AABA

On 6th May 1999, ACCA President elect was impeached by a coup against him . Literally, minutes before the AGM he was removed. the plan was first exposed on the ABBA web site. ACCA officials have used the magazine to attack Gardiner who has not been given any opportunity to put his side of the story. Now the UK government has asked ACCA to explain what is going on - a fact not reported by the ACCA officialdom. We reproduce below a statement submitted by ACCA to the Department of Trade and Industry. It is written by ACCA chief executive Anthea Rose and dated 18th May 1999. The statement raises a number of questions.

If Gardiner is 'guilty' as Mrs. Rose claims then why has he not been disciplined?
What is the role of 'senior' people at ACCA in securing the vote of 'no confidence'?
Gardiner claims that he was removed because he wanted to strenghen ACCA by making it open and democratic and checking the all too powerful position of the chief executive. Why has not been given the chance to articulate his position?
Who is the council member who moved the vote of no confidence? We should be told.
How many council members and other officials communicated amongst themselves to fix Gardiner's removal i.e. was there collusion?
Why have we not been told the names of all the council members who voted for or against Gardiner's removal?
Did Gardiner act as a witness or did he express view on the rights and wrongs of the Jackson case?
Are there occasions when counil members or outsiders write ACCa chief executive but matters are not communicated to the entire council?
What did Robert Jackson say in his resignation letter?
Did any other Council member submit any evidence or statement to the Jackson tribunal?

AABA is well aware that ACCA does not want members to know what the officials sanction. We know that ACCA officials are regular visitors to this we b site. They are most welcome to provide answers to the above questions. Otherwise, watch this space, as they say.

===========================================================
SUMMARY OF EVENTS SURROUNDING THE MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN RAY GARDINER

At a disciplinary hearing in January/February 1 999, the firm of Thomson Morley Jackson (TMJ) and four of its partners were disciplined for submitting a large number of backdated applications for Norwich Union (NU) Insurance policies with a view to obtaining freeshares in NU upon flotation . The firm and partners were severely reprimanded and fine and costs totalling £25,000 were imposed. They did not appeal.

Robert Jackson, one of the partners involved, was a member of ACCA's Council and, under ACCA's bye laws, automatically ceased to be a member of Council on the disciplinary order imposed on him taking effect.

Two other members of Council gave evidence at the disciplinary hearing. Tony Cruse, a former chairman Of the Disciplinary Committee, sought to criticise ACCA's handling of the case. The Committee declined to hear him as an expert witness because of his lack of independence; it did, however, agree to hear evidence from him as to Mr Jackson's character.

Ray Gardiner, the then Deputy President Of ACCA, submitted a witness statement regarding a conversation with Robert Jackson immediately prior to the NU flotation. The statement described the conversation in precise words which were supportive of the defence case. Under cross-examination, however, Ray Gardiner admitted that he could not recall the specific events described in his statement; he acknowledged that the statement had been written for him, and that he had merely signed it. It later transpired during the hearing that Mr Jackson had prepared the statement.

Following the disciplinary hearing the independent chairman wrote to ACCA to express her concem at the involveement of th two Council members in the hearing. It was, therefore, appropriate that ACCA Council should consider the corporate governance issues arising from the case and determine whether Council's Standing Orders on the Roles' and Responsibilities of Council Members should be extended.

At the meeting of Council of 22 April it was agreed to make additions to Council's Standing Orders. Tony Cruse requested, and received, an assurance that the issues he had raised with regard to the conduct of the disciplinary case would be reviewed by an independent solicitor, whereupon he stated his intention of resigning from Council.

Council also had before it a copy of Ray Gardine's witness statement and relevant extracts from the transcript of the disciplinary hearing; in addition, Ray Gardiner submitted a letter stating that he recognised his particular responsibility, as Deputy President, carefully to consider the appropriateness and implications of giving evidence.

At the end of the debate, a member indicated that, at the next meeting of Council, he intended to move a motion of no confidence in Ray Gardiner as an Officer. This motion was discussed at the Council meeting in the morning of 6 May and passed by 25 votes to 10.

Council elects its officers at the first Council meeting following the AGM - in this case, the afternoon of 6 May. While it is normal for the incumbent Deputy President to be confirmed as President, there is no requirement to this effect and any member of Council may be nominated for election. After the no confidence vote, Ray Gardiner did not stand for election as President; the Vice President, John Brockwell, agreed to let his name go forward and was elected unopposed.

ACCA takes its responsibilities as a statutory regulator seriously. In the TMJ case, it ensured that no member of Council served on the panel for the disciplinary hearing; subsequently, in anticipation of the enactment of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it has Withdrawn all Council members entirely from its disciplinary and regulatory committees. The TMJ case, and the subsequent response to the corporate governance issues which arose, have demonstrated that it is possible for ACCA effectively and independently to discipline a Council member.