Merry Christmas to Peter Wilson. When it was suggested that Peter Wilson should be independent of the old board so that we can have a fresh start Peter responded with "That's your issue". Summary of the meeting here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=594
A good summary of where we are up to by Joe Aston of the AFR, linked to from here: viewtopic.php?f=5&p=4137#p4137
If you are new to this website read the story so far: viewtopic.php?t=321#p1793
Check out some of the AFR articles, too many to list and check out some of the ABC reports: http://www.afr.com/business/accounting/ ... 215-h055ej http://www.afr.com/business/accounting/ ... 211-h02x1d http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/the ... s,/8626662
Please join this website to participate in discussions. Also join our email list at http://eepurl.com/cWsgfb
Image

Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

A weekly round up of the issues and progress
incitem3
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 3:39 pm

Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by incitem3 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:51 am

Hi All, I have not seen anyone comment on the email I presume has been sent to all members from the review panel asking for submissions. I suggest that those that have done all of the research like brett share their submissions with the rest of us so that we can all keep informed and learn from each other.

I will be submitting a series of comments to Mr McPhee with my views regarding what is wrong with the CPAA and issues that I would like addressed but I would like to first see what others think to make my submission a bit more informed. I know there is the issue of how independent this review really is and will probably be a whitewash as Brett has indicated. I think we still need to give the panel comprehensive and detailed material to give them a chance to do the right thing and start the process to change things for the better.

User avatar
nakedadmin
Site Admin
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by nakedadmin » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:19 am

The email heading was "Update from Independent Review Panel". It would be better if it said IRP open for submissions, or request for submissions. Also the words "As you know, an Independent Review Panel has been established". I don't think all members know this and why it's been established. They really should not assume all members know about this.

You have to read the email quite carefully to work out you can put in a submission.
The Naked Webmaster

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Brett Stevenson » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:20 am

I reckon incitem3 your comment is very helpful.
So let me state I shall be meeting with the Review Panel tomorrow but I will share today what I will answer on the obvious ones they will ask. If their website is any indication the are asking for two things from members (submissions, and suggestions) in five specific areas, and one general area as follows
1. Governance - pretty obvious weaknesses her, but I suggest the Review Panel look up the definition of gerrymander before they begin and I think they will find CPA Australia is a perfect case study of how it works. I always thought 'one plus one equalled two' but in CPA Australia corporate governance land 'gerrymander plus no more than 11 years can equal anything (currently >11 years but for Mr Wade it will be > 12 years come 2018)
2. Staff and Board Remuneration - I suggest p14 and 26 of the memo from the board on 31st May is damning enough.
3. Strategy and Marketing Expenditure (I would have thought this one should have been separated into two because it is the area that struck the most discordant tone with members as in Malleys self promotion, but hopefully combining the topic will not limit its reach).
4. Member engagement and services - its a pretty simple on to answer in summary. Reduce senior middle management salaries by 50%, and have them all apply for their jobs again for starters. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
5. CPA Australia Advice - its annual report is damning enough.
6. Other matters

I shall try to put together my thoughts on these topics through the day and post tonight what I plan to say to the Panel when I meet with them tomorrow.
Only too happy to submit what I know or have done. Most of which is on this website.
I have endeavoured to keep this as may main means of communication with members partly just from a practical perspective but also I think one of the things that has so annoyed me in all of this is the lack of transparency and openness from CPA Australia. So it is my own little way of 'not participating in the lie'.
I have already expressed my views on the Independent Review, which have not changed I should add, and I think perhaps the use of the term 'independent-ish' by Bryce Corbett from the AFR in his article the other day captures that well.
Anything that gets rid of this current board, including the seemingly self appointed Tim Youngberry who could easily resolve so much by calling an EGM now as a director or resigning to force ASIC to step in with an Interim Administrator, is an improvement. This current boards handprint is all over this process (including the appointment of new directors by a Representative Council which not only has the handprint of Malley supporters embedded in its DNA, but also just serves to rubber stamp what the board have already decided) and that includes the Independent Review Panel who reports to it.
I would suggest 90% of the members who have been following this saga over the last 6 months especially could write a pretty good report with recommendations for improvement and change. Much of the work has been done and exposed. Hopefully the Panel can dot a few i's and cross a few t's.

