability, audit, 

accounting 

• Education/communication/ 

marketing 

• Enterprise risk management— 

risk-based assessments 

• Articles addressing “hot” 

compliance issues in 

your profession 

Articles, when the topic allows, 

should include “how to” tips. 

Articles generally run between 

l,250 and 2,500 words. 

Anyone interested in submitting 

an article for publication in 

Compliance & Ethics please 

Contact Marlene Robinson 

marlene.robinson@ 

corporatecompliance.org 

(888) 277-4977 


October 2007 

9

FRANKLY SPEAKING 

by Frank J. Daly 

Editor’s Note: Frank Daly has been 

involved in the business ethics movement 

for almost 20 years. He directed the ethics 

program on a number of levels for a $30 

billion Fortune 500 corporation since 

the program’s inception in 1986. From 

1996 to his retirement in 2004, Frank 

was the corporate ethics officer responsible 

for planning, directing, and executing 

the compliance program for the company’s 

125,000 employees. He wrote the chapter 

entitled “An Ethics Officer’s Perspective” in 

volume 2 of The Accountable Corporation, 

edited by Mark J. Epstein and Kirk 

O. Hanson. Frank can be contacted at 

fdaly@netzero.com. 

Americans this year seem to be tiring 

of the presidential campaign because it 

has started so early. Be that as it may, I 

think we in the ethics field have much 

to learn, especially in the area of communication, 

from political campaigns. 

In fact, I think that the “campaign” 

model is more apt for our purposes than 

the “classroom” model. While an annual 

ethics training session may satisfy regulators 

and even be considered a “best 

practice” by some, constantly campaigning 

on the issue has the potential to 

reinforce the culture. Let me share a few 

examples. 

Developing a core message that is used 

consistently and identifies the candidate’s 

approach to governing and the 

issues is critical. Often, a campaign fails 

because it has not developed a core message 

and thus, loses focus. Similarly, the 

development of a values statement that 

turns up again and again in the many 

processes and communications of an organization 

offers focus and direction for 

employees. A consensus develops, the 

message is clear, and there is widespread 

understanding that this is the way we 

do things here. An ethical identity is 

established. 

Of course, it is critical to “stay on 

message.” The candidate’s message 

and persona gets fuzzy if and when 

the campaign strays from the message, 

or the candidate’s behavior or public 

statements are at odds with it. Likewise, 

when the actions or words–especially 

of management–are in conflict with the 

values statement, the result is reluctance 

on the part of employees to buy in, 

leading to a dysfunctional organization. 

A successful campaign will not only stay 

on message but will also use every means 

available to get that message out. This is 

where I think the parallel with an ethics 

and values message is most apt. 

Required one hour annual training, 

whether in a classroom setting or at a 

computer, is of limited value to an audience 

that is used to getting information 

in many different ways. An obligatory, 

discrete, fixed-time session can easily 

be lost to the memory as just another 

meeting. A campaign approach, however, 

will include fixed-time sessions as 

just one vehicle. It will also use pamphlets, 

posters, calendars, e-mails and 

other available technologies, executive 

messages, videos, staff meetings, allhands 

meetings, leadership and employee 

development sessions—all of these 

and more-as opportunities to reinforce 

the message. 

One especially useful method is “piggybacking.” 

Company auditors meet, 

HR people meet, procurement folks 

meet, lawyers meet, senior leaders 

meet, and the board meets. Getting 

on the agenda for these meetings is 

an opportunity to address not only 

particular concerns, but to reinforce 

the ethics and values mess age. 

Frankly, “training” and its tie to once 

a year ought to give way to the wider 

concepts of “communication” and 

“education.” The message will “pop up” 

frequently and in many different settings, 

thus reinforcing the driving values 

of the culture again and again. 

Watch the candidates; rate them on 

consistency of message and effectiveness 

of communication. You may be able to 

pick the winner.n 


Advertising Rates 

Full page B/W insertion rates: 

1–2 $640 

3 $490 

4 $405 

Half page B/W insertion rates: 

1–2 $450 

3 $355 

4 $305 

Quarter page B/W insertion rates: 

1–2 $265 

3 $225 

4 $215 

Full page 2 color insertion rates: 

1–2 $1,075 

3 $925 

4 $840 

Half page 2 color insertion rates: 

1–2 $885 

3 $790 

4 $740 

Quarter page 2 color insertion rates: 

1–2 $700 

3 $660 

4 $650 

October 2007 

10 


A training 

workshop that 

integrates ethics 

and compliance 

Editor’s Note: John Dienhart is the 

Frank Shrontz Chair for Business Ethics 

and Professor of Management at Seattle 

University; Director of the Northwest 

Ethics Network, an independent group 

of ethics and compliance officers from 

business, non-profit and governmental 

sectors; Director of Albers Business 

Ethics Initiative, a three-year program to 

promote ethics in organizations; and a 

Fellow of the Ethics Resources Center in 

Washington DC. He is on the Advisory 

Board for the Seattle Chapter of the 

National Chapter of the Association of 

Corporate Directors and does corporate 

ethics training. John is on the Advisory 

Board for SCCE’s Compliance & Ethics 

Magazine. He may be reached at 

dienharj@seattleu.edu. 

The debate between ethics and 

compliance has been going on 

since the 1990s. Roy Snell has 

argued that the conflict between compliance 

and ethics is moot: we need both. 1 In 

this article, I sketch out a training program 

that illustrates why we need both ethics 

and compliance and how they fit together. 

I have used this training program with over 

2,000 participants in several industries. 

Data show that if people understand 

the point of a rule or law, they are 

more motivated to comply with it than 

if they view the rule as an arbitrary 

By John Dienhart, Ph.D 

constraint. 2,3 In what follows, I discuss 

a training method that focuses on 

compliance in the context of widely 

accepted ethical principles. These ethical 

principles provide a context that 

can make sense of seemingly arbitrary 

rules. Given the data just mentioned, 

compliance should increase. 

Because we ask them 

to think through difficult 

scenarios, they 

focus on strengths and 

weaknesses of 

their own decisionmaking. 

The Training Method 

The Workshop on Ethical Decision- 

Making© opens by making two points 

to set the stage. First, we stress this is an 

ethics workshop, not ethics training. All of 

us in the room have already had our ethics 

training. Family, Girl Scouts and Boy 

Scouts, religion, school, government and 

more have trained us in ethics. We have 

received many of the same messages from 

these different sources (e.g., be honest, be 

loyal, treat others with respect). However, 

JOHN DIENHART 

we also have received conflicting messages 

(e.g., help others and don’t interfere 

with others, report wrongdoing, don’t be 

a snitch). One purpose of the workshop 

is to think through these conflicting messages 

so participants can choose the best 

course of action for the central stakeholders 

involved. Because we ask them to think 

through difficult scenarios, they focus on 

strengths and weaknesses of their own 

decision-making. Second, we emphasize 

that we will not impose values on them. 

Instead, we will distill values they introduce 

when we work through our first case. 

We will use these values for the rest of the 

workshop. Beginning the workshop in this 

way creates a climate of respect. The workshop 

has four goals; 

1. Take away a model for ethical decision 

making in gray areas. 

2. Learn a common language to discuss 

ethical issues with managers, peers, and 

reports. 

3. Understand the ethical framework supporting 

company core values and code 

of conduct. 

4. Bring your high ethical standards and 

character to work. 

In this article, I focus on the third goal. 

The case is fairly simple. You have 



October 2007 

11

A training workshop that integrates ethics and compliance: ...continued from page 11 

information about a friend being 

laid off but are told that the layoff 

information is strictly confidential. 

Furthermore, the friend and her family 

are about to buy a house which 

they can barely afford. 

I have used this case with more than 

2,000 people in groups of 20 to 40. 

About 95% of the time, the report-out 

goes like this. First, participants identify 

the conflict as one between a friendship 

and duty to the company. Next, someone 

notes that if you tell your friend, you 

could be fired, so legitimate self-interest 

comes into play. Finally, someone raises 

the issue of fairness. Usually this comes up 

because there may be other people on the 

list who are in worse financial circumstances. 

Is it fair for one person to know, 

just because he or she is your friend How 

is this different from nepotism 

As the groups are reporting out, we write 

down the ethical principles they are using 

to explain their decision. When the initial 

conflict between friendship and company 

arises, I write down bullet points “relationships” 

and “groups,” leaving room for 

a bullet point above and a bullet point 

below. When legitimate self-interest is 

mentioned, I write down “self” as the first 

bullet point. When fairness is mentioned, 

I write “human dignity” in the fourth 

bullet point, explaining that the concepts 

of fairness, justice, respect, and rights 

cluster together under the rubric “human 

dignity.” We now have on the board four 

dimensions of ethics: promote the good 

of oneself, nurture personal relationships, 

work for the well-being of groups, and 

respect human dignity. 

The motivation to align these four 

ethical dimensions gives us a target for 

ethical decision-making. The target is 

the intersection of the four circles in 

the Venn diagram (see Figure 1). 

After we have gone through this 

exercise, I show a PowerPoint slide 

prepared earlier that lists these four 

ethical dimensions. How did I know 

that the group would use these four 

ethical dimensions The answer is 

simple: over 30 years of cross-cultural 

research on ethical reasoning shows 

that these are the four dimensions of 

ethics that human beings use to make 

ethical decisions. 4-6 The ethical systems 

of individual people and groups like 

organizations, countries, and cultures 

are different because they prioritize 

and interpret the four dimensions 

differently. For example, in the United 

States, the individual dimension is 

dominant. In Southeast Asia, the relationship 

dimension is dominant. 7 

Figure 1 

Human Dignity 

Dimension 

Group 

Dimension 

©John W. Dienhart 2007 

Almost all of the solutions that 

participants present try to align the 

ethical dimensions. For example, one 

common solution is that you take the 

problem to your immediate supervisor 

in the hope that there is a way to 

inform your friend about the layoff in 

a way consistent with company policy. 

If this tactic is successful, the conflict 

between friend and company disappears. 

Another solution is to “hint” to 

your friend that this may not be the 

best time to buy a house. The idea 

behind this is that you are warning 

your friend without explicitly violating 

company policy. This solution brings a 

lot of discussion. 

There are usually a significant number 

of people who think the hinting solution 

still violates corporate confidentiality. 

Another intriguing solution is 

to tell the friend about the layoff, but 

before doing so inform your boss that 


Relationship 

Dimension 

Self 

Dimension 

October 2007 

12 


Compliance Audio/Web conferences from SCCE 

CCA vs. CIA 

November 15, 2007 | 12:00 pm 

Central (90 minutes) 1.2 CEUs 

Speakers: Gabriel Imperato, Esq., Managing Partner, 

Broad & Cassel, 

Shawn DeGroot, Vice President of Corporate 

Responsibility, Regional Health 

Code of Ethics(free to SCCE Members) 

November 16, 2007 | 12:00 pm 


Speakers: Joseph E. Murphy Esq. of Counsel, 

Compliance Systems Legal Group, Co-Editor, Ethikos 

Rebecca Walker, Kaplan & Walker LLP 

Human Resources Compliance 

Part 1: Fundamentals of 

Mandatory Compliance Training 

December 6, 2007 | 12:00 pm 


Speakers: Shanti Atkins, Esq. President & CEO of ELT, 

Chris D. Carlson, Ethics & Compliance Officer, Electronic 

Data Systems Corporation 

Interaction of Compliance, HR, Audit, & Legal 

Date:TBA 

Municipalities Ethics Training, 3 part 

Date:TBA 

Student Financial Aid Scandal 

& Study Abroad Investigation 

Date:TBA 

Part 2: Wage & Hour Compliance 

December 11, 2007 | 12:00 pm 


Speakers: Shanti Atkins, Esq. President & CEO of 

ELT, Tammy D. McCutchen; Shareholder; Littler & 

Mendelson 

Register online at www.corporatecompliance.org 

Upcoming Audio/Web Conferences

A training workshop that integrates ethics and compliance: ...continued from page 12 

you are going to tell her. The individual 

who proffered this solution thought 

he was honoring his obligation to the 

company by letting them know he was 

going to tell her. Another novel solution 

came from a woman who networked 

with her contacts in other organizations 

to set up job contacts her friend could 

pursue when she was laid off. 

We then turn to a conflict of interest 

case that involves the written code of 

the company. We ask the participants 

to analyze the case and prescribe a 

solution to it in terms of the code and 

the four dimensions of ethics. Here is a 

sample case: 

You have a conflict-of-nterest that 

involves making a recommendation for 

a vendor, Rash and Associates. Rash 

can do the job, but you know there 

are other vendors who can do it better. 

Rash has been very good to you, providing 

lavish entertainment and regular 

gifts. Technically, these gifts are within 

the compliance guidelines for dollar 

value. However, both you and Rash 

know that they are actually above this 

value. You are in violation of the code. 

If you recommend a different vendor, 

the entertainment and gifts will end. 

The four dimensions of ethics help an 

individual think through this problem 

and come to the correct answer. In 

terms of self, if you recommend Rash, 

you keep the gifts, but at the risk of 

your career. Your career will be at risk 

not only because you are violating the 

code, but because others, who may 

be jealous of your perks, will have an 

incentive to report you. Also, managers 

and employees working with an 

inferior product get frustrated. Inferior 

products increase the resources spent 

on projects. Frustrated managers and 

employees could prompt an investigation 

into the quality of the vendor. 

From the vantage point of the good 

of the group, you’re clearly sacrificing 

the interests of the group to your own 

interest for the continuing flow of entertainment 

and gifts. Regarding fairness, 

I have seen many people reported 

because other employees with whom 

they have relationships believe their 

perks are unfair. There is no guarantee 

that going through this process will 

prompt the manager to choose the best 

vendor, the manager will not be able to 

take the myopic view of “it’s just a few 

gifts, no one else is harmed.” 

The compliance example regarding the 

vendor illustrates two important points 

about the four dimensions of ethics. 

First, they are not abstract principles, 

but help us understand the motivations 

of ourselves, fellow employees, and 

other stakeholders. In short, they give 

us a real-world understanding of the 

problems and stakeholders involved in 

an issue. Second, the group dimension 

involves traditional compliance issues 

within organizations. Part of our ethical 

duty is to comply with the code. As 

Harry Carstens of Regence Blue Shield 

said, “Complying with the code is one 

of our values.” 8 This is where ethics 

and compliance overlap. 

