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: ... 215-h055ej ... 211-h02x1d ... s,/8626662
Please join this website to participate in discussions. Also join our email list at

Considerations re the new board/IRP recommendations

Discussion about the proposed resolutions to be put to the AGM in May 2018
Post Reply
User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Considerations re the new board/IRP recommendations

Post by Brett Stevenson » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:57 pm

Hi all,

if you are pushed for time below is an outline plus a couple of attachments with the visual guide pretty important I reckon.

I didn’t have the million dollars the Independent Review Panel had nor the financial and staffing clout of CPA, nor paid time so you will have to cut me a bit of slack on the length.

Overview of this email

A. Encouraging signs from the new board for positive change.

B. But crikey the governance model suggested will be a disaster for us.

C. Hints of old habits creeping in.

D. I don’t think the new board is fair dinkum on legal action

E. The IRP’s Final Report was a ‘professional whitewash’ in my eyes mainly because those responsible have been held unaccountable.

F. Governance - the red flags are waving brightly

G. Visual guide to the proposed governance model by IRP and the new board

H. A proposed governance model for the members to consider

I. A quick comment on the skills based governance emphasis by the IRP and the new board

J. Detailed look at the their opposition to members directly voting for directors

K. We need more details on the membership

L. Where to from here?

1. Corporate Governance CPA Style - Lessons for all Series

2. Special resolutions for the AGM

3. I am writing a book - crowdfunding to get started

4. Discussion of resolutions proposed this Thursday in Sydney 15th Feb

5. The Fighting Fund

6. Consultation Meetings


Visual Guide to the governance model proposed by IRP and the new board including red flags.

Membership details required from CPA but not forthcoming to date.

CPA Board response of 2nd March 2017 plus my reply.

CPA Board response of 16th March plus my reply.
Well it seems events may be overtaking me in relation to doing a detailed critique of the Independent Review Panel Final Report (IRPFR). Perhaps my 28 pages to date is already outdated. So let me respond to all this material with a series of briefer emails as I review it.

A. Encouraging signs from the new board for positive change.

We all possibly realise by now that the Terms of Reference limited the scope of what the IRPFR would provide to “make recommendations for improvements”. I’m sure the remaining rump of the old board along with their legal advisers (be it the CPA general counsel or external legal firm) organised this accordingly. But we were not in a position to ‘negotiate’, and anything was better than nothing, but it is coming back to bite us now.

So any good improvements the IRPFR recommended have to be embraced.

Good is the operative word. Many of them were good, and the new board have picked up on these with their initial response and issues paper released today.

But some are not so good, especially in relation to governance (which I will discuss below) where I believe they have effectively disenfranchised the membership.

B. But crikey the governance model suggested will be a disaster for us

Very clever but I believe they have dressed up an old piece of mutton to look like a piece of rib eye steak. Major problems remain with an acquiescent weak board

C. Hints of old habits creeping in.

Can I just make one suggestion to Peter as President - that you speak frankly and honestly and not ‘distort’ as I believe you did in your introduction to the video clip.

So, where you said in the beginning that the purpose of the Independent Review “was to enable CPA Australia to adopt a more contemporary and more balanced set of governance arrangements” I have to say that is just not true.

We all know that the purpose of the Independent Review was to investigate the claims made of the poor leadership of CPA Australia exhibited in things like scandalous remuneration, self promoting and wasted marketing millions etc. Governance reforms were necessary and a natural outworking of that.

So let’s not forget why this Independent Review was ‘forced’ upon the old board. I don’t know what you directors put in your tea of coffee when you get appointed, or perhaps more importantly what PR firm you engage to massage your message, but can I say nothing beats the truth and openness, and nothing is more obvious than misleading statements like that. I’m not a great believer in rewriting history to fit your narrative.

Let history speak for itself.

D. I don’t think the new board is fair dinkum on legal action

I suggest you get another legal opinion on possible actions against the past directors. To be perfectly honest I don’t believe you or the new board are really that interested in pursuing the past board.

I regard the approach of the Independent Review Panel (see my below comments on their contention that the board were slow to respond) as being to avoid laying any sort of hint of legal responsibility on the past board.

I would contend that it was the past leaders actions and quick responses in March especially (with their memo’s of 2nd and 16th) and May 1st (being warning about members register going to me and the negative emails) and May 31 (being a more detailed repeat of 16th March plus forced remuneration disclosure) and there closing down of the Find A CPA function with warnings to discussion group leaders not to talk about these issues, was when some really actionable behaviour by the board occurred.

The Independent Review Panel did its best to divert or rewrite this little piece of history to avoid blame being laid upon the leaders (board and management). It seems to me that the new board have just acquiesced by endorsing this message.

I have little confidence in either the Independent Review Panels report in this regard, nor in the new boards approach who came into their roles under a very broken appointment process still overseen and influenced by the old board.

I would suggest the failure of the board who approved this three year termination contract for the CEO Alex Malley was so wrong in the eyes of the membership (and we contend the law) that the board need to get a few more legal opinions. And can I suggest that the President and Deputy President not be involved in seeking those additional legal options just so some fresh eyes can be applied.

I would recommend that the board get another opinion, and from another firm totally unconnected to anyone at CPA. The same applies I suggest to the possible oppressive conduct by the board, and also to the directors and senior management remuneration of $1.5 million from CPA Australia Advice in terms of the process, the quantum and the constitutionality.

I would also suggest the board not listen to the excuse that this will cost too much money. CPA has enough money to get these opinions.