All that the panel is doing by delaying looking at governance and remuneration and not taking some immediate steps to redress the clear and obvious weaknesses of
  • allowing this current board to control the appointment of the 7 new directors through a non-representative and Malley supportive Representative Council (and the new CEO etc)
    leaving the current board in place,
    not doing an immediate review of Alex Malleys termination payout
they are effectively just giving time for this to die down, for this board to go on its own terms, and to continue with a broken board and corporate governance system.
However you want to look at it, this is not an answer I'm sure there will be lots of recommendations and changes suggested but I reckon it will be all just too late. For me anyway.
I have given this six months already, and promised to continue to 30th September.
The reward is partly to see CPA Australia 'regain some of its former glory', and partly just the satisfaction of 'doing the right thing' but I must admit on that former front I am not so optimistic and any delay at this stage to make major and dramatic changes in what has been a pretty public 'shaming' of CPA will not do it.

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Brett Stevenson » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:12 pm

A member shared with me that is akin to leaving the fire station in the hands of the arsonist while a detailed review is being done into fire bugs.
Bryce Corbett's analogy to the priests conducting an review of the inquisition tactics is perhaps just as vivid. However you want to look at it this Independent Panel Review is very very far from a good solution but as with most things a little bit of good is better than a lot of bad.
I'm sure it will be a good review. Just a wee bit too late and too unrealistic to the circumstances in which we are placed. The arsonists are still calling the shots at CPA Australia. So please Mr Youngberry you go and do your listening and advising elsewhere as I'm generally not a great fan of arsonists, and you have just joined their club.

Steve Hamilton
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Steve Hamilton » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:26 pm

Keep the faith Brett.

My submission went in yesterday afternoon. If the panel is overwhelmed with the same sort of suggestions online maybe the message will finally get through to the board.

If as the board claim there is nothing really wrong and only a small minority are making waves, why won't they call an EGM to confirm they have the support of the membership? What are they afraid of democracy?

Anyway thanks again for all your efforts Brett.

User avatar
nakedadmin
Site Admin
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by nakedadmin » Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:43 pm

Hi Brett,

Glad to hear you are meeting them. I think it will be very worthwhile.

We have proved many times over how dodgy the board is. Also a new set of Directors may do some different kind of review. I think they would probably do an investigation and a separate report on recommendations about changes to the governance going forward.

And the board is using the review as a way of selectively putting off things. Didn't stop them terminating Malley or changes to the Naked CEO website.

But none of that means the review won't do a good job and if you give them the right information I would not be surprised if their report supports what we are doing. Good luck.
The Naked Webmaster

passedfc
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 3:14 pm

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by passedfc » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:34 pm

Brett good to hear you are meeting with the panel .
I am not so confident that this review will give any significant change while the current regime remains in place.
But at least we can get this on record.
One of the requirements of this panel should be for them to join the website and read all the issues that have raised here but of course that would be a little onerous for them. So I guess then it is a matter of getting as many submissions made as possible with the all issues raised by many.
Option could be one articulate submission endorsed by mass group.
I will work on submission tonight and get it lodged ( just in case the small print on this review says it closes tomorrow !!)
I again commend you for your work, effort and leadership and hope we have sufficient momentum to carry on beyond September..
I has been a massive effort by you and it is hard to keep time allocated to this appalling situation .

Magnet
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:18 am

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Magnet » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:58 pm

passedfc wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:34 pm
So I guess then it is a matter of getting as many submissions made as possible with the all issues raised by many.
Option could be one articulate submission endorsed by mass group.
I'm have read about and followed this saga over the past month or so however there would be many on here that have a far deeper knowledge of all the issues that are currently on going.