Conclusion 

There are four central points about 

The Workshop on Ethical Decision- 

Making© described above. First, it 

is important to establish a climate of 

respect. The trainer has ethical expertise 

in terms of data, but there is no 

presumption that the trainer is a more 

ethical person than anyone else in the 

room. Second, the four dimensions 

of ethics are broad enough to include 

the many different ethical value sets 

the participants bring with them, but 

specific enough to guide decisionmaking 

and action. Third, the workshop 

takes a functional view of ethics. 

Ethics is a way of promoting our own 

interests in ways that promote, or are 

at least compatible with, good personal 

relationships, the well-being of groups 

we affect, and human dignity. Fourth, 

the four dimensions of ethics clearly 

include compliance and understanding 

of the basic rules and laws governing 

corporate activity. As Snell said, there 

is no real conflict between ethics and 

compliance. The Workshop on Ethical 

Decision-Making© is one way to tie 

them together in practice.n 

References 

1. Boom, J., H. Wouters, et al. (2007). “A cross-cultural validation 

of stage development: A Rasch re-analysis of longitudinal 

socio-moral reasoning data.” Cognitive Development 22(2): 

213-229. 

2. Carstens, H. (2003) SCCE Workshop, Microsoft Redmond 

Campus. 

3. Liddell, W. W. (2005). “Project GLOBE: A Large Scale Cross- 

Cultural Study of Leadership.” Problems & Perspectives in 

Management(3): 5-9. 

4. Maqsud, M. (1979). “Cultural Influences on Transition in the 

Development of Moral Reasoning in Nigerian Boys.” Journal 

of Social Psychology 108(2): 151. 

5. Snarey, J. (1985). “Cross-cultural universality of social-moral 

development: a critical review of Kohlbergian research.” 

Psychological Bulletin 97: 202-232. 

6. Snell, R. (2006). “The Debate Continues Over Ethics versus 

Compliance.” Journal of Health Care Compliance 8(5): 3-4. 

7. Tyler, T. R. (1992 ). Why People Obey the Law, Yale 

8. Tyler, T. R. and S. L. Blader (2005). “Can Businesses Effectively 

Regulate Employee Conduct The Antecedents of Rule 

Following in Work Settings.” Academy of Management Journal 

48(6): 1143-1158. 

The Workshop on Ethical Decision-Making © described 

in this article is the property of John W. 

Dienhart. Please do not use without permission. 

October 2007 

14 


C o r p o r a t e Co m p l i a n c e & Et h i c s : 

G u i d a n c e f o r En g a g i n g Yo u r Bo a r d 

“This video provides an 

overview of the Board’s 

role in compliance.” 

Odell Guyton 

Senior Corporate Attorney, 

Director of Compliance, 


www.corporatecompliance.org 

“It’s pretty clear that 

the best compliance 

program in the world 

is meaningless, even if 

it’s funded with a good 

well-meaning compliance 

officer, if the leadership 

of the company is not 

behind it and isn’t 

supportive…” 

Bringing the vision of 

leadership together 

with a compliant and 

ethical culture 

Honorable 

Michael E. Horowitz Commissioner, 

United States Sentencing 

Commission 

Order Today! Non-Members $395 SCCE/HCCA Members $345 

Name 

Title 

Company 

Address 

City 

State 

Phone 

Fax 

E-mail 

Format: DVD VHS 

Mail to: SCCE 

6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250 

Minneapolis, MN 55435 

Phone: (888) 277-4977 

Zip 

Total Payment $ ______________ 

Purchase Order # _____________ 

Check/Money Order 

VISA MasterCard 

Number 

Exp. Date 

Name of Card Holder 

Signature of Card Holder 

Please make check payable to: 

Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) 

FAX: (952) 988-0146 

Online: www.corporatecompliance.org 

E-mail: info@corporatecompliance.org

October 2007 

16 

Education | Certification | Helpline | Dashboard | Incident Management | Research | Assessments 

www.lrn.com 

Los Angeles New York London 

800.529.6366 


Conflict of Interest 

A civil compliant was recently filed against the General Counsel of a major 

organization by the Department of Justice in Florida. Actually, the individual 

named in the complaint was the General Counsel and Compliance 

Officer. The complaint appears to be with regard to the General Counsel’s 

role. This case has the in-house legal community up in arms. Two outside 

counsel have told me that they received calls from concerned in-house 

counsel right after the civil complaint was made public. Many are worried 

about their personal liability. The civil complaint could amount to millions 

of dollars. 

The complaint states that the General 

Counsel was required to sign an annual 

attestation disclosing all current internal 

investigations. The attestation was a part 

of their Corporate Integrity Agreement 

from a previous settlement. It is likely 

that the defendant will argue that the 

investigation was privileged and did not 

require disclosure. The DOJ believes 

they have a case anyway. The intellectual 

legal banter in the compliance and legal community is vigorous. The 

case has been tried and resolved over dinner many times. 

The case may or may not be solid, but the point that everyone seems 

to be missing is that the government is sending a message. I have read 

the civil complaint and the Corporate Integrity Agreement which 

together are approximately 100 pages long. I could go on for pages 

about this situation. I am just going to get to the point. 

Senator Grassley once said “It doesn’t take a pig farmer from Iowa to 

smell the stench in this conflict.” He was referring to an individual 

who held both the Compliance Officer and General Counsel titles. In 

fact, he was referring to the General Counsel named in the complaint 

brought forth by the Florida DOJ. I am sure this is nothing more than 

a coincidence. 

The government claims that the General Counsel signed a statement 

indicating that the company had disclosed all internal investigations. 

However, it appears that if 

your Compliance Officer’s collaboration 

with the General 

Counsel also limits their independence, 

you might just be 

increasing your chances for a 

series of unfortunate events. 

They claim that one investigation was not 

disclosed. Two years later, someone told the 

government about the problem that was under 

internal investigation but not yet resolved 

or disclosed. The government claims that 

the company defended the case even though 

they (from the government’s perspective) 

knew they had a problem. It appears that the 

government felt that this was disingenuous. 

The company settled the undisclosed case with the government. 

ROY sNELL 

There was a third settlement with this company, and as a part of the 

settlement, the government requested and received protected documents. 

The government’s allegation states that they have two memos 

and a report from outside counsel stating the General Counsel knew 

the problem existed two years prior to the government’s investigation. 

What appears to have the government’s 

nose out of joint is: how can you defend 

a problem that you (allegedly) acknowledged 

in writing you had What’s 

more, if your Compliance Officer was 

involved in the defense of a known 

problem, it would appear that your 

Compliance Officer was conflicted and 

lacked independence.” 

In summary, under the first settlement, 

the company agreed to annually 

disclose internal investigations. There was a second investigation about 

a matter that the company allegedly knew about for two years, did 

not disclose, defended, and then settled. As part of a third settlement, 

the company released to the government three protected documents 

that allegedly show that they knew that they had a problem two years 

before it was investigated. 

The message here seems to go beyond the facts of the case. Everyone is 

arguing that there is no case because the company did not have to disclose 

protected investigations. That is important, and may result in the 

case being dropped, but it is not the key message. Although there may 

be many issues the government is upset about, there seems to be one 

that rises above all others, and is one of the most important messages. 

It appears the government, from the DOJ to the Senate, is upset that 

a company that was required to hire a Compliance Officer as a part of 

the first settlement, gave the job to the General Counsel. 



October 2007 

17

feature article 

Meet Joe Murphy, Esq.,CCEP 

Benefactor of the SCCE Compliance Library 

The Society of Corporate Compliance and 

Ethics (SCCE) and Joseph E. Murphy 

announce the donation of Mr. Murphy’s 

Compliance and Ethics Library to SCCE. 

The terms of the donation include making 

the library available to SCCE members 

during Joe’s lifetime, and future vesting of 

ownership to SCCE. Joe has been active 

in the compliance and ethics field since 

1976. His library is one of the largest 

private collections of compliance and ethics 

books, conference materials, and other 

useful resources for compliance and ethics 

professionals. Marlene Robinson of SCCE 

proposed the following questions to Joe following 

the announcement of his donation 

in September 2007 

MR: Joe, thank you for donating this 

valued collection of compliance wisdom and 

knowledge to SCCE. What is your professional 

background and how did you get into 

the compliance field 

JM: I am a lawyer, and I have been 

practicing for 34 years. I spent 20 years 

as an in-house lawyer, and that was my 

introduction to compliance and ethics. I 

am now a Certified Compliance and Ethics 

Professional (CCEP) in SCCE’s certification 

program. 

I got interested in compliance and ethics 

from my experience working in a large company, 

trying to keep employees and management 

on the right side of the law and out 

of trouble. It was there that I first observed 

groups of employees within a company 

whose job was to promote compliance and 

doing the right thing. This fascinated me, 

and started me down the road of seeing this 

as a valuable field. In fact, this was the basis 

for the first book I wrote on the subject, 

with Professor Sigler of Rutgers University, 

in 1988. 

MR: How do you see your role in the 

compliance industry today 

JM: I have had the enormous good fortune 

and opportunity to work with some of the 

best people and brightest minds around. 

Compliance and ethics calls out to people 

with strong convictions and an acute sense 

of right and wrong. Going forward, I see my 

role as being available to serve as an advisor 

and mentor to others in this field and those 

interested in finding out more about the field. 

But, I also have a strong sense of unfinished 

business. The field of compliance and ethics 

has much further to go to achieve its potential. 

It needs a strong champion – an organization 

representing the whole field – to be 

its spokesperson; I plan to work with SCCE 

to achieve this step. There needs to be more 

governmental and judicial recognition of the 

value of voluntary compliance programs and 

the important role played by compliance and 

ethics professionals. And companies need to 

take steps to strengthen their programs by 

appropriately empowering their compliance 

and ethics officers. I worked with SCCE 

in helping the Ethics Resource Center to 

put together a powerful statement on what 

needs to be done to position the compliance 

and ethics officer (see http://www. 

corporatecompliance.org/resources/surveys/ 

CECO_Definition_8-13-072.pdf); I hope 

to actively promote this mission, and in my 

future years, to help promote this field. 

MR: You are known as the “Dean of 

Compliance” for your perseverance and 

knowledge in the compliance profession. 

What keeps you motivated to assure that a 

compliance and ethics culture plays a significant 

part in the corporate world today 

JM: A number of things motivate me. I 

can remember working in companies with 

October 2007 

18 


good people who were devoted to compliance 

and ethics. I shared their frustration, 

anguish, and even fear in trying to do the 

right thing and being met with powerful 

executives who blocked their efforts. I want 

to see those people protected, empowered, 

and recognized. 

I have also seen the arrogance of power 

from those who are determined to have 

their own way and who consider themselves 

above the laws and rules that apply to the 

rest of us. Whether they see themselves as 

the “smartest guys in the room” who are too 

smart to get caught, or just see themselves 

as above the law, companies and other organizations 

need to build in checks on such 

abuses of power. 

I also live in the same society where all 

these organizations operate. In January, I 

am scheduled to become a grandparent. 

Great corporations can do great things, but 

they can also cause enormous harm. We in 

the compliance and ethics field are, in my 

opinion, society’s best chance to prevent 

that harm. Whether it is poison in our 

foods, prices that are fixed at artificial levels 

to steal from consumers, or corrupt public 

officials, these are all harms to society 

and to our own families. I want to do my 

part in preventing this at the earliest point 

within the corporate walls. 

MR: Organizations have all of the exposure, 

rules, regulations, and training available 

to establish a culture of integrity, yet 

every day we continue to see law suits and 

judgements against organizations that have 

just not gotten the message. How is the 

compliance profession changing, and how 

will it change in the future 

JM: I see two key changes. The first 

relates to becoming a true profession. I 

believe this is essential for our success. In this 

arena, SCCE has been leading the way, particularly 

with its certification program and its 

recent adoption of a strong code of ethics. 

In the past, the field has been too fragmented. 

Privacy people viewed their world 

as unique and separate. Environmental 

compliance experts did not see a connection 

to those who did antitrust or Foreign 

Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) work. Those 

who worked to prevent discrimination saw 

no connection to securities fraud. But, in 

fact, these are all parts of one field: compliance 

and ethics. We all work to prevent 

misconduct by companies and other organizations. 

But, as long as each sliver insists 

it is unique and deserves a special place at 

the management table, all parts of the field 

will be relegated to a limited position. Only 

when we see that we are all one profession – 

and work together – can we ensure we have 

a strong voice in the corporate world. Just 

as in other fields, such as human resources 

and the law, where there are large, active 

organizations representing the interests of 

the whole profession, so too, compliance 

and ethics must have such a voice. That is 

a leading role I see in the future for SCCE. 

Each specialty will continue to have its own 

organizations, but SCCE will speak for a 

combined profession with a voice that cannot 

be ignored. 

The second major and essential role is 

the full empowerment of compliance and 

ethics professionals, and especially the chief 

compliance and ethics officer, in companies. 

I believe this will follow, in part, from 

the first change as our field becomes more 

professional and organized. But, it also rests 

with each of us to better understand what 

makes a compliance and ethics program 

effective and to push for this change. The 

chief compliance and ethics officer needs to 

be fully empowered, have the independence 

necessary to act with courage, be connected 

to the important operations and activities 

in the company, and have the resources that 

enable a program to be effective. When this 

happens, we can be a real force for preventing 

the scandals that have tarnished so many 

companies. 

MR: What are some of the new risks that 

organizations face today 

JM: To answer that question on any 

given day, you just have to read that 

morning’s Wall Street Journal. It seems that 

every day there is some new issue, some 

new example of a company gone astray, 

and some new proposal to regulate business 

conduct. Globalization, along with the 

risks associated with international activities, 

leaps off the page as one major risk. Anyone 

working overseas who has not focused on 

bribery and corruption risk, for example, 

needs some emergency counseling. 

Employment issues are always hot and 

always evolving. Discrimination and immigration 

risks, as well as fair labor standards, 

can be traps for those not paying attention. 

New concepts, such as legislative proposals 

to protect employees from bullying, can 

creep up on any company. New applications 

of European Union privacy law pose challenges 

for company managers dealing with 

personnel issues. 

But, while companies need to watch for 

new risks, they must always be alert to the 

“old” risks. For example, competition law 

violations are a constant danger. We need to 

always remember the basics and take steps 

to monitor those older areas. Even when the 

law has not changed in an area, the ways 

people come up with for breaking the law 

often show incredible imagination. So compliance 

and ethics people always need to be 

“out there.” We need to keep reading and 

attending programs to learn what is developing, 

but we also need to spend time with 

our senior executives and our remote sales 

people to see what new ideas they have that 

could blossom into new risks. 



