CPA Members

Brilliant letters from Jen and Sandra!!!

Surely its now time for an EGM to allow members to decide on how CPAA moves forward?

Agree, next is the rest of the Board, both COOs.

Plus all the marketing expenditure must now cease - no more paid spots on 2GB or Weekend Today or In Conversation.

Direct election of Board members so our organisation is never captured again by a select few.

$4.9 million payout for a not for profit organisation is outrageous!!!

Agree 100% Mark!

She's obviously enjoyed watching In Conversation and felt Henry Winklers life story was really helpful in her role in the accounting world!

Talk about biased and conflicted!!

As long as the "LinkedIn Influencer" can get enough "celebrities" for the next season of In Conversation then everything will be fine!

Maybe if the "LinkedIn Influencer" focussed on assisting members instead of his media profile we would not be in this mess!

Brilliant letter Andrew!!!

Dixon and the remaining Directors will run for cover.

That argument by Bowen is total rubbish!! When members ask about the book, the CPA rushes to tell us that Malley gets no benefit and CPAA gets all the royalties. But when it comes to selling the book to the public, Malley claims it all as his with no mention of CPAA. You can't have it both ways. If ...

Sponsorships directly linked to our organisation and profession through universities (within reason) are one thing but sporting sponsorships are a totally inappropriate use of members funds.

Once we remove the existing "Board" and "Executives", all sporting sponsorships need to be cancelled!!

all these sponsorships are a disgrace!!!

What's the bet CPA has a corporate box with the Rabbitohs for the "executives"?

Just curious how you give back to the accounting profession by endorsing a book?

Talk about conflicted!!! (almost as bad as Professions Australia)

We need a review independent of the Board and "executive"- isn't that the role of ASIC?

And why would they have a position on the internal operations of CPAA anyway?

Unless of course there is some undisclosed association that goes beyond being a mere paid up member?

So I take it that CPAA funds Professions Australia? Of course then, on that basis they would have no problems with the independence of the review! I'm surprised they didn't lecture members as to how amazing the "LinkedIn influencer" is! CPAA is effectively their customer. Who cares what Professions ...

The most important question is how this sponsorship benefitted members?


It obviously didn't have much of an impact on member numbers unless of course you are a "LinkedIn Influencer" where 1+1=5!!!

Dickson mentioned in his missive that there would be "feedback" sessions at the divisional offices with representatives of the Board present.

Does anyone know when that is happening?

Maybe he could "interview" Angus Huston and Ian McPhee about corporate governance?

Ouch!! Great article. Since the rights of members to directly elect Directors has been taken away from us, we have been stuck with this clique of former academics who treat us with contempt by their actions. It should be up to members the direction CPAA takes and the Board should reflect our views. ...

JFA, I think you need to put this site into perspective. Its a website not a court of law!!!! Members who have the right to express an opinion about the organisation they are members of have raised legitimate concerns and have been prevented from raising those concerns through other channels. More t...

Why was the release not sent out to all members as well?

I'm guessing they have already written up the findings - all good at CPAA, proceed to the next series of the "In Conversation" with Alex Malley

Talk about trashing a brand!!!