11–20 of 25 posts
edit: changed "President/SEC" to "President's chosen SEC"; it does not appear they said the President has direct discretionary power to remove board members, even though the SEC's power was described in terms of executive/presidential powers.
EDIT: As pointed out by replies, I apparently lack reading comprehension skills. Thanks to reply: tl;dr: The SEC no longer requires good cause to remove oversight board members any more, and the President's power is essentially unchanged.
As the law was prior to this decision, the SEC had to have good cause to remove someone from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The ruling was that requiring two levels of good cause between the President and the oversight board was unconstitutional, and now the SEC is able to remove oversight board members directly without requiring good cause. The logic is that this provides sufficient insulation from Presidential control, because the President still requires good cause to remove the SEC people who can remove oversight board members.
tl;dr: The SEC no longer requires good cause to remove oversight board members any more, and the President's power is essentially unchanged.
The ruling leaves it to Congress to re-establish the panel with tighter oversight, potentially setting up a new legislative fight that might sweep in other aspects of Sarbanes-Oxley.
via http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-28/sarbanes-oxley-a...
Note, however, that the original source seems to have been "corrected": http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-28/sarbanes-oxley-audi...
There's a reason why free software is better than the stuff developed at big companies -- the government doesn't tell them what tools they can and cannot use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I don't speak the same English that is found within those legal documents.
That's because it's not really meant to be "English"; think of it as a DSL for the law.
But the most important parts were not struk down. I am still legally not allowed to chat with my coworkers over IRC, or use an internal nopaste service to discuss code snippets over chat. There's a reason why free software is better than the stuff developed at big companies -- the government doesn't tell them what tools they can and cannot use.
But the most important parts were not struk down. I am still legally not allowed to chat with my coworkers over IRC, or use an internal nopaste service to discuss code snippets over chat. There's a reason why free software is better than the stuff developed at big companies -- the government doesn't tell them what tools they can and cannot use.
I’m not saying I don’t believe you (laws like this are famous for accidental side effects), but I’m having a hard time understanding how a law targeted towards business management executives regarding financial accounting can impact labor level productivity. Care to elaborate?
I'm surprised we don't have to record our in-person chats with a wearable video camera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not saying I don’t believe you (laws like this are famous for accidental side effects), but I’m having a hard time understanding how a law targeted towards business management executives regarding financial accounting can impact labor level productivity. Care to elaborate?
Any communication between employees must be archived and stored in some super-special repository. Any tool that doesn't store its data in said super-special repository is a crime to use. I'm surprised we don't have to record our in-person chats with a wearable video camera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because it's not really meant to be "English"; think of it as a DSL for the law.
I have the hardest time conveying to some clients that legal documents are more like code than prose. I'll try the analogy of a DSL with my dev clients. Thanks.