I want to make sure that I can cover off on all the issues in my submission, so if someone could post their submission on here (or a brief summary) I would then be able to raise all appropriate issues.

Ken Crout
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:10 pm
Location: Victor Harbor SA 5211

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Ken Crout » Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:51 pm

Hi Magnet, well said!
The best way to advance our cause is for all of us to present a united front in our individual replies to the Independent Review. There are less than 600 members on this website . . . we need to speak with a united voice. It is the only way we can have any real impact on the review.

We all understand what our grievances are, but it is quite another thing to present them in a clear, concise manner. I appreciate the passion of many members but, in this instance, verbosity is NOT! our friend.

Frankly, I am not optimistic . . . there are 600 of us out of 120,000 voting members of CPA Australia . . . but we have to try!

Do we have a volunteer prepared to present us with a basic script? And please! . . . keep it simple.

Steve Hamilton
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Steve Hamilton » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:41 pm

I spend about 40 minutes yesterday filling out the online form, kept it brief and to the point. Here is a summary if anyone is interested. Couldn't print it before submission.

3. Members and stakeholders are invited to make a submission in regard to CPA Australia's governance.
4. What suggestions do you have to improve the future governance of CPA Australia? Term limits on directors 6 yrs, each state appoints a director from direct election of members in that state, ban officeholders from being F/T employees of CPA Aust and CEO not having a right to attend board meetings. Majority independent directors for 12 months resignation of current board and last two senior execs.
5. Members and stakeholders are invited to make a submission in regard to CPA Australia's staff and Board remuneration. 50% cut in board fees. Remuneration report at each AGM like ASX listed companies to be approved by membership.
6. What suggestions do you have to improve the remuneration structures for CPA Australia's staff and Board? As above
7. Members and stakeholders are invited to make a submission in regard to CPA Australia's strategy and expenditure on marketing. Back to basics marketing playing to our strength, qualification, experience and integrity. No individual as the focus. Cut overseas marketing and book.
8. What suggestions do you have to improve CPA Australia's future marketing strategy and expenditure? Focus on Australia stop trying to recruit overseas or uni students. Stop wasting money.
9. Members and stakeholders are invited to make a submission in regard to CPA Australia's member services and engagement. What services? What engagement?
10. What suggestions do you have to improve the member services and engagement of CPA Australia? Provide some, stop looking for cheap deals on products. Free or cheaper and more relevant PD for members.
11. Members and stakeholders are invited to make a submission in regard to the strategy and performance of CPA Australia Advice. Should be shut down, caused the loss of PS Limited Liability scheme. Other people are doing it better and cheaper, cut the losses.
12. What suggestions do you have to improve the strategy and performance of CPA Australia Advice? Close it down.
13. Are there any other matters you would like to raise in your submission? Board calling an EGM to resolve issues, if they are right they will be re-elected. Invalid appointment of last director. Resolve PSS issue by shutting CPA Advice as a priority.

User avatar
Stomper
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 9:55 am
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Stomper » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:50 am

11. Members and stakeholders are invited to make a submission in regard to the strategy and performance of CPA Australia Advice.

- IMMEDIATELY STOP PAYING $1m in Director and Executive remuneration
- Claw back money's already paid
- Benchmark the $12m spent by CPAA Advice for 21 agents to the amount spent by the NTAA to establish SMSF Advice with 1,000 agents (hint, it's less than $1m)

incitem3
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 3:39 pm

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by incitem3 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:13 pm

I thought about the excessive remuneration issue and I imagine that the current board with the remuneration and recruitment committee have a well documented series of studies justifying the pay levels for senior management and remuneration of board members that are in place now. I am sure a sense of entitlement now exists with the existing board and senior management. It is not realist for these people to agree to give up what is the equivalent of serious lottery winning on a yearly basis and with little to do and prove to earn it. They have even entrenched themselves with the board selection rules that they have be able to put in place and working in a secretive work environment they have been able to keep this going for over 7 years with no easy way to have members change anything or even find out what is happening .

