AABA

ACCA'S SHAM CALL FOR TRANSPARENCY

ACCA has long operated a double standard. Its public relations driven blurb makes references to high ideals, but the practice is something else.

The latest evidence is provided by the words of ACCA President, Jonathan Beckerlegge (click here )

Mr. Beckerlegge calls for more transparency, but can't seem to connect this to ACCA's own practices. Here are some examples of what it does not do:

Provide a list showing the number of members and students in each country.
Ensure that leadership is elected by ordinary members
Give members access to council meeting minutes.
Ensure that the principle of one-person-one-vote applies to ACCA. Officeholders continue to cast hundreds of votes to negate the choices made by individual members.
Explain which election candidiate has received the benefit of the proxy votes cast by officeholders
Explain why students are milked for millions every year.
Explain why everything is centralized in the London H.Q. This includes district societies and other networks.
Why ACCA failed to publish the results of its 1998 ethnic monitoring survey.
Explain why the council election statements written by candidates are subsequently unilaterally changed by the management.
Why members are not allowed to vote on chief executive's and directors' remuneration.
Why the annual accounts have been silent on lawsuits involving non-UK accountancy bodies.

Of course, if ACCA's leadership had any sincerity about its public utterances, it would put its own house in order first. It always opposes change. It opposed the call for open council meetings, but subsequently had to embrace the idea (not necessarily the practice in full). It has no strategy for openness and democracy. The strategy is how to expand and make money in developing countries, something which harms the developing countries by not enabling them to develop their local infrastructure.

ACCA leadership is not known to be reflective. The council is ineffective and is unable to check the power of management. The unelected leadership is weak. The magazine carefully censors out all dissenting comments. Can anyone really take ACCA's call for transparency seriously?