October 2007 

19

MR: Why did you become involved 

with SCCE 

JM: I became involved in SCCE because 

the organization is dynamic and champions 

the individual compliance and ethics professional. 

It recognizes the global nature of 

this field and is willing to take bold actions. 

It shares the vision of this being a broad, 

important profession, and welcomes all 

those who share this vision. 

MR: How did you establish this library 

and how long did it take 

JM: As you know, I have been doing 

compliance work for 30 years. During this 

time, I have attended quite a few conferences, 

subscribed to compliance and ethics 

publications, and obtained books related to 

the field. For example, I found the Enron 

story so fascinating I bought every book I 

could find – seven so far. I have received 

items from others, such as video tapes and a 

collection of compliance and ethics job aides 

and toys. One publication I receive from the 

Compliance Institute in the UK, because I 

gave them permission to reprint an article I 

wrote. In a sense, almost every book, binder, 

or other resource has a little story behind it. 

MR: Have you read all of these books 

JM: . That’s certainly a fair question to 

ask, and the quick answer is “no.” There 

are some here that even I wouldn’t find 

interesting, although I have read a great 

many of them. Some of the unread items 

are the normal purchaser’s lament, “Well, it 

seemed like a good idea at the time.” Others 

I have for future reading, when I have the 

time. And some of the materials are reference 

books and binders from programs, like 

SCCE’s Compliance and Ethics Institute 

(CEI), that I might use as references for 

future questions and projects. 

MR: Why are you donating this valuable 

library to SCCE 

JM: I spent 20 years of my career doing 

compliance and ethics work in-house. I 

don’t like to see people waste their time reinventing 

things that are already available. 

Through this library, practitioners can avoid 

that by seeing much of what is already out 

there. 

I wanted SCCE to have the library, 

because this organization has been very 

strong in promoting the interests of practitioners 

and offers us the resources we need 

to do our work. I believe the SCCE Web 

site, which is a remarkable source of assistance, 

reflects that commitment. I thought it 

would be good for SCCE to offer a similar 

resource of hard-copy materials. And many 

of these things are simply not available on 

the Web. 

MR: What will people find in this library 

that they cannot find in any other library 

JM: The collection includes a broad 

range of books, documents, publications, 

and other materials dating from when I 

started doing this work in the late 70’s to 

the present day. It also includes further 

materials from conferences and seminars I 

have attended around the world. For this 

reason, I believe this library is unique in its 

combination and diversity of materials and 

resources. As for the books, while some are 

popular and available elsewhere, others are 

very limited circulation, out of print, or only 

available through expensive subscriptions. 

I also hope to be able to take the time to 

chat with visitors and compare notes. So at 

minimum, for better or for worse, one thing 

they won’t find elsewhere is me! 

MR: If members of SCCE want to visit 

the library, what should they do 

JM: They should first e-mail me (jemurphy@voicenet.com) 

or call, so they can visit 

when I am there. My town, Haddonfield, is 

a wonderfully welcoming village, very convenient 

to the Philadelphia airport and train 

station. It is a nice place to visit, and there 

is even a quaint little hotel within walking 

distance from my office. 

MR: Compliance and Ethics is a growing 

industry and with all of the new changes, 

how does this constant change affect this 

library’s resource value Would you say the 

library is more historical or informational 

JM: My favorite answer to an “either/or” 

question is “both.” And, in fact, the 

library serves both purposes. The primary 

value is as a resource for those with realworld 

questions and challenges. You can find 

answers to questions about such compliance 

subject areas as FCPA and antitrust, find 

“how to” guides on the full range of needs 

that come up in compliance programs, or 

get guidance on privilege and other legal 

questions. The library also contains ongoing 

subscription services and periodicals that 

have the most current developments and 

resources. 

But, if your interest is history, you can 

certainly trace the development of the 

field through the materials I have here. 

I believe all the written history is in the 

books and binders in this library, but if you 

want the inside story, we might want to 

cover that over lunch at an outdoor café in 

Haddonfield. n 

“We are grateful for this considerable 

donation. Access to this special library 

is another benefit available to members 

of SCCE,” said Roy Snell, Chief Executive 

Officer of SCCE. 

October 2007 

20 


Retaliation 

By D. Jan Duffy, JD 

Editor’s note: Jan Duffy is a former 

employment attorney and business school 

professor who is currently president of the 

consulting organization, Management 

Practices Group, Inc. From its offices in 

San Francisco, CA and London, UK, 

MPG offers independent fact-finding and 

internal investigations, expert witness 

analysis and testimony, and training in 

compliance and employment-related areas. 

Cross-border investigations for multinational 

organizations operating in the US 

and Europe are MPG’s particular specialty. 

Jan may be reached at: jduffy@managementpractices.com. 

Although the anti-retaliation provisions 

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 

have received the most significant 

publicity in recent years, retaliation, 

or taking adverse action against another as 

revenge or “payback” for something they 

have done, is also prohibited by more than 

3,000 other state, federal, and even local 

statutes. Generally, such laws prevent discrimination 

or adverse action against an 

employee because he or she has “blown the 

whistle” or otherwise complained about the 

employer’s alleged illegal or improper actions; 

has refused to engage in illegal or improper 

conduct; has exercised a legal right such as 

taking a protected leave of absence; or performed 

a civic duty such as voting or serving 

on a jury. 

Background 

Retaliation law and practice is already 

particularly developed in the field of 

employment harassment and discrimination. 

The federal Equal Employment 

Opportunity Comission reports that 

retaliation is the fastest growing claim 

within its jurisdiction. Multi-million 

dollar jury verdicts for individual claims 

of retaliation following discrimination 

or harassment complaints are increasingly 

common; in fact, juries often 

impose liability for retaliation even 

when unpersuaded by the underlying 

discrimination claim. 

In its 2006 decision in Burlington 

Northern and Santa Fe R. Co. v. White, 

524 U.S. 775 (1998) the U.S. Supreme 

Court dramatically expanded the scope 

of conduct that could be deemed actionable 

retaliation. Rejecting the strict “ultimate 

adverse action” standard, previously 

accepted by some courts, that only 

final and material adverse action such as 

refusal to hire or termination could support 

a cause of action for retaliation, the 

Court enunciated a new and much more 

inclusive “deterrence” standard. The 

Court held, instead, that any employer 

action that “likely would have dissuaded 

a reasonable worker” in the circumstances 

of the plaintiff, from complaining 

about discrimination, could constitute 

illegal retaliation. The Court indicated 

that even such matters as adversely 

varying a single parent’s working hours, 

or taking negative action against an 

employee outside the workplace, might 

reasonably be deemed retaliatory. Not 

surprisingly, such an expansive definition 

of actionable retaliation is already 

having repercussions for other forms of 

prohibited retaliation as well. 

Even aside from the growing legal consequences, 

the effective prevention and 

D. Jan Duffy, JD 

correction of retaliation is of significant 

concern to all organizations and particularly 

to compliance and ethics professionals. 

First, revenge-seeking, or, at least, the 

urge to retaliate, is an extremely common, 

if unfortunate, human tendency. People 

in most cultures experience at least the 

urge to reciprocate for perceived wrongs 

against themselves or their allies. “An eye 

for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is a wellknown 

concept worldwide. Certainly, 

early on, most people learn the consequences 

of “tattling” on a sibling or “ratting 

out” a schoolmate. The methods and 

opportunities for achieving revenge, and 

the seriousness of the consequences to a 

complainant, only increase as people age. 

Moreover, retaliation, or the urge to 

retaliate, is also a particularly deep and 

widespread phenomenon in the workplace. 

Significant opportunities exist in 

work-related situations for employers, 

managers, and co-workers to engage 

in vengeful or retaliatory conduct for 

perceived wrongs. The potential to 

engage in retaliation in the workplace 

is also shared by more people than the 

specific person accused of misconduct or 

complained about. Managers of either 

the accused or the complainant, for 



October 2007 

21

Retaliation ...continued from page 21 

example, may feel the urge to extract 

revenge against a complainant who has 

made them “look bad” for failing to supervise 

adequately. They may also decide 

to retaliate against an employee they 

suspect of being an all-purpose “troublemaker.” 

Friends of the accused may also 

retaliate against a complainant as either 

an act of solidarity or to “encourage” 

him or her to abandon the complaint. 

Even co-workers may engage in ostracism 

or sabotage against an employee 

deemed to threaten workplace peace, 

or as a matter of distancing themselves 

from trouble. 

Finally, workplace retaliation is something 

of a covert activity that is difficult 

to spot from higher levels of 

the organization. Especially with the 

Supreme Court’s expanded definition of 

actionable retaliation as anything likely 

to deter a reasonable person from complaining, 

many employees, and particularly 

managers, have ample opportunity 

and means to extract revenge against a 

complainant for perceived wrongs, but 

few are likely to own up to it and it can 

be difficult to detect, much less root 

out. A negative performance evaluation 

or denial of a promotional opportunity, 

for example, may look like a reasonable 

exercise of managerial discretion but, in 

fact, later be alleged, or even prove to 

be, a cloak for retaliation. 

For all these reasons, and also because of 

recent regulatory and judicial developments, 

organizations must now undertake 

or step up their efforts to prevent 

retaliation from occurring, to address it 

when it is alleged, and to discover and 

correct it when it does happen. Necessary 

measures will require the devotion 

of considerable resources for policy and 

procedure development or alteration, 

education, monitoring and enforcement 

activities. Ethics and compliance professionals 

have a particularly important role 

to play in establishing, implementing, 

and enforcing such measures because of 

the varied, interdisciplinary and crossfunctional 

nature of retaliation prohibitions, 

as well as the wide variety of forms 

that retaliation can take in an organization 

and the multiple levels at which it 

can occur. Additionally, such personnel 

will likely have the expertise as well as 

the perceived neutrality to tackle such a 

multifaceted and complicated task. 

Promoting a Non-Retaliatory Workplace 

Among the most import anti-retaliation 

measures that all organizations can and 

should undertake now are: 

Organizational Commitment and 

Ethical Leadership 

1. Demonstrate a clear and unambiguous organizational 

commitment to an enterprise 

and workplace free of retaliatory conduct. 

As with any compliance program, active 

leadership from the top as well as commitment 

of adequate resources for personnel, 

education, and enforcement efforts will be 

critical to achieving success. Leaders must 

understand and firmly communicate their 

own awareness of, and intolerance for, 

retaliatory behavior anywhere in the organization 

against anyone who has engaged 

in conduct protected against retaliation 

by either law or the organization’s asserted 

policies and values. 

2. Take steps to establish and maintain a culture 

and environment that supports such 

efforts. Organizations must make clear to 

all employees and especially managers and 

supervisors that retaliation for engaging 

in protected activity such as reporting 

misconduct is viewed with the same 

seriousness as the underlying misconduct. 

In fact, retaliation is often easier to prove 

and more likely to offend jurors and other 

outside reviewers than many forms of 

underlying misconduct. Organizations 

accordingly should be sure to include antiretaliation 

provisions in codes of conduct 

and values statements. 

Policies, Training, and Communications 

3. Establish and maintain comprehensive, understandable, 

written anti-retaliation policies 

and procedures, including effective 

complaint and remedial procedures. Most 

organizations already have some limited 

anti-retaliation provisions embedded in 

anti-harassment policies or Sarbanes- 

Oxley inspired codes of conduct and 

anti-fraud hot-line procedures. In view 

of current developments, organizations 

should undertake review of all such provisions, 

adding, clarifying, or conforming 

them to each other as necessary. Organizations 

should at least consider creating a 

comprehensive stand-alone anti-retaliation 

provision: this will defeat claims that 

an employer prioritizes and prohibits 

retaliation in certain circumstances but 

not in others, for example, with respect to 

shareholder fraud but not with respect to 

harassment or discrimination. 

4. Clearly and effectively communicate antiretaliation 

policies and procedures to all 

employees. They should be disseminated 

along with, by the same means, and with 

the same frequency and urgency as other 

key policies and procedures; otherwise, the 

organization risks creating the impression 

that retaliation is a lesser offense than 

other or underlying misconduct. 

5. Educate all employees, particularly 

managers and supervisors, about their 

responsibilities to refrain from retaliation 

as well as their rights under the 

organization’s anti-retaliation pro- 


October 2007 

22 


SCCE Introduces 

2008 Local Conferences! 

The local conferences are one-day programs designed to provide the hot topics 

and practical information compliance professionals need to create and maintain 

compliance programs in a variety of industries. We will also offer the CCEP 

exam on Saturday, following each of the local programs. 

March 14, 2008 | Houston, TX 

CCEP Exam March 15, 2008 

March 28, 2008 | New York, NY 

CCEP Exam March 29, 2008 

April 4, 2008 | Los Angeles, CA 

CCEP Exam April 5, 2008 

May 16, 2008 | Chicago, IL 

CCEP Exam May 17, 2008 

October 17, 2008 | Minneapolis, MN 

CCEP Exam October 11, 2008 

November 14, 2008 | Atlanta, GA 

CCEP Exam November 15, 2008 

May 2, 2008 | Washington, DC 


Purpose SCCE local conferences provide a forum to interact with local compliance 

professionals, share information about our compliance successes and challenges, and 

create educational opportunities for compliance professionals to strengthen the industry. 

Who should attend Compliance officers, in-house and outside general counsels, 

privacy and security officers, regulatory affairs VPs and directors, billing, coding 

professionals, government agency staff. 

Learning objective Attendees learn about current regulatory requirements, 

governement enforcement initiatives, and the management of effective 

compliance programs and meet and network with other compliance professionals 

locally. 

Become a Certifi ed Compliance & Ethics Professional (CCEP) 

Becoming CCEP certified demonstrates sufficient knowledge of government regulations 

and compliance processes to understand and address legal obligations and promote 

organizational integrity through the operation of effective compliance programs. 


Questions Call +1 952 933 4977 or 888 277 4977

Compliance 

professionals help 

Habitat for Humanity in 

New Orleans 

By Gary DeVaan 

On September 8th 2007, the 

Saturday before the 6th annual 

Compliance and Ethics Institute 

in New Orleans, compliance professionals 

volunteered for the Habitat for Humanity 

“Musicians Village” neighborhood project 

in the Upper Ninth Ward of New Orleans. 