It is unlikely that remuneration levels and the board selection will ever go back to the way it was before. The way this is supposed to work under the corporations act is the Board of directors get to set the remuneration levels and senior management appointments along with management direction but the membership gets to vote for to appoint and remove directors on a basis that can be less than one year. I have just studied the corporations act and got advice from faculty at Curtin University. The board selection criteria has of course been replaced at the CPAA with the current scheme that has taken all rights of members to appoint and remove board members.

What I think needs to happen here is not just spill the board but go back to the way things are run under the standard rules of the constitution under the Corporations act. We really need to have the constitution of the CPAA changed to allow the membership to democratically elect and remove directors on a basis that is as frequent as the annual General meeting. This will of course only work if a significant portion of the membership takes interest in the decisions made by the board and senior management and an open communication of performance results and decisions made. Then we need a slate of people run for election of the board based on a platform of good governance and a reorganisation of the CPAA structure.

What I think has been going on with this site is that we have been going over all of the bad things that have been happening at CPAA and this is important, even going over all of the issues to tell the reviewers is good , but the most important thing to happen is a change to the constitution for the membership to approve and select our board. What do the rest of you Think?

theallseeingeye
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:23 am

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by theallseeingeye » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:57 pm

Nothing wrong with what you say, incitem3

In summary, what we need from the Board is

- transparency.....not a 3 month battle for remuneration disclosure

- robust , two-way member engagement channels to the top....not a gerrymandered Board selection process

- accountability ....not big payoffs for poor performance, not 11+ year Board terms

The three basic needs that the CPA board has failed to deliver.

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Brett Stevenson » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:02 pm

Hi all,

Caught up finishing the submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Members Register amendment last night so didn’t write this note I promised of what I would say to the Panel Review. Am now doing.
I met with them first thing this morning over Skype. It all went fine. I was honest with them, obviously couldn't cover off on everything, but what we did cover I just told them as I saw it.

I would suggest any member just speak plainly and honestly with them. There is no right or wrong response or answer here. I would think they would prefer straight talking, so tell them what you really would like to.

My rough notes that I did in preparation will give you an idea of how I approached it.

The two things they are after are submissions, and suggestions.

My submissions are my comments on the website. Predominantly the Group emails forum (1 to 25 or so), weekly updates forum and the In The Media forum. Clearly lots of comments and submissions outside these areas but they provide a rough overview from my perspective.

ACTION to pursue at the appropriate time
I would like to see the
1. A forensic accountant/auditor/investigator appointed to go through CPA Head Office to review major areas of income and expenditure, and to report back to the board and members. If action needs to be taken then take it
2. Pursue proactively any legal actions if warranted against any of the leaders of CPA Australia - oppression of shareholders, breaches of directors duties, breaches of reporting obligations, unconstitutional actions etc
3. Provide a detailed report on International Travel by CPA leadership since 2009 at both board and management level.
4. Do ‘exit’ interviews with staff who have left the employ of CPA Australia since 2007 to get a handle on some of the more HR, and perhaps more disturbing issues such as bullying and intimidation. The culture needs to change.

For suggestions in the five highlighted areas, these are they.

A. Governance
This is where all the problems started way back with the governance review by Khoury, Cameron Ralph. No adequate checks and balances, and a corporate model. It was a failure ripe for the picking, and that is what happened.

1. Governance needs to be a high priority as the system we have now is kaput.
More checks and balances at each level.
Members to vote directly for directors
Get rid of the representative council.
Directors terms 6 years absolute maximum
Need a system that promotes member engagement and participation. What we have now is the opposite.

