The 16 page  statement accompanying the EGM papers is very economical with information. It is misleading. We  urge ACCA members to SUPPORT THE EGM RESOLUTION and draw attention to a number of issues.

COUNCIL'S POSITION

• It is important to note that the statement does not have the support of the entire council. Two council members Ray Gardiner and Soon Kwai Choi were excluded from any discussions. There is no indication to show how many of the remaining council members supported the statement

•  Council claims that ACCA is not a “business”. ACCA IS A 'BUSINESS' NOT A PROFESSIONAL BODY (20 May 1999). ACCA SHARE SALE SCANDAL (10 November 1999). Yet this is exactly what ACCA has become. Its officials have encouraged the press to believe that ACCA is a business. ACCA has also submitted a £100,000 legal opinion to the Lord Chancellor’s office in which it claims that it is a ‘business’ and not a charitable organization concerned with education. ACCA members would know that ACCA has already lost money on publishing and television programme making ventures. Is this why ACCA members joined the Association?

•  ACCA Council repeats its mantra about “acting in the public interest”. When Austin Mitchell MP asked ACCA Presidents to explain what it means there was no reply. When he asked them to show which part of the education syllabus encourages students to know what it is, the ACCA officials could give no answer. So AABA invites any ACCA Council member to respond.

• How the ACCA officials pick the members' pockets (12 March 1999)
• ACCA abuses have weakened the Council (28 May 1999)
• Race for ACCA Vice-Presidentship (5 October 1999)
• ACCA'S CUPBOARD IS BARE (3 October 1999)

•  How is the ACCA Council accountable to members? There are no open council meetings, no access to agenda papers, no access to council minutes, AGM minutes and the President casts 20-25% of all votes.ACCA leadership and its tactics for silencing critics

•  At AGM’s questions are not answered. Angry questions from members during the 6 May agm (7 May 1999). ACCA AGM FIASCO (6 May 1999). The President restricts members from speaking for more than three minutes. There is no bye-law that permits him/her to do so. The magazine assumes that members are ‘passive’. Critical articles and letters are screened out.ACCA to pay 28% of the 'Swinson' costs - Members not told (14 December 1998)

• ACCA claims to be a ‘global body but for how long? ACCA to lose its influence on  IFAC (16 Sept 1999)There has never been an officeholder from outside the UK. Nearly 50% of the UK membership is non-white but no senior position has ever been held by a non-white person. There is increasing unrest in Malaysian, Hong Kong and the USA. Members want more autonomy and do not subscribe to the Association’s centralised model where all decisions are made in London.IS MOYRA KEDSLIE  FIT TO BE ACCA DEPUTY-PRESIDENT? (18 May 1999). CORRUPTION, SECRECY AND SILENCE AT ACCA (3 Sept 1999). ACCA DEPUTY-PRESIDENT TAKES EARLY 'RETIREMENT' (9 Sept 1999)

•  There is no record of ACCA ever asking members for the abolition of major policymaking committees.

• It is highly unprofessional of ACCA council to personalise the issues with Anthony Thomas. A little reflection would have reminded council members that without the aid of reforming voices most people would not have the rights that they enjoy today.

• ACCA assumes that its members are ‘passive’ and that only some carefully selected papers need to be poured into them. As ‘active’ citizens members need opportunities to raise issues.

• The Code of Conduct drawn up for the Council. ACCA members had no input in drafting it. They were never asked to approve it.

• Until recently ACCA council members served on disciplinary hearings. They acted as legislators, judge, juries and prosecutors. The document should say that the ACCA’s practice has changed only recently. In addition, council members continue to be legislators, judges, juries and prosecutors whenever they feel like it. For example, in his letter of 5th July 1999 to Austin Mitchell MP, ACCA President wrote that “ACCA’s Council gave careful consideration to the course of action it should take with respect to Ray Gardiner, including the possibility of disciplinary action being brought against him. It decided that disciplinary action was inappropriate.” By what authority did the President or ACCA council act as judge and jury?ACCA officials violate the Human Rights Act 1998 (8 February 1999)

•  Who is on this remuneration committee? Under the Cadbury rules, the composition of the committee should change once every three years, but Peter Langard has been on it for longer than that. Why? Beside, the final decision about the assessment of the chief executive’s performance must rest with the members and not with the friends of the chief executive.

•  ACCA members have not been told anything about the terms on which the chief executive will retire even though they have borne and will continue to bear the financial cost.

• Council meets behind closed doors. So members do not know what really is discussed. Carefully released snippets through the censored in-house magazine neither amounts to any consultation nor a full report. No information is ever published about the background and links of these so called ‘independent experts’.
• OUT OF TOWN BINGES (4 May 1999)
• WHO IS NORMA, MR. LANGARD? (27 June 1999)

NO DEMOCRACY AT ACCA

•  The entire ACCA electoral process is not subject to any independent control. ACCA ballot papers are not prenumbered and a stock of incomplete papers is held by officials. The whole process is open to fraud and abuse. Only after Professor Sikka campaigned on the issue in 1994, ACCA was forced to bring in independent scrutineers for the count. Rest of the process is not subject to any independent oversight. Unlike the local, regional or national elections, the ACCA council candidates are prevented from attending the vote count or demanding a recount. Whilst the supporters of the status-quo can use the magazine to support their views, challengers are not allowed to. They can are only permitted 180 words of election address.

•  It should be noted that a number of elections are often held within ACCA. The proxy voting system is not used for the International Assembly, any functional society or district society. It is only used for the body the Council. The system enables ACCA officeholders (usually the President) to cast 20-25% of all votes and effectively “appoints” and ‘co-opts’ council members. ACCA Presidents appoint their friends and cronies and thus override the open preferences of ACCA members. The proxy voting system  is open to corruption and for this reason it has been outlawed in the UK trade union legislation.Ballot-rigging as usual

• ACCA pre-prints the name of officeholders on the proxy voting form.  This is contrary to the specimen form approved by members and included in the Rulebook (see page 38 (bye-law 62) of the 1999 Rulebook). There is no bye-law which enable it to do so.