The Musicians Village project is also sponsored 

by the Baptist Crossroads Project and 

Editor’s Note: On September 8, 2007, SCCE has been promoted by Harry Connick Jr. 

staff members Gary DeVaan (with camera) and others. The project was coordinated by 

and Wilma Eisenman (with refreshments) accompanied 

a group of volunteers attending the Compliance & Ethics (SCCE) for the 

Lizza Catalano from the Society of Corporate 

Compliance & Ethics Institute on their mission attendees of the Institute. 

to “make a difference” in New Orleans. Even 

though heat was a major issue for everyone that The morning began at the Sheraton Hotel 

day, a lot of sweat, hard work, and perseverance on Canal St. at 7:00 a.m. on a 90+ degree 

went into their construction project. At the end Saturday before the C&E Institute, after a 

of the day when their work was done, they left light breakfast for the volunteers. Soon we 

hot, dirty, and very tired but went home with were on a bus piloted by Bob Calligan, a 

a good warm feeling in their hearts. Thank you local citizen of New Orleans. Before long, 

to these “unsung heroes” who did make a difference. 

Thank you Gary for telling us the story of Bartholomew and North Johnson. Staff 

we were at the construction site at the corner 

with great pictures and Wilma for your good members of Habitat stood on a semi truck 

humor and creating as much comfort as possible storage container as they addressed volunteers 

for everyone. 

from several groups, including volunteers 

from the Bank of America and the Kiwanis 

club of New Orleans. SCCE volunteers numbered 

29. Habitat is building 250 homes on 

the Upper Ninth Ward, a majority of them 

on the site of a former middle school and 

athletic fields. 

The Upper East Side was flooded by 8 feet of 

water after hurricane Katrina, and the levee 

failure of 2005. Every home was damaged 

and many homes were ruined by the flood 

gary devaan 

waters and were removed. Approximately half 

the homes were repaired to some degree, and 

a few were in good shape, like the home of 

Thomas McMillian who escaped to Houston 

before the hurricane and came back to find 

his home submerged in 5 feet of water. 

The first question for our volunteers was 

“Who’d like to work on a roof” Some of us 

were surprised to learn that we’d be working 

with heights. We divided into two groups; 

one for each of the two houses we’d be working 

on. Our goal for the day was to nail 4x8 

sheets of OSB board roof sheeting onto the 

roofs of two homes that were in progress. 

Tools were distributed. Everyone was issued a 

tool apron with 9-penny nails and a hammer. 

Power tools were distributed to each building. 

Tape measures, squares, safety glasses, and 

caulk lines were also available as needed. 

Those of us who had construction experience 

walked the rafters, and with minimal 

instruction, others began to measure and cut 

the ½” OSB board to size. Monica Wilson 

became “Super Cutter Extraordinaire” and 

Pally Cottonham was our “Chaulkline Super 

Star.” Other tasks included hauling material 

from one location to another, loading trucks, 

and recovering lumber from old construction. 

Some volunteers were simply asked to 

clean and organize the worksite. There was 


October 2007 

24 


The Fourth Annual Society of Corporate Compliance and 

Ethics International Compliance Professionals Awards 

2008 Call for Entries 

The Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) recognizes the efforts of compliance and ethics 

professionals worldwide. The annual International Compliance Professionals Awards recognize individuals 

and organizations that have made considerable contributions to the compliance profession. The 2008 

awards will be presented during the SCCE Compliance & Ethics Institute in September 2008. The deadline 

for applications is May 1, 2008. Please submit a letter with your candidate’s name, a brief description of 

achievements, and contact information to marlene.robinson@corporatecompliance.org. 

Criteria 

Outstanding performance and achievement in the field of corporate compliance 

Leadership abilities that contribute to the integrity of the profession 

Contribution and leadership efforts in the development of global growth and partnerships that enhance 

global compliance communications. 

Outstanding personal commitment to further the compliance profession 

Recognition for achievements in academic development promoting the profession of compliance and 

ethics, technology focused on assisting compliance professionals with policies and procedures, and 

development of programs focused on integrity and ethical behaviors 

2007 

Past Award Recipients 

2006 

2005 

Professor Paul E. Fiorelli, JD, 

MBA, Xavier University, 

Cincinnati 

The Institute of Internal Auditors 

Shin Jae Kim Hong, Partner, 

Tozzini Freire Advogados, 

Sao Paulo, Brazil 

SCCE Journalism Award: Joseph 

Weber, Chief of Correspondents, 

BUSINESS WEEK, New York City 

Charles Elson, The Edgar S. 

Woolard Jr. Chair HCA Inc. 

Ron James, Center for Ethical 

Business Culture Littler Mendelson 

Mollie Painter-Morland, Director 

for Business and Ethics, 

University of Pretoria 

Rita Scichilone, Director of 

Practices Resources 

American Health Information 

Management Association 

Australian Compliance Institute 

United States Sentencing Commission 

Marjorie Doyle, Chief Compliance 

Counsel DuPont Corporation 

Joseph Murphy, Esquire 

Angela S. Mattie, JD, MPH- 

Quinnipiac University and 

Assistant Professor of Management 

Lynn Brewer, Founding Chairman 

of The Integrity Institute, Inc. 

October 2007 

25

Are you a member of a professional 

compliance and ethics organization 

Join the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics! 

You may already have a strong compliance program in place, but changing times demand 

more. Join SCCE in developing a culture that says, “Let’s do it right!” SCCE membership can 

help move you and your organization closer to a total compliance spirit. 

The Society of Corporate Compliance & Ethics (SCCE) is an international, non-profit 

organization solely dedicated to improving the quality of corporate governance, compliance, 

and ethics. Our mission: SCCE exists to champion ethical practice and compliance standards 

in all organizations and to provide the necessary resources for compliance professionals and 

others who share these principles. 

Visit SCCE’s Web site at www.corporatecompliance.org 

October 2007 

26 




888-277-4977 • Fax 952-988–0146 


Me m b e r s h i p Ap p l i c at i o n 

Please print: 

First Name MI Last Name 

Credentials 

Title(s) 

Organization 

Street Address 

City State Zip Country 

Telephone 

Fax 

E-mail Address 

What year did you start in the compliance and ethics field 

What is your industry 

How did you hear about SCCE Booth at meeting Magazine ad Colleague Mailing Conference brochure Other 

(If you check “Other,” please list on the line above the publication, meeting, or colleague name) 

What is your primary function Please check only one. (If you check “Other,” please list above) 

Privacy 

Auditing 

Investigations 

Banking 

Fraud examiners 

HR 

Legal 

Risk management 

IT 

Education 

Environmental 

Safety 

SOX 

Security 

Corporate secretary 

Other (please list above) 

YES, p l e a s e a c c e p t m y a p p l i c at i o n f o r m e m b e r s h i p: 

Individual Membership ...............$295 

Group Employee Membership .........$250 

(four or more from same company: fill out one form for each applicant) 

Corporate Membership ..............$2,500 

(includes four individual memberships plus corporate publicity benefits) 

Student Membership .................$150 

(full- or part-time students enrolled in a program related to compliance 

that leads to a baccalaureate degree, or a graduate student who is not 

employed in a full-time compliance position) 

Government Membership .............$150 

(must receive paycheck from a government entity: federal, state, 

county, or city government office; employees of a federally or 

state-funded organization do not qualify) 

Academic Membership ...............$150 

(must be a full-time faculty member working for a college or university) 

Check enclosed (payable to SCCE) 

Invoice me Purchase Order # 

Charge my Credit Card: MasterCard Visa AmEx 

Credit Card Number 

Exp. Date 

Name of Cardholder 

Signature of Cardholder 

Federal Tax Identification Number 23-2882664 

Total Enclosed $ 


October 2007 

27

Compliance professionals help habitat for Humanity in New Orleans: ...continued from page 24 

something for everyone to do and safety was 

the rule of the day. 

At 10:00 a.m., we took a break, and walked 

about eight blocks past many abandoned houses 

and others in the process of recovery, to witness 

a home commitment ceremony. This was an 

occasion when the Habitat Staff officially gave 

the keys to the Lionel Thomas family, the new 

owners of a recently completed home. 

Lionel is a high school graduate with several 

years of college and the father of five children 

from 1 ½ to 17 years old so the 1,100 square 

foot, three bedroom house is a lifeline for 

this family. Lionel is employed by the New 

Orleans Volunteers of America. 

Jim Pate, Executive Director for New Orleans 

Habitat for Humanity (NOAHH), said that 

the qualifications for receiving a home are: 

having the willingness to participate in the 

program, the ability to pay the no- interest 

mortgage, the commitment to invest 350 

hours of “sweat equity” into your home and 

the construction of other recipients’ homes. 

We also learned that Habitat for Humanity is 

the largest homebuilder in New Orleans. 

When we returned to the building site, we 

realized that one of the houses still needed 

some framing work needed in the rafters. 

Dan Roach and Jeff Troklus managed that 

task while the rest of us concentrated on the 

other home and a small group began working 

on the roof of a third house. 

There was a small accident when Sarah 

Novia had a piece of OSB board fall on her 

foot—nothing really serious, but there were 

discussions about OSHA and work site rules. 

Sarah, or Sam as she likes to be called, got the 

only Purple Heart awarded at the conference. 

Lunch soon came and everyone enjoyed po’ 

boy sandwiches in the comfort of the air 

conditioned bus with Bob playing his favorite 

Cajun Comedians on the video. Everyone 

enjoyed the break from the heat and humidity 

and welcomed the Gatorade, juices, and 

water with their lunch. 

After lunch, we finished the roof sheathing 

on the first house, finished the framing 

and sheathed ¾ of the roof on the second 

as well as beginning to sheath a third home. 

At the end of our day, the Habitat staff said 

that we accomplished much more than they 

had expected; “Not bad for a bunch of desk 

jockeys,” we kidded. 

At 2 :30, Bob and our bus were ready to take 

us back to the Sheraton. On the way, Bob 

took us through St Bernard Parish, one of 

the most damaged sections of the city. The 

neighborhood had once been full of homes 

on every lot. Now there were only concrete 

slabs where most of the houses had been. Of 

the few houses that were left, half were still 

uninhabitable and a few were undergoing 

repair. The Parish was just beginning to come 

back. We also stopped at the home of Fats 

Domino, the famous rock and roll star from 

the 1950s. His home in St Bernard Parish 

was nearly completely under water during the 

flood. He was rescued from his roof. 

When we arrived at the hotel, an exhausted 

group of compliance professionals staggered 

out of the bus and headed straight for 

their rooms and well deserved showers. Joe 

Murphy predicted that the water pressure in 

the hotel would drop considerably upon our 

return, but everyone was refreshed and ready 

to explore the French Quarter that evening. n 

A Letter from Attendee/Volunteer 

I attended the SCCE conference in Chicago 

in 2006, benefited greatly from it and 

structured our company’s compliance function 

largely from the information from that conference. 

The conference this year, however, far 

surpassed anything I had ever experienced at 

any such event. This was largely, and maybe 

solely, due to being able to participate in the 

volunteer day with Habitat for Humanity. 

Coming together with a group of colleagues 

and climbing around in the rafters to piece 

together the plywood on the roof created an 

unexpected bond with a core group of conference 

participants. As the conference progressed, 

I found that this teamwork and bonding allowed 

a much richer and deeper experience at 

the conference itself. I am grateful that I took 

the extra day to participate in the volunteer 

effort and look forward to doing it again. 

Dev-Suroop K. Khalsa 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Akal Security, Inc. www.akalsecurity.com 

October 2007 

28 


Thank you to the following for “making a difference” in New Orleans 

Habitat for Humanity 

Benjamin Miller, District of Columbia Housing Authority 

Sarah Michael Nova, Bearing Point 

Monica Wilson, Baltimore City Department of Public Works 

Pally Cottonham, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 

Jacob Park, Green Mountain College 

Mike Lotzof, IPA 

John & Debbie Troklus – University of Louisville 

Sally Rhys, Portland General Electric 

Toby Bishop, Deloitte FAS LLP 

Urton Anderson, University of Texas 

Daniel Roach, CHW 

Sheryl Vacca, Deloitte 

Dev Suroop K Khalsa, Akal Security 

Ben Diamond, HCCS 

Kevin M. Crimmins, Software Impressions 

Joel Rogers, RedHawk Communications, Inc. 

Lori Rothwell, Total Long Term Care 

John Szabo, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Nancy Silvernagel, DeVry Inc. 

Ariyana Randolph, DeVry Inc. 

Joseph E. Murphy, Integrity Interactive Corp. 

Lilith Zoe Cole, Ethics Game 

Marti Arvin, University of Louisville 

Rick Spear, Software Impressions 

Stacy A. Jeffress, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas 

Gary DeVaan, SCCE 

Wilma Eisenman, SCCE

Retaliation: ...continued from page 22 

grams. Just as with other compliance 

programs, successful anti-retaliation 

measures rely upon comprehensive, 

interactive, and repeated training as 

to the fact that retaliation is prohibited 

and will result in consequences 

as serious as those for other forms of 

misconduct. Additionally, because 

retaliation has only rather recently 

been understood as a significant 

organizational challenge, anti-retaliation 

education should also include 

substantial emphasis on what retaliation 

is, how it can manifest itself in 

the particular organization or work 

unit in question, and what individuals 

are expected to do about it. 

Investigating Potential Instances 

of Retaliation 

6. Take appropriate action to investigate, 

evaluate, and address complaints of, as 

well as circumstances or occurrences suggesting, 

possible retaliation. Organizations 

understand the need to conduct prompt, 

thorough, and fair fact-finding or internal 

investigations in the event of situations 

like sexual harassment or alleged shareholder 

fraud. They also understand that, 

consistent with the results of such investigative 

efforts, appropriate deterrence and 

remedial measures, including disciplinary 

action and/or make-whole remedies, must 

follow. Retaliation claims require the same 

careful response and action consistent with 

the results of the investigation. 

7. As with other compliance programs, 

organizations must maintain adequate 

documentation and record-keeping 

of complaints and retaliation-related 

remedial efforts to permit both effective 

deterrence and remediation. 

Insufficiently documented, preserved, 

or retrievable measures will create 

many of the same problems as failure 

to undertake any preventative or 

corrective efforts at all. They can also 

lead to increased liability from jurors 

or other after-the-fact reviewers who 

tend to view institutional forgetfulness 

as evidence of lack of concern for 

the problem in the first place. 