2. Restatement of the objects of CPA Australia and a fuller discussion of why we exist and what we should be doing.

3. Current 6 board members need to go now, whether they are removed by a special resolution passed at an EGM, or whether they go voluntarily but while they are there CPA has no hope. The more public the removal the better. Preferably before the 30th September when at least two will be resigning (Petty and Youngberry).

4. Steps to transition to new board and governance structure unclear with no real consensus among the members.
Option I would have preferred had Mr Youngberry not stepped in was for the board to only have 5 members left so that ASIC would be forced to step in with an administrator/interim board.
Another option is to somehow weave in an interim board however the challenge there is to how to select that interim board.
Another option which seems the most likely is to allow the 7 new directors to be appointed under a very imperfect system, kick out the those remaining of the current 6, and then replace them either at an EGM or again under our current imperfect system. Then hopefully the Panels’ reports, more member engagement and at least some of these new directors being reasonable and not Malley acolytes will enable good decisions to be made.

5. The aim would be to get a new Board in place under a better governance system with members directly electing directors asap, hopefully by the AGM in 2018.
But I’m afraid the goal is there but the process to get there is unclear with a seemingly intransigent current board who refuse to yield still in power. What they say and do now is a total irrelevance to me. I have no respect for any of them.

6. The only catalysts I can see for any meaningful change now are either an EGM to sack the current board and/or the Review Panel coming up with some pretty proactive and insightful solutions in the draft report of 15th Sept.

7. That the resolution(s) to remove the current board, and signatures collected as a matter of highest priority. I am happy to organise the drafting of the resolution(s) if others can do the explanatory memorandum, and then push it hard. If we cannot get 6,000 member signatures after all that has been exposed then I hardly think CPA is worth fighting for. So, to me that is the highest priority.

8. The other aspect to the governance is the interim CEO Adam Awty and other senior and perhaps middle managers. To me, they have lost credibility, and are just as tarnished as the current board members.
My only suggestion is that they are all asked to resign, and if they want to apply for their jobs, then let them do so along with anyone else who does.
It may take time, and may be a process, but the culture that has developed at CPA Head Office and within the higher echelons of the leadership needs a dramatic change.

9. Much of that will be left to the new board but if there are no significant changes in the governance within the next three months I would have major reservations about CPA. But let me say again, this is my personal opinion.
The panel want honest suggestions.

B. Staff and Board remuneration

i. Board remuneration

1. Board members should be paid $25,000 p.a. I don't believe they should be voluntary because otherwise it limits board members to members of large firms and public servants who can easily cover and effectively subsidise their board appointments. We need to make being a director not a hardship for any member but also not so attractive that remuneration becomes a key driver.
I’m not too sure what the Presidents role involves so leave that to others to decide but I would guess $100k provides a sounding board.

2. I would also like to see the Panel publish asap a spreadsheet or report of the amount of remuneration paid to each board member since 2009 when Alex Malley became CEO. I have done that before but it is very rough and I think important that members know the context in which the above suggest is made.
This is not privy or confidential information. After all we are a membership organisation, and I would suggest that if any director (past or present) opposes this then my first question would be why? Therein lies the reason why it should be. I would suggest most of them would be ashamed. But maybe not. But at least let the members know so we can have the correct information.

3. The Review Panel should publish what the current directors are being paid now.

ii. Staff remuneration

All senior and middle management staff remuneration should be reduced by 50%. Their current salary levels are way over the top and one just needs to look at page 14 and 26 of the 31st May memo to appreciate that.
Clearly lots of other issues with CPA management but this is just looking for suggestions on remuneration.

C. Strategy

The strategy of CPA needs to be driven by the objects of the organisation. Why do we exist.
I suggest prominent should be the development of the profession and the members as professionals.
Accounting is ‘our profession, and we are CPA Australia. We should have close links with other countries but we are not primarily into global growth and building up massive bank balances or being the best service organisation in the world. WE are a professional accounting membership organisation.