• The Council’s comments about the October 1996 EGM deserve a response. Prior to it, the Association conducted a hate campaign against one of the organisers (see July, August and September 1996 Certified Accountant) without giving him any right of reply. The person concerned received hate mail and racist threats. Police was informed. ACCA (like now) sent officials all over the world to denigrate the organisers. So a civilised debate was not possible. Only a tiny number of members voted on the resolution. The President himself cast a large number of votes without any explanation. It is true that the defenders of the status-quo secured more votes.

• However, from that it does not follow that the issues have been dealt with. How many attempts did it take  to secure universal franchise, votes for women, abolition of slavery, royal charter for the Association and so on?  Members also know that a large number of ACCA members have never voted on the matter, many have joined ACCA since 1996. So to argue that one ‘rigged’ vote for ever deals with the issue of  ONE PERSON ONE VOTE is naive.

• Clearly, ACCA leadership is engaged in a vendetta here against Ray Gardiner, Tony Cruse and Robert Jackson. Rather than selectively citing from some transcripts, ACCA should publish the full transcript of the relevant meetings.
• COUP AT ACCA - TO OUST THE PRESIDENT ELECT (3 May 1999)
• ACCA COUNCIL MEMBER RESIGNS IN DISGUST (11 May 1999)
• THE TIMES CONDEMNS ACCA SILENCE AND CENSORSHIP (14 May 1999)
• ACCA LEADERSHIP CONTINUES TO MANUFACTURE RULES (13 May 1999)
• Hunt for real motives after Gardiner sacking (13 May 1999)
• ACCA faces legal probe (13 May 1999)
• ACCA in turmoil (2 July 1999)
• Fresh blow to ACCA (1 July 1999)
• Government asks ACCA to explain Gardiner's removal (23 Sept 1999)

 

• The most powerful person at the Association is its chief executive. S/he is not elected by members. His/Her performance is not subject to any vote (e.g. her salary increase) at the AGM.  there is no effective check on the conduct of the chief executive. Council meetings are relatively few. For example, there was a council meeting in November 1999. The next one is in February 2000. As the meetings become fewer, council members have to read masses of papers to up date themselves. This enables the chief executive and her supporters (the 'inner council') to maintain their grip.
• ACCA's Rose Garden
• Gravy train for the ACCA Chief Executive: 21% salary increase (25 March 1999)
• Barrow Loads of Money for ACCA Bureaucrats
• FAT CATS LICKING ACCA MEMBERS' FEES
• ACCA MAINTAINS UNDIGNIFIED 'SILENCE' WHILST CHIEF EXECUTIVE LIVES IT UP IN RIO DE JANEIRO (17 May 199)
• ACCA CHIEF ENGAGED IN A VINDICTIVE CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ACCA MEMBER (19 May 1999)
• ACCA CHIEF EXECUTIVE KEEPS 'SECRET' FILES ON REFORMERS (24 June 1999)
• ACCA TRAVEL SCANDAL (28 June 1999)

ACCA HAS CONTINUED TO TREAT MALAYSIANS AS SECOND CLASS. FOR A RESPONSE TO ACCA COUNCIL'S STATEMENT CLICK HERE
 

 COMMUNICATION

• Why is the council selectively identifying some of the signatories to the EGM motion? There is no authority for it in the bye-laws. Under the influence of collective amnesia, ACCA quotes from a letter published in Accountancy Age by a Dr. William Hipperson. Here is an earlier letter by the same member in Accountancy Age.

• ACCA Bureaucrats continue to multiply like rabbits

•  There was nothing defamatory on the ACCA Malaysia web site. Just students and members expressing their anger at the colonial mentality of ACCA. If ACCA was so concerned then in common with other organisation it could have instituted editing processes, but it did not. The internet forum has not been restored.

• ACCA council is being very economical with information. CIMA has categorically stated that the merger talks are dead. We challenged the ACCA to produce any evidence to show that the proposals are being considered. The whole exercise has cost ACCA members around £300,000 even after a lot of creative accounting (e.g. losing some legal and PR costs under various admin. and related costs).ACCA Council did not give unanimous support for the hostile CIMA and CIPFA take-over (22 March 1999)

• ACCA never secured members’ approval for its tie-up with Oxford Brookes (OBU) University. Where exactly in the University League table is OBU? What rating (the scale used was 1-5*) did its accountancy staff secure in the last independent research assessment exercise. What rating did the same secure for its teaching? Why is ACCA silent? Perhaps, it has something to hide.

• In the market place, employers are very discerning. When they learn that anyone with partial ACCA exam success can have an accounting degree from OBU, what importance do you think they will attach to it? And what respect will they have for the ACCA qualification? Not much. AABA’s members work in universities, industry, commerce and public practice, none will attach any value to the freebie OBU degree.
• ACCA FAILS TO SECURE RECOGNITION IN USA AND CANADA (8 July 1999
• ACCA FAILS TO MAKE THE ACCOUNTANCY RESEARCH GRADE (8 Sept 1999)

• Despite taking more than 20 pages to respond to a two page statement, ACCA leadership has failed to provide a meaningful analysis and information. There is no reflection upon the underlying issues.

• Anthony Thomas drafted the EGM resolution after consultation with lawyers. He incurred the personal cost because he cares for the long term future of the Association. He does not stand to make any personal gain from it. The resolution is not even committing the Association to introduce any specific changes. All it asks is that an Independent Commission be appointed so that all members can have their say in building a stronger Association.