Monitoring Compliance with Standards 

The extent of legal prohibitions, the 

unfortunate natural urge to retaliate, the 

multiplicity of means and opportunities, 

and the difficulty of distinguishing retaliation 

from legitimate behavior in the 

workplace, all argue for the devotion of 

Insufficiently 

documented, 

preserved, or retrievable 

measures will create 

many of the same 

problems as failure to 

undertake any preventative 

or corrective 

efforts at all 

substantial resources to ongoing auditing 

and monitoring for compliance with 

the anti-retaliation organization’s policies 

and procedures as well as applicable law. 

8. An organization’s legal department must 

obviously be involved in identifying and 

categorizing retaliation prohibitions, 

risks, and legal consequences. Human 

Resources is typically needed to identify 

the ways in which retaliation may manifest 

in a particular workplace and to monitor 

such sporadic efforts as promotion 

or reduction-in-force selections, as well 

as ongoing programs like performance 

management and evaluation, for evidence 

of improper retaliation. Risk management, 

internal audit, or security personnel 

may well be needed for investigation and 

analysis of retaliation claims or suspicious 

circumstances. Compliance and ethics 

professionals in particular also bring the 

multidisciplinary expertise and neutral 

perspective that is needed to address such 

complicated, multifaceted challenges. 

9. The complainant and the accused (as 

well as any managers and supervisors of 

either) must be explicitly reminded of the 

organization’s policies regarding retaliation. 

Special attention should be given 

to the responsibilities of supervisors and 

managers as well as the accused to refrain 

from retaliation and the appearance of 

retaliation. They may also need to be 

reminded as to the types of actions that 

could constitute retaliation or the appearance 

of retaliation in the context of the 

particular complaint. 

10.Complainants should be given clear 

assurances that the organization will 

not tolerate retaliation and will take 

active steps to address it. In fact, 

this should be provided in writing. 

Complaints should be encouraged to 

raise any retaliation-related concerns 

that arise either during or subsequent 

to the original complaint handling 

process. They should also be assigned 

specific and knowledgeable persons 

to provide appropriate “avenues of 

complaint.” Such individuals should 

schedule repeated, specific follow-up 

sessions in which they must carefully 

probe the complainant’s experience. 

A casual “How’s it going” contact is 

clearly insufficient. 

Following an Allegation 

The effective prevention and correction of 

retaliation also requires certain additional or 

enhanced actions in the aftermath of specific 

October 2007 

30 


Letter from the CEO 


whistle blowing or other protected conduct 

such as the lodging of internal complaints. 

11. The contact person or persons should 

place “tickler” reminders in his or her 

calendar and prepare for the contact meetings 

carefully. This should include preparing 

an outline of questions to be asked and 

matters to be raised. The contact person 

should document when, where, and how 

long the meeting lasted, and what was discussed. 

Care should be exercised to ensure 

that the contact meetings are as confidential 

and comfortable for the complainant 

as possible. Best practice would be to 

schedule similar follow-up meetings with 

the accused as well. 

12. The complainant’s particular work environment 

should be monitored for some 

period following a complaint. Hostile or 

vengeful statements, acts, or conduct by 

any employee, including peers, subordinates, 

and others in or outside the parties’ 

chain of command, must be adequately 

addressed, stopped, and, if necessary, remedied. 

Additional education or counseling 

for individuals or a work unit should be 

considered even if the potentially retaliatory 

action does not appear to be extremely 

serious. Ostracism, anger, and teasing may 

be the tip of the iceberg for more serious 

retaliatory harassment or even threats of 

violence or sabotage. 

13. Competent guidance for and oversight of 

decision-making concerning the complainant 

should be provided. It is also necessary 

to establish effective review of important 

decisions for at least some time after the 

individual has complained. In some circumstances, 

such as important promotion, 

demotion and termination decision-making, 

it may even be necessary to substitute 

an uninvolved and impartial individual as 

decision-maker concerning the claimant. 

14. Complaints of, or circumstances possibly 

suggesting, retaliation must be investigated 

as promptly, thoroughly, accurately, fairly, 

and confidentially as any other complaint. 

Any such complaint investigations should 

be treated with considerable attention and 

expertise: they should be well-planned and 

resourced; results should be carefully acted 

upon; and actions consonant with the results 

of the investigation and sufficient to 

remedy any retaliatory misconduct should 

be undertaken. 

15. Document counseling and/or remedial 

action concerning retaliation and consider 

it in any subsequent action involving the 

complainant, the accused, or other retaliator. 

Make sure that your files and records 

have the capacity to alert decision-makers 

as to the existence of an ongoing or recent 

prior complaint by or against the subject 

of the decision-making. 

16. Never transfer or significantly change the 

complainant’s working conditions as a 

result of, or proximate in time to, a complainant’s 

serious or good faith complaint. 

If the complainant seeks and is granted a 

significant change, get the complainant’s 

assent in writing. 

17. Do not ever dismiss retaliation complaints 

out of hand. Although it is true that complaints 

are occasionally raised as a defense 

to an employee’s concern that he or she is 

about to be subjected to negative action, like 

a poor performance evaluation or discharge, 

or even as a sword to accomplish some 

unrelated end of the complainant’s, make 

any such conclusion very carefully and after 

thorough and careful consideration. 

In sum, retaliation claims may well be 

one of the most prominent organizational 

challenges of the next decade. Organizations 

must undertake effective action 

now to prevent, correct and deter retaliation 

and the appearance of retaliation in 

their enterprises and workplaces. n 

Although the General Counsel’s role is, in 

part, to defend their company, it appears 

that the government is angry about conflict 

created by combining the positions. The government 

appears to be sending a message that 

if you don’t have independence between the 

Compliance Officer and the General Counsel, 

you are making a mistake. If the Compliance 

Officer’s role is ineffective because of a lack 

of independence, they are not going to be 

impressed. There appears to be no question 

that the General Counsel and the Compliance 

Officer should collaborate on a regular basis. 

However, it appears that if your Compliance 

Officer’s collaboration with the General 

Counsel also limits their independence, you 

might just be increasing your chances for a 

series of unfortunate events. n 


Advertising Rates 

Full page B/W insertion rates: 

1–2 $640 

3 $490 

4 $405 

Half page B/W insertion rates: 

1–2 $450 

3 $355 

4 $305 

Quarter page B/W insertion rates: 

1–2 $265 

3 $225 

4 $215 

Full page 2 color insertion rates: 

1–2 $1,075 

3 $925 

4 $840 

Half page 2 color insertion rates: 

1–2 $885 

3 $790 

4 $740 

Quarter page 2 color insertion rates: 

1–2 $700 

3 $660 

4 $650 


October 2007 

31

The Society of Corporate Compliance 

and Ethics (SCCE) offers you the 

opportunity to take the Certified 

Compliance and Ethics Professional 

(CCEP) certification exam. 

The CCEP gives individuals from all 

industries the platform to demonstrate 

their knowledge and expertise in 

compliance and ethics. 

In the U.S., the exam is available at an 

H&R Block near you. The exam is also 

available in more than 30 countries. 

QUALIFICATIONS 

See the CCEP Candidate Handbook at 

www.corporatecompliance.org/CCEP/ 

CCEP_2006_handbook.pdf 

Cost: $250 for SCCE members 

$350 for non-members 

Credits Required: 20 

You may obtain all twenty credits by: 

• attending SCCE-sponsored 

conferences 

• speaking at conferences regarding 

compliance and ethics 

• attending conferences, seminars, or 

workshops sponsored by other 

companies (please fill out an Individual 

Accreditation Application for each) 

QUESTIONS 

Please contact SCCE via phone at 

+1 952 933 4977 or 888 277 4977 

or e-mail info@corporatecompliance.org 

Or visit our Web site: 

www.corporatecompliance.org/ 

CCEP/CCEP.htm 

Society of Corporate 



Minneapolis, MN 55435, United States 


CCEP CERTIFICATION BENEFITS 

• Demonstrate professional standards 

“We sought the assistance of a 

and status for compliance professionals 

professional certification consulting 

• Heighten the credibility of compliance 

firm, Applied Measurement 

practitioners and enhance the 

Professionals, for the development of 

credibility of compliance programs TAKING THE EXAM 

this certification. Many experienced 

staffed by these certified professionals 

compliance and ethics professionals 

There are several opportunities to 

were involved in the 18-month 

• Ensure that each certified practitioner take the CCEP exam: 

process. We had more than 100 

has the knowledge base necessary to 

• At SCCE’s Compliance and Ethics people sit for the first exam. I 

perform the compliance function Institute, SCCE’s Academies, or 

couldn’t be more pleased with the 

• Facilitate communication with other SCCE’s Workshops 

effort and response. This is a big step 

industry professionals, such as 

• At an H & R Block near you: 

in the maturation process for the 

government officials and attorneys visit www.goAMP.com to register compliance and ethics profession.” 

• Demonstrate the hard work 

• In more than 30 countries: visit 

— Roy Snell, CEO, SCCE 

and dedication necessary in the 

www.corporatecompliance.org/ 

October compliance 2007 field 

CCEP/CCEP.htm for more information 

32 


Get great exposure for 

your employment ads! 

200 words 

90 days 

only $400! 

Compliance and ethics professionals 

belong to a highly specialized field. SCCE can 

match qualified individuals with your staffing 

needs. Take advantage of SCCE’s Web site to 

advertise your unique career opportunities. 

It’s easy and cost effective. List up to 200 words for 

90 days for only $400. Get worldwide exposure for 

your classified ad to a targeted audience! 

To post a job: 

Visit www.corporatecompliance.org 

and click on Advertising: Career 

Opportunities in the left-hand menu 


+1 952 933 4977 or 888 277 4977 

The Complete 


and Ethics Manual 

An accurate, comprehensive, and 

authoritative reference source! 

Save time by improving the efficiency 

of your compliance program. 

The manual comes with the full-version CD. 

Member rate $315.00 

Non-Member rate $349.00 

The Complete Compliance and Ethics Manual 

includes more than 400 double-sided pages filled 

with up-to-date, valuable information on current 

compliance issues. Large, attractive three-ring 

binder with color front, spine, and back cover. 

Th r e e w a y s t o o r d e r: 

Mail to: SCCE 

Visit: www.corporatecompliance.org 6500 Barrie Road 

Suite 250 

Fax: 952-988-0146 Minneapolis, MN 55435 

For more details call 888-277-4977 


October 2007 

33


& Ethics 

Institute Recap 

New Orleans 07 

See you next year, September 14-17 - Chicago 

Success is Contagious! 

Attendees came from all over the world 

3 425 Compliance Professionals 

3 270 Companies 

3 93 Speakers 

3 60 Sessions 

3 25 Exhibitors 

CCEP gives individuals from all industries the platform 

to demonstrate their knowledge and expertise in 

compliance and ethics 

“The caliber of people and the subject matter was as 

incredible as it was eye-opening. The highlights, the 

approach, and the lessons learned from the expereince 

will carry me through many days ahead. Being able to 

communicate, share and establish new relationships was 

both satisfying and rewarding. Congratulations and thank 

you for presenting such a tightly packaged and fun event. 

Pamela Zacha 

President 

The Nimbus Communication Group, Inc. 

Warrenton, Virgina 

Participants learned about the latest products, services 

and strategies for successfully implementing and 

managing effective compliance and ethics programs 

Catch your success with SCCE! 


October 2007 

34 

SCCE Would like to thank 

our Platinum Sponsors

Success is 

Contagious! 

The CEI is an important time for networking 

and education” Roy Snell, CEO, SCCE 

Top experts in the field share their expertise 

“ Effective Compliance Communication” 

SCCE – “Let’s do it right” 

CEI is a great venue for meeting 

with industry peers 

A touch of New Orleans 

Sessions are highly interactive and allow a lot 

of time for sharing and exchanging ideas 

Crowned King and Queen of the Society of 

Dancing Compliance Professionals 

Sarah Novia and Joel Rogers 

Dancing compliance professionals 

Compliance is not always easy 

Sharing some goodtime camaraderie 

Thank You! 

for attending the 2007 

Compliance & Ethics Institute 

Exhibitors enjoyed high visibility 

and name recognition

The Code of Ethics 

for Compliance and Ethics 

Professionals 

Editor’s Note: Rebecca Walker is a partner 

in the law firm of Kaplan & Walker LLP 

in Sante Monica. She may be reached at 

rwalker@walkercompliance.com. 

Joe Murphy is a Partner in Compliance Systems 

Legal Group, and Chairman of Integrity Interactive 

Corporation. 

At the Compliance and Ethics 

Institute in New Orleans this 

September, SCCE announced an 

exciting development in the compliance and 

ethics arena: the adoption of a Code of Ethics 

for Compliance and Ethics Professionals. This 

Code sets important standards and provides 

crucial guidance for all of us working in this 

field. This article discusses what the Code is 

about and the guidance that it offers. 

Background of the Code 

Compliance and ethics is a growing, global 

profession, and one that plays an increasingly 

important role in our society. It is also a relatively 

new profession, and one that does not 

benefit from a significant amount of case law 

or administrative guidance regarding professional 

obligations, as the legal profession does. 

The Code is designed to provide guidance and 

set standards for compliance and ethics professionals 

(CEPs). 

The standards used in drafting the Code 

are drawn from reviews of ethical standards 

in other fields, including the Health Care 

Compliance Association’s Code of Ethics 

for Health Care Compliance Professionals. 

The original draft of the Code was written 

by a committee of six members of the SCCE 

By Rebecca Walker and Joe Murphy 

Advisory Board. Joe Murphy and Rebecca 

Walker served as co-chairs of that committee, 

and Urton Anderson, Michael Horowitz, 

Shelly Milano, and Marjorie Doyle were the 

remaining members. The draft was reviewed 

by the SCCE board and circulated to all 

SCCE members for comment. Valuable input 

from the membership was incorporated into 

the final version. 

The Code reflects the experience of other professions, 

namely that the existence of ethical 

standards can strengthen those who work in a 

specific field by giving them external support 

for doing the right thing in difficult situations. 

It is one hallmark of a profession to have 

standards that address what is distinct about 

that field and articulate the obligations that 

attach to that profession. It should be noted, 

however, that the rules contained in the Code 

do not constitute law and are not binding 

on the companies who employ compliance 

and ethics professionals. Rather, the Code is 

adopted by those in the profession as a mark 

of their commitment to conduct themselves 

in accordance with the highest standards of 

professional conduct. It is hoped that companies 

will also choose to adopt these standards 

for their CEPs as a sign of their commitment 

to vigorous compliance and ethics programs. 