D. Marketing Expenditure

I would suggest we could reduce this by 75% in all the areas that have already been spoken about (self promotion of Alex Malley, sports sponsorships, TV deals, billboards, books etc).
I would think much of this can be used to make professional development courses cheaper, and also to further research in areas that will enhance the accounting profession.

E. Member engagement and services

Align with our objects as a professional accounting membership organisation.
I’ll leave this one to others. My priorities would be making continuing professional development affordable and relevant, and easy access to anything that would enhance the profession both individually (library etc) and as an organisation. I am not too fussed about half the kpi’s they use such as time to answer the phone. Lets move away from that sort of superficial crap.

F. CPA Australia Advice

Shut it down asap, and all the staff at both board and management level need to be held accountable for this major stuff up.

G. Other Matters

In addition to the five areas they have highlighted, I added the following to come under the other matters (not comprehensive, just thoughts as I went through the day) which I thought they should at least be aware of even if they couldn’t review them all.
1. Appointment of Alex Malley as CEO, and possibly as President - this needs a closer look.
2. Bullying and intimidation at CPA - the culture that has developed. Some of the stories I have heard means this should at least be looked at, if not investigated. Just horrible, and as you are aware, not so easy to prove or for the victims to come forward. I sure hope someone looks at it.
3. CPA responses of 2nd March and 16th March to many of the issues. Look at them now in view of what has since been disclosed. They were crap then, and even more so now I suggest. I referred them to my email responses to these (group email 6 on 5th March, group email 10 on 16th March, and group email 20 on 21st April)
4. They effectively ‘gamed’ the system - complied but not full disclosure, the idea of legal theft, like Enron, some of it was compliant with standards etc but in cold light of the court and public opinion it was seen clearly for what it was.
5. Negative impact on the accounting profession. Lost sight of why we exist in the first place.
6. Negative impact on accounting standards - used consolidated act, min disclosure, integrated reporting, audit compliance to effectively be compliant but show that the standards just hid the true situation. I regard them as having abused what the standards are and what we represent.
7. AGM in Singapore
8. International travel - I would think a detailed report should be done of this asap.
9. Relationship with academia - just what has been going on.
10. Is minimum disclosure mentality appropriate for a professional membership organisation.
Many non- accountants (CEO’s Chairmen etc of public companies encouraged this to be dealt with.


Some key questions

What is the purpose of a professional accounting organisation?
Do the issues spread more broadly from Prof act body to professional bodies to membership bodies to nfp sector organisations?


Approach

a. Perhaps start with the CPA responses 2nd March, 16th March and 31st March. Look at them in light of what has been since disclosed and exposed.
Ditto re the annual reports
b. Review the responses and CPA in light of our ethics statement in APESB


Cheers. It’s all a bit rough but coveys my thoughts to the members and the panel.

Brett

User avatar
nakedadmin
Site Admin
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by nakedadmin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:52 pm

Hi Brett, Great work with the IRP and good points raised.
Brett Stevenson wrote:
Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:02 pm
1. Board members should be paid $25,000 p.a. I don't believe they should be voluntary because otherwise it limits board members to members of large firms and public servants who can easily cover and effectively subsidise their board appointments. We need to make being a director not a hardship for any member but also not so attractive that remuneration becomes a key driver.
I’m not too sure what the Presidents role involves so leave that to others to decide but I would guess $100k provides a sounding board.
I don't think there should be such a discrepancy between the 11 Directors and President's pay. What is going to happen is the Directors all expect the President has done the work and just turn up for a cup of tea and $25K. I think they should all get $50K. President just gets the status/recognition. If the President is too busy they should share the work around.

incitem3 wrote:
Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:13 pm
What I think has been going on with this site is that we have been going over all of the bad things that have been happening at CPAA and this is important, even going over all of the issues to tell the reviewers is good , but the most important thing to happen is a change to the constitution for the membership to approve and select our board. What do the rest of you Think?
You are correct but it's pretty hard to draft a new constitution with the limited resources we have. I think some of the idea is that we need to clean out the board and the new Directors need to fix the constitution.
The Naked Webmaster

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Brett Stevenson » Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:10 pm

On that one we will just have to disagree.
$50k for each director is way over the top and puts high Remuneration back into vogue.
We are not a corporate, we are a membership organisation.
To suggest having it high in case they can all share the Presidents load is not a very convincing argument in my book.
Big difference between 11 by $25k plus say $100k = $375k, and
12 by $50k = $600k.
What CPA needs is a dramatic change from the excessive remuneration practices of the past otherwise the same sort of mentality creeps in. The Board especially needs to set the tone and emphasis for the organisation.

Steve Hamilton
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Steve Hamilton » Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:47 pm

To me the main issue is accountability of the board and top executives to the membership. Reinstituting real democracy in the constitution will go along was to fixing the issues and the presentation of a remunerations report at the AGM which has to be approved by members.

The current governance structure, and I've seen this type of change attempted at another club/mutual organisation a relative was a member of, is about keeping those pesky members out of the way so the full time management and board can get on with building their empires without interference. Luckily in that case the membership was very engaged and the attempt failed. Unfortunately that wasn't the case with CPA Australia, now we have to fight to regain control.

fidgetspinner
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by fidgetspinner » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:57 am

Just had a look at the Medibank Private annual reports. The good news is you can see everyone's pay in detail but you have to wonder what view anyone from a board with these pay rates will have about CPA board remuneration and if it should be cut by very much. I note the relativity between Chairperson is 200%.

As Chairperson of Medibank Private Elizabeth Alexander was paid $403,077 up from $296,761 in 2015. Before the float in 2014 she was paid $96,007.

Six Medibank Private directors were each paid between $167,486 to $176,834 up from $121,922 to $147,433 the year before. In 2013, before the ASX float the highest paid director was $85181.

In 3 or 4 years pay for the chair and rest of the board have gone up between 200% to 400%.

fidgetspinner
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by fidgetspinner » Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:14 am

Also Michael Pascoe has also climbed into Medibank Private about executive pay. Their new CEO gets 200% more than the previous CEO.

So just a caution about the expectations that anyone from a big company background could bring when reviewing CPA or thinking about sitting on its board.

You can read in the links what Pascoe argues about the performance of Medibank Private executives who he says operate in a sheltered workshop subsidised by tax payers with annual price rises rubber stamped by government. I've put links in below.

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/healt ... 49151.html

http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking- ... xcn6u.html

Nelson
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Message from Mr McPhee about Independent review requesting submissions.

Post by Nelson » Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:32 pm

I am bewildered - are we to understand that we are now paying the CPA Board and management, and paying the Independent Review Panel (IRP) and their hired secretariat as defacto Board and management, to all simultaneously work on resolving the indemnity insurance mess? WOW. Why are McPhee & co involving themselves in an operational matter? - surely this is a task for CPA Board and management, (they created the problem), and if they are not capable of coming up with a solution then they should not be there - they should resign.

In the meantime we have director youngberry conducting a 'listening tour' (although I haven't sighted an email announcing this). Surely this is the role of the IRP.

Why is everyone trying to everyone else's job?

There are 2 really urgent matters on the table:
1. Sorting out the indemnity insurance mess asap. This is the role and responsibility of CPA Board and management.
2. Getting traction with the review around key matters, and particularly at this point in time, the constitution and governance with some specific output asap, so that October does not result in the current Board does not appoint additional directors (that's how we arrived at this point). This the role and responsibility of the IRP.

In my view good leadership and governance begin with understanding purpose and roles - it appears right now CPA Board and the IRP are confused as to how to be effective and efficient.

I have also passed my comments on to the IRP - is this really the current situation?

Post Reply