Nip Impressions logo
Tue, Oct 25, 2016 15:03
Click here for Pulp & Paper Radio International
Subscription Central
Items just for you
New publication added! Advertising Arguments 2015 book
My Profile
Management Side
Technical Side

Fiduciary Malfeasance

Last week we asked:

Do you think boards of directors who wink at deferred maintenance should be held accountable? 

100% YES

0%     NO

Then we asked:

How do you think mill managers who short change maintenance should be handled?

>Unfortunately the way they are handled is that they often retire rich. Temple Inland as a company is a prime example.


>Not a direct answer--but they should be replaced by a person who had a mechanical and production reesponsibility--perhaps a person who grew up on a farm or other diversified business that requires properly functioning equipment.

>Since dollars are the measuring stick here, pick an area of the mill and look up the historical costs of maintenance(years of data spanning several managerial reigns). Break it down by as many categories as you can.

>The facts should be on an internet site dedicated to letting managers be accountable for both the good and the bad. We do it for plumbers why not doctors, lawyers, and mill managers? Our mill has a 'defensible' way to let things deteriorate - spend your time and money installing capital projects and short cahnge routine maintenance.

>How about a demotion or termination?

>Like Jim stated, if a mill had to close because of cutting of maintenance, its al in hindsight, and the pain is already there. Blaming (even when it is justified) the old manager will not bring back the mill. That hurts for all involved! The problem we face is that short change maintenance is mostly seen after the manager is gone (for years.) So in my honest opinion, there should be stated in the contract of mill managers that they still are acountable for at least three years after they are gone that they still are liable about the assets of the mill. (Don't know how to do this in practice, keep the salary from the going mill manager the last 3 months at the factory, only to pay afterwards, or if there is a golden hand at leave, retard it untill reasonable proven that maintenance was ok. Also, if not ok, bring the message to the board of directors, even if they are from a different organisation. Also state that the manager can face lawsuits, one from the mill because the change that they have to close, and another from the shareholders(organisation) because the manager has been dishonnest about the value of the mill and the wrong statements they have made. (Something about tar and feathers in my mind and then make them walk to the mill they neglected the good maintenance. Make a movie of this as a learning time for the next manager(s).)


Thank you for your responses.

This week's quiz is here.

Want to get a jump on the surveys? Follow me on twitter, where they are posted early. You can do this here. (note: all respondents are confidential; the software is programmed in such a way that neither we nor anyone else can determine who responded)


Want to be heard on other subjects? Be sure to watch for "Paperitalo Second Tuesday Surveys."


Printer-friendly format

Powered by Bondware
News Publishing Software

The browser you are using is outdated!

You may not be getting all you can out of your browsing experience
and may be open to security risks!

Consider upgrading to the latest version of your browser or choose on below: