Jay Brown observes:
Anyone who studies the history of the SEC knows that most decisions are made by consensus. Those days are over.
Several thoughts:
- In the past, consensus was probably easier to obtain because generations of SEC Chairmen treated the other members of the commission like mushrooms (kept them in the dark and fed them shit). Anyone who studies the history of the SEC knows that Chairmen have wielded agenda control powers unusual even by Washington standards. i suspect the internet has helped make things a bit more transparent. (Maybe. Possibly. Or not.)
- Consensus also probably was easier because both Republican and Democratic chairs and commissioners tended to come from Wall Street and/or Biglaw where there was a general consensus. In recent years, we've had a lot of academics and so on who may not have opted into the squishy middle ground.
- The Delaware supreme court makes most decisions by consensus, but Jay typically hates their outcomes. So what's so great about consensus?
- Jay may be right that too frequent dissent makes one less effective. But there is also something romantic about the "Great Dissenter" standing alone in defiance of the majority.