The Code could, for example, be adopted 

by the board of directors of an organization 

to govern the conduct of its compliance and 

ethics professionals. 

Contents of the Code 

We present here a brief overview of the Code, 

touching on some of the more important 

Joe Murphy Rebecca Walker 

elements. For more specific guidance and to 

review the Code, see the SCCE’s Web site at 

http://www.corporatecompliance.org/resources/documents/SCCECodeOfEthics.pdf. 

The Code contains four elements: 

1. Preamble – introduces the Code and 

makes the important point that those in 

the compliance and ethics profession serve 

a critical role in helping to prevent and 

detect misconduct in organizations and in 

promoting ethical conduct. 

2. Principles – broad standards that set the 

framework for the detail provided in the 

specific rules. 

3. Rules – specific standards that set the 

minimum level of conduct for CEPs. 

4. Commentary – designed to deal with specific 

situations and questions and to pro- 


October 2007 

36 


Management Practices Group 

“Effective compliance investigations require knowledge, skill, persistence, and good judgmentbut 

most of all, they take the ability to hear and understand people.” 

Management Practices Group delivers. Founded in 1996 by former management 

employment attorney and business school professor Jan Duffy, MPG offers excellence 

in independent investigations and fact-finding, as well as executive coaching and 

employee training in compliance and business misconduct prevention subjects. MPG 

experts also provide analysis and testimony in compliance, business practices, and 

employment litigation and administrative proceedings. We specialize in: 

Retaliation, whistleblower and discrimination complaint investigations 

Best practices in effective prevention and correction of business misconduct 

Trans-Atlantic and cross-border fact finding and problem resolution 

Best practices education for internal investigators 

To learn how we can help your organization, please visit www.managementpractices.com 

D. Jan Duffy, J.D 

355 Bryant Street #207 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

TEL: (415) 268-0130 

#20 110 Battersea Park Rd. 

London, SW11 4LZ 

TEL: (0) 781 799 6976 

Get started today on your career 

making powerful organizations safer and more ethi- 

Enron. WorldCom. Arthur Andersen. Tyco. If you’re wondering how a system fraught with criminal 

and ethical misbehavior could possibly be right for you, authors Joseph E. Murphy and Joshua H. Leet 

have the answer: Join what smartmoney.com calls one of America’s top ten fastest growing fields. 

Their book, Building a Career in Compliance and Ethics, is the first ever to give step-by-step 

instructions on how to establish a career making powerful organizations safer and more ethical. 

You’ll discover: 

• The wide range of compliance and ethics jobs 

• The skills and temperament needed for this field 

• Practical ways to prepare for and get ahead in your career 

• Steps for conducting an effective job search 

• Advice from seasoned compliance and ethics professionals in the field 

• Tips for “selling” your compliance and ethics program to upper management 

Building a Career in Compliance and Ethics is your guide to doing well by doing good! 

SCCE 



Phone 888-277-4977 

FAX 952-988-0146 

info@corporatecompliance.org 


Buy now for $29.95. Visit www.corporatecompliance.org 

to order. 

October 2007 

37

Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics 

Compliance & Ethics Magazine 

Compliance & Ethics is a leading compliance 

magazine published by the Society of Corporate 

Compliance and Ethics (SCCE). SCCE is an 

organization dedicated to enhancing the role 

of compliance professionals and advancing 

corporate governance, compliance, and ethics. 

Purpose 

Compliance & Ethics Magazine provides current 

compliance regulations, topics, and issues that 

affect today’s compliance industry. 

Professionals in the compliance field are 

attracted to the Compliance & Ethics Magazine 

because it is the ultimate source of compliance 

and ethics information, providing organizations 

with the most current views on the corporate 

regulatory environment, internal controls, and 

the overall conduct of business. National and 

global experts provide informative articles, 

sharing their knowledge and providing 

professional support so readers can make 

informed legal and cultural corporate decisions. 

Audience Profile 

Compliance & Ethics Magazine has grown to 

become one of the leading publications for 

compliance professionals. Compliance & Ethics 

Magazine has a current distribution of over 

1,500 readers bi-monthly; is distributed at all 

SCCE conferences, academies, and workshops; 

and is used as a communication tool for other 

interested parties. Recipients of this national 

magazine are executives and others responsible 

for compliance: chief compliance officers, 

risk/ethics officers, corporate CEOs and board 

members, chief financial officers, auditors, 

controllers, legal executives, general counsel, 

corporate secretaries, government agencies, and 

entrepreneurs in various industries. 

Why Advertise With SCCE 

The wealth of news and resources provided by 

SCCE attracts a desirable business market of 

compliance professionals. We believe public 

relations are a great way to build your business, 

and Compliance & Ethics Magazine offers you 

the opportunity to create awareness and access a 

targeted audience. 

Rapid Growth 

SCCE has grown significantly over the past 

three years, and we look forward to continuing 

our expansion with your support. 


Click Publications then Compliance & Ethics 

for a rate sheet and insertion order form 

Sav e 20% o n 

yo u r first a d 

October 2007 

38 


Compliance & Ethics Magazine Advertising Order Form 

Please fill out the following information for your advertisement: 

Contact Person: 

Name of Company Placing Advertisement 

Dates of Insertion (please check all 2007 insertions 

or indicate 2008 insertions on the line below): 

AD DEADLINES 45 days before publication date 

publication dates 

February 

April 

August 

October 

December 

2008 insertions: 

First Name M.I. Last Name 

Title 

Place of Employment 

Address 

City State Zip 

Phone 

Size of Advertisement (please check one): 

Full-page: trim size 8.5" x 11" (include additional ⅛" bleed) 

½ page horizontal: 7" wide x 4.5" high (no bleed) 

½ page vertical: 3.5" wide x 9.5" high (no bleed) 

¼ page: 4.625" wide x 3.5" high (no bleed) 

*Note: all ads are black-and-white except for cover ads, which are full-color. 

If purchasing a color cover, please check below: 

Inside front cover Back cover Inside back cover 

Compliance & Ethics Ad Prices 

Full-Page Black-&-White Ad ¼ Page Black & White Ad 

Cost Per Insertion 

Cost per insertion 

1-2 insertions………$605.00 1-2 insertions…… $250.00 



Fax 

E-mail 

Total Cost 

❏ Check enclosed (please make your check payable to SCCE). 

❏ Invoice me PO # 

Charge my credit card: ❏ Visa ❏ MasterCard ❏ American Express 

Account No. 

Exp. Date 

Name on Card 

½ Page Black & White Ad 


1-2 insertions ……..$420.00 

3-4 insertions ……..$355.00 

5-6 insertions ……..$305.00 

Full-Page Full-Color Ad: 


1 insertion …………$1,150 

3 insertions……….. $1,050 

Signature 

Fax to: 952-988-0146 (ATTN: Marlene Robinson) 

Mail to: SCCE | 6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250 | Minneapolis, MN 55435

The Code of Ethics for Compliance and Ethics Professionals: ...continued from page 36 

vide important explanations and examples. 

The objective is to address dilemmas that 

we know practitioners face and provide 

specific guidance and practical answers to 

real world questions. Thus, the commentary 

is an essential part of the Code. 

We recognize that the work of 

compliance and ethics professionals 

is not aimed at scraping 

by with the minimum 

conduct the law requires. 

The Preamble sets the tone of the Code and 

spells out some key definitions. One particularly 

important term that appears throughout 

the Code is “misconduct.” This term includes 

illegal and unethical conduct; it is not limited 

to violations of legal rules. We recognize that 

the work of compliance and ethics professionals 

is not aimed at scraping by with the 

minimum conduct the law requires. Instead, 

as reflected in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, 

CEPs strive to promote an ethical culture in 

the organizations that they serve. 

The Code applies not only to in-house CEPs, 

but also to those professionals who service 

clients from outside the organization. The 

Code thus defines “employing organization” 

to include an organization as an employer or 

a client. 

The Code defines “highest governing body” 

as the highest authority in an organization, or 

the place where the ultimate power resides. 

The Code makes clear that, in a complex 

organization, the highest governing body may 

be the parent company’s board of directors, as 

opposed to the board of a subsidiary. 

After the Preamble, the Code is divided into 

three sections, each based on a Principle. The 

principles reflect CEPs’ duties to three groups: 

the public, their clients, and the profession. 

Having an obligation to the public is 

one of the hallmarks of a profession. While 

CEPs certainly have a duty to those who pay 

for their work, they also have a duty that 

transcends the paycheck. The second duty is 

to the CEP’s clients – those who have hired 

or retained the CEP to assist in the development 

and implementation of their compliance 

programs. The Code makes clear that this 

second duty is to the organization and not to 

management or any individual managers. The 

third duty is to the profession of compliance 

and ethics. The following is a review of the 

Code’s provisions, organized by Principle. 

Principle I – Obligations to the Public 

Rule 1.2 provides that CEPs must take the 

steps necessary to prevent misconduct. This is 

not intended to be a passive standard. CEPs 

cannot simply sit back and wait for others to 

seek advice. They must reach out to ensure 

that the organization is acting properly and 

do what is necessary to head off misconduct. 

The commentary adds that, while the CEP 

must be active in preventing misconduct, the 

actions that he or she takes must be legal and 

ethical. When the CEP is unable to prevent 

improper actions by a client, the commentary 

directs the CEP to rule 1.4. 

Rule 1.4 provides guidance for the CEP who 

is faced with proposed misconduct. The rule 

makes clear that a CEP cannot consent to, or 

passively appear to accede to, misconduct. Instead, 

the CEP needs to object clearly to proposed 

wrongdoing. If the CEP’s objections do 

not prevent or stop the proposed misconduct, 

the CEP is instructed to escalate the issue, 

including to the highest governing authority 

(e.g., the board of the parent company) where 

appropriate. If these steps fail, the CEP may 

consider resignation. The Code makes clear 

that the CEP should consider resignation only 

as a last resort, because the CEP may be in a 

position to contest misconduct. Removing the 

CEP as an obstacle to misconduct may just 

make the misconduct more likely to occur. If 

the CEP chooses to resign, he or she should 

provide senior management and the highest 

governing body of the employing organization 

a letter of resignation that describes “in full 

detail and with complete candor” those conditions 

that necessitated the resignation. If there 

is a legal obligation to report the misconduct, 

then the CEP must, of course, report. This 

just states a fundamental point – if there is a 

legal obligation to report something, the Code 

supports compliance with the law. 

When is escalation to the board necessary The 

commentary provides guidance on this determination. 

Specifically, escalation is appropriate 

when the CEP is directed to do so by the 

board (e.g., by a prior board resolution), when 

escalation to management has not worked, or 

when the CEP believes escalation to management 

would be futile. Note, however, that 

these are only examples and that escalation 

may be appropriate at other times as well. 

Principle II – Obligations to the 

Employing Organization 

Rule 2.1 provides that CEPs must serve their 

organizations in a timely, competent, and professional 

manner. Professionals need sufficient 

education to do their jobs effectively, and 

need to stay apprised of current developments 

in the field. 

Rule 2.2 provides that CEPs should ensure, 

to the best of their abilities, that their 

employer complies with the law. But, as the 

commentary makes clear, this is just a leader- 


October 2007 

40 


SCCE’S 

MISSION 

SCCE exists to champion 

ethical practice and 

compliance standards 

in all organizations and 

to provide the necessary 

resources for compliance 

professionals and 

others who share these 

principles. 

Call for 

Statistical Surveys 

SCCE is looking for informational 

studies/surveys that offer 

statistics designed to gauge the 

state of corporate compliance, 

integrity, governance, and ethics. 

This information would be 

made available on the SCCE 

Web site’s Resources page. If 

you are aware of any studies/ 

surveys that would benefit your 

colleagues in making better and 

more informed decisions, please 

e-mail Marlene Robinson 

at marlene.robinson 

@corporatecompliance.org. 

Congratulations to 

CCEP designees! 

The Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) 

offers you the opportunity to take the Certified Compliance 

and Ethics Professional (CCEP) certification exam. 

Achieving 

certification 

has required a 

diligent effort by 

these individuals. 

The CCEP is a 

professional with 

knowledge of 

relevant regulations 

and expertise in 

compliance processes 

sufficient to assist 

corporate industries 

to understand 

and address 

legal obligations, 

and promote 

organizational 

integrity through 

the operation of 

effective compliance 

programs. 

Questions Please contact: 

Caroline Liz Hergert at 888-277-4977 or 

Liz.hergert@corporatecompliance.org. 

Urton Anderson 

Wilson Turner Ballard 

John Fuchko 

Karen Gilbert 

Noor Haq 

Michael Wayne Hill 

Scott Kowalski 

Bethany Marie Machacek 

Meghan Kathleen O’Keefe 

Keaven Peck 

Robin Schroeder 

Linda Freeman Sendaula 

Renee Martinez Sophocles 

Sheryl Vacca 

Sandra B. Vasquez 

Robin Lee Wilcox 

Society of Corporate Compliance & Ethics 

6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250, Minneapolis, MN 55435 

Thank you for your help! 


October 2007 

41

Compliance On-Screen 

By Theodore L. Banks and Gene Stavrou 

Editor’s Note: One of the General Session topics 

presented at the SCCE 6th Annual Compliance 

& Ethics Institute was Compliance On-Screen 

by Theodore L. Banks, Chief Counsel, Global 

Compliance Kraft Foods and Gene Stavrou, Associate 

Director, Global Records Management Kraft 

Foods. For your review is a brief summary of their 

presentation. They may be contacted at: tbanks@ 

kraft.com and gene.stavrou@kraft.com. 

Effective Compliance Communications 

The rules of effective compliance communication 

are no different from the rules of effective 

communication in general: 

n Know your audience. 

n Know your goal. 

n Create and deliver a message tailored to 

your audience that furthers your goal. 

Tailoring a compliance message to many 

subgroups, however, can be a tough proposition 

in even the smallest of organizations. 

Automation can help. The evolution of 

online compliance tools mirrors the shift in 

compliance training overall—from classroom 

to targeted immersion. Keep in mind that 

a focus on the individual must be tempered 

with common sense. 

“But isn’t all publicity “good” publicity” 

Absolutely not. Overwhelming your audience 

only helps them to tune you out. On the 

contrary, good timing and knowing when not 

to communicate a new message to employees is 

crucial. Remember that your success is gauged 

not by number of communications received, 

but by whether the right message got to your 

audience in a way that furthers the organization’s 

compliance goals. 

The Compliance Dashboard 

Think of compliance communications solutions 

in terms of their fit within your overall strategy 

and not just as add-on tactics. One such solution 

is the compliance “dashboard” concept, similar 

to a car’s dashboard in that it lets employees 

know specific information about their individual 

experience. “What ground have I covered” 

“What’s my status” “Where should I go from 

here” “How do I get there” Dashboards in cars 

work best when they are easy to read at a glance. 

Your goal is to make the compliance process 

painless (or at least reasonably painless) by making 

the necessary information for the employee 

as easy as possible to access. 

Here’s an example. Repositories of electronic 

records are growing, which means that there are 

more areas to search in response to a subpoena. 

In addition, federal rules have changed making 

it more important than ever to have this process 

documented and working. So, what compliance 

information related to this process would it help 

for an employee to know at a glance 

n What, if any legal holds am I subject to 

n What topics does an employee in my 

function/sector/jurisdiction need to know 

more about 

Extending the Dashboard 

The best-built long-term projects offer up-front 

benefits to the user and build momentum by offering 

a continuing incentive to use the system. 

The near-term goal of the compliance dashboard 

is to offer tailored answers to certain compliance 

questions. The long-term goal is a single, maintained, 

rules database that will help automate the 

tedious stuff and keep the data relevant. 

Once a dashboard foothold is gained, keep 

adding useful data that the user can depend on. 

Again, be mindful of data overload. Keep the 

data that the user needs 99% of the time in front 

and the data needed 1% of the time a click away. 

Adding a “retention rules” area to the dashboard 

Gene Stavrou 

Theodore l. Banks 

provides another useful solution. The at-a-glance 

answer to “What records must I retain and for 

how long” is the short-term benefit. Continuing 

to add employee role-specific compliance 

rules to a central repository transforms the dashboard’s 

database into an important component 

of your knowledge management infrastructure. 

Keeping Your Program Relevant 

We know that the business and legal landscapes 

are constantly shifting, but attitudes change 

as well. Think about these two photographs 

representing the concept “environmentalist.” The 

first shows Teddy Roosevelt and his son sitting 

on a large animal they had just hunted down, 

and the second shows a Greenpeace protest. For 

the second image, we could just as easily have 

used a picture of a family discussing recycling, 


October 2007 

42 


SCCE COMPLIANCE ACADEMIES 

Become a Certified 

Compliance & Ethics Professional (CCEP) 

Attend one of the SCCE 2008 Academies 

and sit for the exam on the fifth day 

following a four-day intensive training session 

February 11–14, 2008 

Scottsdale, AZ 

CCEP Exam February 15, 2008 

May 5–8, 2008 

Orlando, FL 


September 22–25, 2008 

Switzerland 

CCEP Exam September 26, 2008 

November 17–20, 2008 

San Francisco, CA 

CCEP Exam November 21, 2008 

The Compliance Academy is a four-day intensive training course 

designed for participants with a basic knowledge of compliance concepts. The Academy 

covers specific subject matter in depth and is a great preparation course for the CCEP 

exam. (The course provides you with sufficient credits required to sit for the exam.) 

Becoming CCEP certified demonstrates sufficient knowledge of government regulations 

and compliance processes to understand and address legal obligations and promote 

organizational integrity through the operation of effective compliance programs. 


Questions Call +1 952 933 4977 or 888 277 4977 


October 2007 

43

Compliance On-Screen: ...continued from page 42 

global warming, and conservation at the dinner 

table. What’s obvious, however, is that the image 

of Roosevelt—the environmentalist of his 

time—does not at all bring environmentalism to 

mind. A tailored message is useless if its underlying 

assumptions are outdated. 

An ongoing risk assessment process is essential 

to make sure that your program evolves as laws 

and our society evolve. Look for early warnings 

of where compliance efforts may need to focus, 

so you are prepared before you are facing a crisis. 

Think about what cultural values are being enacted 

into laws in places that might be identified 

as the “regulatory vanguard,” for example, think 

of Europe regarding data protection and privacy 

breaches, and California for protection against 

hazardous chemicals found in household items. 

Reaching an International Audience 

Companies spend large sums of money translating 

their compliance messages. The phrase “lost 

in translation” is a familiar one. Just as outdated 

underlying assumptions can make your message 

irrelevant, a culture misread can lead to communication 

that is puzzling to non-US employees 

or even counterproductive. 

It is important to keep the goal of your communication 

in mind when evaluating it for international 

use. Ask yourself how your approach 

enhances compliance. Get international lawyers 

and compliance officers involved. Run regional 

focus groups if possible. Direct translation, 

assuming that western attitudes are universal, 

and not taking cultural traditions and historical 

factors into account can backfire. 

On Storing, Processing, and 

Communicating Information 

Three technology trends in particular are opening 

up possibilities for delivering a tailored compliance 

message: 

n Rich internet applications are now 

allowing Web software to deliver robust 

interfaces, which address productivity 

from the user’s perspective. Google Maps, 

for example, uses AJAX (Asynchronous 

JavaScript and XML) to download areas 

of a map than the user will likely need, 

without the user requesting them. This is 

not the most efficient interaction from a 

systems perspective, but it helps the user 

feel that the entire map is already there. 

n Pervasive computing is the second trend. 

We went from one machine with many 

users to one machine with one user and 

then to many machines/one user. 

n And finally, Web 2.0 is a set of collaboration 

and communication technologies that are 

transforming the way people communicate. 

o Blogs (“Web Logs”) – Online journals 

hosted on a website. 

o Collective Intelligence – Systems that 

attempt to tap the expertise of a group 

to make decisions, such as collaborative 

publishing and common databases. 

o Mashups – Content from different online 

sources aggregated to create a new service. 

o Podcasts – Audio or video recordings that 

can be distributed through an intranet site 

or an aggregator, such as iTunes. 

o RSS (Really Simple Syndication) – A 

distribution technology that allows people 

to subscribe to online information, such 

as blogs and podcasts. 

o Social networking – Systems that allow 

members of a site to learn about other 

members’ knowledge. Some companies 

use these systems to help identify experts. 

o Web services – Software that makes it 

easier for different systems to communicate 

with one another automatically 

in order to pass information or conduct 

transactions. 

o Wikis – Systems for collaborative publishing 

allowing many authors to contribute 

to an online document or discussion. 

It’s important to see these technologies in terms 

of how they can possibly help you fulfill or 

surpass your compliance goals. 

Conclusion 

The title of our presentation was “Compliance 

On-Screen.” The great moviemakers communicate 

a powerful message with their images and 

with their dialogue, and compliance professionals 

should do no less. Think about what 

you retain from great movies – and messages 

they convey. From “2001 A Space Odyssey,” we 

remember how a computer runs amok – and we 

should remember that in compliance, the goal is 

never technology, but technology can be a means 

to enable us to do our jobs better. 

“Sunset Boulevard,” a film about Nora 

Desmond, an aging silent film star who is 

refuses to accept reality. In one of the film’s most 

famous scenes, someone recognizes her and says, 

“You’re Nora Desmond. You used to be big.” 

She responds “I am big. It’s the pictures that 

got small.” A great excuse for a silent film star; 

not so great for someone running a compliance 

program. Keep your program relevant. 

In “The Terminator” (footnote: Yes, we are 

mentioning Termination right after Sunset 

Boulevard. Movie buffs please don’t scream. 

They both convey messages effectively 

– although in different ways, of course.) scenes 

were sometimes presented from the perspective 

of the Terminator, a complex robot. The director 

created an image of what looks like a “head 

up” display used by fighter pilots to view data 

from onboard computers. In the case of the 

Terminator, the data would be coming from 

himself. The display would be an implausible 

extra step for such a seemingly well-engineered 

machine to take in processing his own data. 

That is, until you realize who the real audience 

for the data is. The filmmaker wanted to show 

the theater audience that something highly technological 

was taking place. To do this, he kept 

the rules of effective communications in mind: 


October 2007 

44 


NEW—Working for Integrity: 

Finding the Perfect Job in the Rapidly 

Growing Compliance and Ethics Field 

Joseph E. Murphy, one of the leading experts in compliance, has collaborated 

with Joshua Leet to write a remarkable book about the compliance and ethics 

field. If you want a career in this field, you must read Working for Integrity. If 

you already work in compliance and ethics, you will want to avail yourself of 

the advice and insight Mr. Murphy offers in this book. If you hire compliance 

professionals, you will want to refer to this resource to make wise choices. This 

book contains valuable information such as: 

Interviews with more than 20 professionals in compliance and ethics 

Ways to promote compliance to management 

Résumé builders 

Protections for compliance professionals 

Advice on finding the right employees for compliance jobs 

A glossary of compliance and ethics terms and a suggested reading list 

Working for Integrity is a marvelous resource for EVERYONE involved 

with the compliance field! 

YES 

Send me Working for Integrity: Finding the Perfect Job 

in the Rapidly Growing Compliance and Ethics Field 

Working for Integrity SCCE Members . . $145.00 

Working for Integrity Non-Members ....$195.00 

Number of copies: 

(Free FedEx Ground shipping within continental U.S.) 

Please type or print: 

SCCE Member ID 

First Name M.I. Last Name 

Title 

Organization 

Street Address 

City State Zip 

Telephone 

Fax 

Total: $ _______________ 

Check enclosed 

Invoice me PO # _______________ 

Charge my credit card: 

Mastercard VISA American Express 

Account number 

Expiration date 

Name on card 

Signature 

Federal Tax ID: 23-2882664 

Prices subject to change without notice. SCCE is required to 

charge sales tax on purchases from Minnesota and Pennsylvania. 

Please calculate this in the cost of your subscription. 

The required sales tax in Pennsylvania is 6% and Minnesota 

is 6.5%. 

E-mail 

Please make your check payable to SCCE. 

For more information, please call 888-277-4977. 

Mail check to: 6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250 


Or FAX to: 952-988-0146 

6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250, Minneapolis, 

MN 55435 

Phone +1 952 933 4977 or 888 277 4977 

FAX 952-988-0146 

info@corporatecompliance.org 

www.corporatecompliance.org

The Code of Ethics for Compliance and Ethics Professionals: ...continued from page 40 

Compliance On-Screen: 


ship role – all employees have a responsibility 

to ensure compliance. 

Rule 2.4 states that CEPs have a duty to 

keep senior management and the highest 

governing body informed of the status of the 

compliance and ethics program, both as to 

implementation and areas of risk. This duty, 

in turn, reflects the duty of management and 

the board to monitor compliance, consistent 

with the standards articulated by the 

Delaware Chancery Court in the case of In 

Re Caremark Int’l Inc. Derivative Litigation. 

In that case, which was endorsed last year 

in the case of Stone v. Ritter, the court stated 

that a director’s obligations include a duty to 

attempt to assure that a corporate information 

and reporting system exists and that 

failure to do so may, under some circumstances, 

render a director liable for losses 

caused by non-compliance. 

Rule 2.5 deals with the very important 

subject of non-retaliation. Retaliation has an 

enormous capacity to undermine a compliance 

and ethics program and could subject 

a company to severe treatment by the legal 

system. Thus Rule 2.5 requires CEPs not to 

aid or abet retaliation and to implement procedures 

designed to protect those who report 

suspected misconduct. 

Rule 2.6 provides that CEPs must carefully 

guard against disclosure of confidential 

information obtained in the course of their 

professional activities. Maintaining confidentiality 

is an essential element of a CEP’s 

duties to an employing organization. The rule 

also recognizes, however, that under certain 

circumstances, confidentiality must yield to 

other values or concerns, such as the necessity 

of stopping an act that creates appreciable risk 

to health and safety, or revealing a confidence 

when necessary to comply with a subpoena or 

other legal process. 

Rule 2.7 concerns conflicts of interest. CEPs 

should avoid conflicts of interest and report 

anything that might constitute a conflict to 

their employing organizations. Rule 2.7 makes 

clear that involvement in a matter subject to 

such a report will not necessarily preclude 

the CEP from participating in the matter. 

The CEP’s experience may give very valuable 

insight into misconduct, and the CEP may 

be the person best positioned to prevent or 

detect it. The key is disclosure. Rule 2.7 also 

specifies that CEPs must not permit loyalty 

to individuals in the employing organization 

to interfere with their duty to the employing 

organization or the superior responsibility of 

upholding the law, ethical business conduct, 

and the Code. In other words, friendships 

and loyalties that the CEP has developed with 

other individuals at the organization cannot 

interfere with the CEP’s duties to the organization 

or the profession. 

Principle III – Obligations to the 

Profession 

Rule 3.1 concerns the manner in which CEPs 

should conduct their work. It specifies that 

CEPs must pursue their work with honesty, 

fairness, and diligence and cannot agree 

to unreasonable limits on their work. For 

example, as the commentary makes clear, if a 

CEP is asked to conduct an investigation but 

is prevented from talking to certain employees 

or reviewing particular documents, this 

is an unacceptable limitation on the conduct 

of the investigation and the CEP’s work. If 

the limits placed on the CEP’s conduct are 

unreasonable, then the CEP must decline to 

do the work and explain to the board why 

he/she refused. 

In Rule 3.2, CEPs are encouraged to work 

with legal counsel to minimize litigation 

risks. Protecting the confidentiality of client 

information is essential for CEPs to function 

effectively in organizations. If the information 

n Know your audience. 

n Know your goal. 

n Create and deliver a message tailored to 

your audience that furthers your goal. 

You don’t need to create an advanced robot, 

or even produce a movie, to effectively communicate 

your compliance message. Whatever 

means you use to communicate, remain 

focused on your audience, and you’ll find that 

your message will get through. n 

clients provide to us is exploited in litigation, 

it can seriously erode the effectiveness of 

compliance and ethics programs. 

Rule 3.5 provides that CEPs should remain 

apprised of developments in the field and 

participate in professional dialogues and 

exchanges. One of the distinct and most valuable 

traits of the compliance and ethics field 

is the extent to which it is an open field, one 

in which practitioners often feel free to share 

their experiences and learnings with others 

in an effort to promote the profession and to 

promote compliance and business ethics more 

generally. 

Conclusion 

The SCCE has adopted this Code to help 

strengthen the field of compliance and ethics, 

to bring increased recognition to the professional 

status of compliance and ethics work, 

and to aid each of us in making difficult 

professional decisions. Ours is an important 

profession and this Code should serve as a useful 

guide and resource in our daily work. n 

October 2007 

46 


SAVE THE DATE IN 2008 

OFFICIAL SE AL OF APPROVAL 

Certified Compliance & Ethics Professional 

7TH ANNUAL 


Institute 

September 14–17, 2008 

Chicago, IL | Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers 

SAVE THE DATE IN 2008 ~ SAVE THE DATE IN 2008 ~ SAVE THE DATE IN 2008 ~ SAVE THE DATE IN 2008 

October 2007 

47 

For more information, visit www.corporatecompliance.org or call +1 952 933 4977 or 888 277 4977

New SCCE 

Members in 2007 

The Society of Corporate Compliance 

and Ethics welcomes the following new 

members and organizations. All member 

contact information is available on the 

SCCE website in the Members-Only section: 


Alaska 

Carol L. Childress, JD LLM CHC, 

Bristol Area Health Corporation 

Barbara Harmon, Alyeska Pipeline 

Service Co 

Arkansas 

Fibi K. Green, Tyson Foods Inc 

Neal Jansonius, Entergy Corporation 

Jennifer R. Treat, Tyson Foods Inc 

Arizona 

Harold D. McCracken, Tri West 

Healthcare Alliance 

Andria Poe 

California 

Robert L. Bortrager, CHC, County of 

San Diego 

Peter K. Chun, The California 

Endowment 

Ray Furey, Genentech 

Patricia Hadfield, Hadfield & Wilson 

Tyronne Howton, Genentech 

Michael Lewis 

Nancy Mize, Roche Palo Alto 

Susan Mosunic, Roche Palo Alto 

Steve Soe, Genentech 

Lonette Wesser, Amylin 

Pharmaceuticals 

Jonathan Williams, Genentech 

Colorado 

Lilith Zoe Cole, Ethics Game 

Andy Holleman, Qwest 

Communications 

Angela R. Wishon, JD, Univ of C 

Susan K. Wold, Janus 

Conneticut 

Cara T. Laurello, Covidien 

David B. Lewis, Praxair Inc 

Marie Liskom, Univ of Connecticut 

Florida 

James Beasley, Stetson University 

Rosa M. Gomez, Access Diabetic 

Kadisha D. Phelps 

Stanley Willis, Fiserv 

Georgia 

Andrea B. Alexander, MBA CISA CFE, 

Coca-Cola Enterprises 

Dave L. Bayer, United Parcel Service 

Randy Grimes, United Parcel Service 

Cathy D. Hampton, RARE Hospitality 

International Inc 

Gregory Lynn Riggs, Compliance 

Systems Legal Group 

Derek V. Walker, United Parcel Service 

Ruth Ward, United Parcel Service 

Illinois 

Kathleen Beaton, Allstate Insurance 

Company 

Michelle Cereghino, Zurich Insurance 

Lee Fosburgh, The Pampered Chef Ltd 

Joe Freedman, State Farm Insurance 

Companies 

Kenneth J. Mantel, Gateway 

Foundation 

Mark Monroe, Wm Wrigley Jr 

Company 

Bruce J. Patterson, International Truck 

& Engine Corporation 

Kimberly W. White, JD, Underwriters 

Laboratories Inc 

Indiana 

Tina Marie Lamb, Capella University 

James F. Waddick, MBA, Wishard 

Health Services 

Kansas 

Mike Voth, Koch Supply & Trading 

Kentucky 

Gennie Bridwell, Toyota 

Karen D. Mullins, MA, Toyota 

Charlotte A. Neal, MA, Toyota 

Erin A. Straits, Toyota 

Lisa Taylor, Toyota 

Lousiana 

Angelique P. Dorsey, Tulane University 

Kyle Hoffpauir, Entergy Service Inc 

Timothy P. Look, LSU Health Network 

Charles Marquette, 

Jacquelyn S. Moffitt, E J Ourso College 

of Business 

Rita T. Simon, South Cameron Hospital 

(Pacer Health) 

Massachusetts 

W. Michael Hoffman, Bentley College 

Maine 

Susan A. Malan, Center for Corporate 

Ethics 

Michigan 

Colleen Cohan, Blue Care Network 

Marti Hurford, Community Network 

Services 

Gael Tisack, Terumo Cardiovascular 

Systems 

Minnesota 

Sherri Carter, Minnesota Diversified 

Industries Inc 

Libby S. Lincoln, Midwest Medical 

Insurance Company 

Abigail D. Schuler, CPA, St Jude 

Medical Inc 

Aaron Joseph Staloch, CPA, St Jude 

Medical Inc 

Jason A. Zellers, St Jude Medical Inc 

Missouri 

Cynthia Morrison, Solae LLC 

Shannon Linda Robinson, Terminal 

Railroad Assoc of St Louis 

EJ Sporleder, The Boeing Company 

Montana 

Sandra B. Eckhart, Blue Cross and Blue 

Shield of MT 

October 2007 

48 


North Carolina 

Ann H. Taylor, Wilson and Assoc 

Consulting 

Ann Wilson, Wilson and Assoc 

Consulting 

New Jersey 

Abedin Astafa, Realogy Corporation 

Judith W. Dorsey 

Tammy Fahmi, Realogy Corporation 

Ann-Marie Friedman, Global Aerospace 

Inc 

Michael B. Holt, NYK Line, Inc 

Rita Kale, Hoffman- La Roche Inc 

Paula P. Young, Realogy Corporation 

New Mexica 

Jim Acosta, PNM Resources Inc 

Stacey P. Chados, Los Alamos National 

Laboratories 

Karen K. Rutledge, PNM Resources Inc 

Sarah Smith, PNM Resources 

John Trujillo, PNM Resources Inc 

New York 

Babita Chodha, Esq, Daylight Forensics 

& Advisory 

Susan Gualtier 

Dorinda Masker, WVT 

Communications 

Timothy Mohr, BDO Consulting 

Sarah Michael Novia, BearingPoint 

Judy Schloss 

Ohio 

O Dwight Linkous, CCEP, American 

Electric Power 

Karen Ryan, Convergys 

Oregon 

John Hairston, Bonneville Power Admin 

Pennsylvania 

Margaret Cassidy 

Erin H. Creahan, Strategic Energy LLC 

Robert R. Robinson, MS, Arbor 

Education & Training LLC 

Tennessee 

Quincy Birdsong, Meharry Medical 

College 

David V. Poteat, Meritan, Inc 

Texas 

Yvonne Ankarberg, Dean Foods 

Company 

Peter Buchler 

Christine Chaney, Continental Airlines 

David Givens, The Univ of Texas 

System 

Ken Johnson, Quest Diagnostics Inc 

George Jones, Rowan Companies Inc 

Gerry A. Knowles, Bell Helicopter 

Textron Inc 

Rebecca B. Mendivil, The University of 

Texas System 

Victor Moran, The Moran Group 

Pamela Reed, M Ed, Houston 

Cmmunity College 

Michael Young, Anadarko Petroleum 

Corporation 

Utah 

Wendell Hatch, Brigham Young 

University 

Tim J. Jenkins, Teamworks 

Virginia 

Hope Johnson, Pyramind LLC 

William Keating, Navigant Consulting 

Inc 

Christopher Myers, Holland & Knight 

LLP 

J.R. Reagan, Bearing Point 

Bridget M. Sanders, Sallie Mae 

Cheryl Wilson, L-3 

Washington 

Carol Morgan, World Vision 

Deanne Werner, Group Health Co-Op 

Washingon, DC 

Jennifer D. Beal, Energy Enterprise 

Solutions Inc 

Paula Desio, Ethics Resource Center 

Howard Gill, AOL-TimeWarner 

Angela B. Styles, Crowell & Moring 

LLP 

Wisconsin 

Jane L. Keller-Allen, WPS Insurance 

Dana D. Shutters, CUNA Mutual 

Group 

Alberta, Canada 

Kathy Zeissler, EPCOR Utilities Inc 

Ontario, Canada 

Lisa V. Gressel, Nortel 

Robert Timberg, Nortel 

Megan Evans, Cassels Brock & 

Blackwell LLP 

Taikoo Shing, Hong Kong 

John Bradfield, Nortel 

Kingston, Jamaica 

Andrew Wynter, DIAGEO Pic 

Abuja, Nigeria 

Chukwuemeka Bez Jideani, Ethics & 

Corporate Compliance Institute 

Wateringen, Netherlands 

Christine Morecroft, AXA Insurance 

Maidenhead Berkshire, United Kingdom 

Sally March, Nortel 


October 2007 

49

SCCE Corporate Members 

AIG 

Contact: Christine Mullen 


Christine.mullen@aig.com 

www.aig.com 

Alfaro-Abogados 

Contact: Liliana Alfaro 

Partner 

lilianaarauz@alfarolaw.com 

www.alfarolaw.com 

Allstate Insurance Company 

Contact: Lyn A. Scrine-Filipovic 

Director of Integration 

Iscrine@allstate.com 

www.allstate.com 

Amgen Inc 

Contact: Kathleen Schump 

Executive Assistant 

kschump@amgen.com 

www.amgen.com 

Epcor 

Contact: Cindy McCracken 

Executive Assistant 

cmccracken@epcor.ca 

Ernest & Young 

Chris Ideker 

Global Solutions Leader 

chris.ideker@ey.com 

Federal Home Loan Bank 

Ann Bratton 

VP & Director of Regulatory Affairs 

abratton@fhlbc.com 

www.fhlbc.com 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

Contact: Cheryl Wagonhurst 

Partner 

cwagonhurst@foley.com 

www.foley.com 

Genentech 

Summar Davidow 

Sr. Admin Associate 

davidow.summar@gene.com 

Georgia System Operations 

Contact: Andrea Barclay, CCEP 

Corporate Compliance Admin 

andrea.barclay@gasoc.com 

www.gasoc.com 

Global ComplianceI 

Karen Kistenmacher 

Director Marketing Communications 

karen.kistenmacherf@globalcompliance.com 

Holland & Knight LLP 

Contact: Christopher A. Myers, 

Partner 

chris.myers@hklaw.com 

www.hklaw.com 

IFCO Systems NA Inc. 

Contact: Steve Worster 

VP Compliance 

steve.worster@ifcosystems.com 

www.ifcosystems.com/america/na/en/ 

index.php 

Integrity Interactive Corporation 

Contact: Michael R. Levin, Esq 

Dir Compliance & Ethics Services 

melvin@i2c.com 

www.integrity-interactive.com 

Jones Day 

Contact: Robert C. Cook 

Partner 

ccook@jonesday.com 

www.jonesday.com 

LRN 

Contact: Adam Turtletaub 

aturtletaub@lrn.com 

www.lrn.com 

Medtronic 

Contact: Amy Patterson 

amy.j.patterson@medtronic.com 

www.medtronic.com 

Metro Water District of Southern CA 

Contact: Edith Yamasaki 

Sr. Administrative Analyst 

eyamasaki@mwdh2o.com 

www.mwdh2o.com 


Contact: Odell Guyton 

Senior Corporate Attorney 

& Director of Compliance 

odellg@microsoft.org 

www.microsoft.com 

Nortel 

Contact: Robert J. Bartzokas 


rbartzok@nortel.com 

Parson Consulting 

Contact: James Clendenen 

Dir West Region 

Parson Consulting 

jclendenen@parsonconsulting.com 

www.parsonconsulting.com 

PNM Resources 

Contact: Sarah Smith 

Director Ethics & Compliance 

sarah.smith@pnmresources.com 

PotashCorp 

Contact: Ann M. Baltys 

Legal Assistant 

ambaltys@potashcorp.com 

www.potashcorp.com 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Contact: Christopher Michaelson 

Director 

christopher.michaelson@us.pwc.com 

www.pwc.com 

Qwest Communications 

Contact: Dave Heller 

Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer 

dave.heller@qwest.com 

www.qwest.com 

Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP 

Contact: Carol A. Poindexter 

Partner 

cpoindexter@shb.com 

www.shb.comcom 

The Network 

Contact: Angelia Davis 

Marketing Manager 

angeliadavis@tnwinc.com 

www.tnwinc.com 

TSYS, Inc. 

Contact: Daniel J. Priban 

Director Risk & Compliance 

dpriban@tsys.com 

www.tsys.com 

United Parcel Service 

Contact: Ruth Ward 

Comp & Ethics Supervisor 

rmward@ups.com 

www.ups.com 

Wal-Mart Stores 

Contact: Gary Hill 

Dir International Ethics 

gary.hill@wal-mart.com 

www.walmart.com 

October 2007 

50 



October 2007 

51

...is Your Company’s Once-A-Year 

Code of Conduct Training Enough to 

Make 

the 

Grade 

FACT: “To have an effective compliance 

and ethics program…an 

organization shall…promote an organizational 

culture that encourages 

ethical conduct and a 

commitment to compliance with 

the law.” – U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, 

§8B2.1 (a), (a1), (a2) 

Think of your own experience. 

Have you ever really learned 

something from a course presented 

only once-a-year In most 

cases, it just isn’t possible. To be 

effective, your ethics program 

needs to deliver ongoing communication 

and training throughout 

the year. 

Best Practices 

Ethics Programs 

for the Worlds’ Corporations 

REDHAWK 

Why are RedHawk’s Programs 

EFFECTIVE 

More than simply once-a-year online 

modules, our programs reinforce 

ethical issues throughout the entire 

year through an ongoing communication 

and training strategy. 

• Customized, interactive Online 

Code of Conduct course 

• The Ethics Communication 

Coach: a library of over 1,000 

supporting ethics communication 

and training tools 

• Online Ethics Training Library - 

covering over 50 topics 

• Discussion-based training 

solutions 

• Instructor-led training tools 

• Multi-year training plans 

Let us build an effective ethics program 

for your company. Our custom-designed 

solutions, combined 

with 15+ years of unmatched experience 

and affordable prices, 

have helped leading corporations 

create ethical culture and meet 

U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines 

requirements. 

Find out how you can make the 

grade today – visit us at 

www.RedHawkEthics.com to take 

a quick tour, schedule a full product 

demonstration, and receive 

your FREE white paper entitled 

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME Creating 

Ethical Culture through Behavior 

Change Strategies, presented to 

the American Management 

Association. 

RedHawk Communications, Inc. | 615 Hope Road | Eatontown, New Jersey 07724 | T: 732-440-1600 | www.RedHawkEthics.com 

Experience. Knowledge. Commitment.

MR - Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?