For CPA Australia to say our leaders are unaccountable for their behaviour over the last decade in general and last few years in particular will do more damage to our organisation and brand than anything. We do not need to take on board the Independent Review Panels limited scope approach but rather adopt the accountability mentality which undergirds all corporate governance.

But no matter which way we go with legal action we should not soften our dismay at the appalling behaviour of our past leaders, nor their intimidatory and threatening approach to those of us who spoke up.

The Independent Review Panel Final Report clearly did not deal with this very well (in my opinion). So poorly in fact that it critiqued and/or ignored the disgruntled members who did most of the heavy lifting to expose all this, and went on to praise the wonderfully silent divisional councillors and presidents. A loaded agenda I reckon.

For all the membership, and especially those of us who spoke up about these issues, it has not been a very professional period all the way round.

E. The IRP’s Final Report was a ‘professional whitewash’ in my eyes mainly because those responsible have been held unaccountable.

I regarded the IRP approach as being too quick to commend the old board for changes made late in 2017, and the “rich source of input” from the divisions who until June 2017 were pretty much silent.

To be contrasted with the ‘disgruntled’ members for whom they recommended a special code of conduct to deal with their ‘unacceptable and unethical” behaviour. Even better still was the way the IRP went about rewriting the history of what happened to lessen the appalling behaviour of the leadership. Some examples

The Boards slow response to the issues that were raised.

That is just not true.

The board were very quick to respond to my emails of 21, 26 & 28 Feb with a memo on 2nd March (I have attached), and then with a more detailed memo on 16th March (also attached) to my continued emails of 3rd, 5th, 7th, 13th and 15th March. And that is not counting the AFR articles during this time

The problem was not the speed of their response it was the quality of their response. But the IRP excluded all of this because it wanted to contend that it was a matter of poor ‘issues’ management by the board.

That is just wrong.

The board were managing the issues raised by denying and misrepresenting and obfuscating and threatening with intimidatory memo’s. They issued managed this by not telling the truth.

The IRP conveniently ignored these emails and memo’s in their Report and rather conveyed the impression of this period from late Feb to June as being a time when the board just ‘responded slowly’. The IRP report says of the board’s behaviour that it “did not translate into a timely public response or explanation”.

I can only leave members to surmise why the IRP ignored these board communications in this period. Recall this was when they made legal threats to the AFR for exposing this, and threatened (Alex Malley and Graeme Wade) the largest discussion group in Sydney for distributing the emails, and made veiled threats to me, and warned discussion group leaders not to allow these matters to be discussed at their meetings. And of course their legal threat against the AFR.

The CPA leadership was not slow in responding, they were very quick. It’s just that the IRP did not want to report this as it did not for some reason fit into their narrative of this primarily being a matter of poor issues management by the board.

That’s what I call rewriting history.

The nominations and appointment process had been subject to continuous improvement in recent years.

That is very misleading. If ‘recent years’ means the last few months since the full disclosure of the directors remuneration was forced on them, and the exposure by members of the dodgy governance structure, then I guess you could say it is true. But I would suggest most would read recent years to mean that literally.

I leave members to read the section and decide themselves whether it is actually what happened or a rather convenient ‘rewriting’.

This review is not a forensic review, intended to provide legal advice or develop evidence for the purposes of any legal action.

But the IRP was only too happy to affirm the legality of Tim Youngberry’s appointment as director, or that CPA was unable to recover the CEO’s termination payment.

Of course the criteria used by the IRP to assess the performance of CPA Australia according to the ‘requirements of the law’ and the utilisation of a lawyer (Crabtree) and corporations law expert (Baxt) on the Panel was not used in this regard.

Why the IRP felt compelled to highlight areas where action could not be taken, and not areas where action could be possibly taken, I leave for the reader to answer.

I could go on and on with examples but this is enough to convey the approach.

F. Governance - the red flags are waving brightly

Let me just make some comments on the governance which I regard as being almost worse than what we have now. It has effectively disenfranchised the membership (dressed up as the opposite) and would place CPA Australia in the hands of a very powerful elite with members having little recourse.

Think about it just for a moment.

We have a skills based board appointment process in place now, we have a process now where members cannot directly elect directors, we have had major problems with directors serving longer than six years, we have a board that exerts enormous influence through the governance process, a President with too much leverage and power, a Representative Council that failed badly etc.

So what does the IRPFR recommend - a skills based director appointment process, members definitely not be allowed to vote for directors, directors terms of possibly nine years, a President who is Chairman of the Board and Appointments Council and possibly of the Nominations Committee and Remunerations Committee, a board even less answerable to the membership, and renaming the Representative Council to Appointments Council

It’s just rebadging a lousy model. You can call a piece of mutton a piece of steak but when you eat, it is still a piece of mutton.

G. Visual guide to the proposed governance model by IRP and the new board

I have attached a three page paper with a visual guide to the new governance structure, along with the red flags that are waving madly.

I think this is the best I can do at the moment to alert members to what is being proposed.This provides a framework and perhaps organising structure around which you can fill in the detail.

The most important feature is that those pesky members must never ever be allowed to vote directly for the directors or for the members ever to be able to remove them. That is Corporate Governance CPA Style Rule Number 1.

H. A proposed governance model for the members to consider

I shall send through over the next couple of days two alternative options to the governance model proposed by the IRP and new board. Models which are more common with listed public companies.

In summary I think we can discard the appointments council, and the Council of Presidents, and have the members vote directly for the directors. The only variation between the two I am suggesting centres around the role to be played by the Nominations Committee. I would further add that with both models I am suggesting we should only have one (if at all) non-member director, and we need to broaden the selection process to include not just skills but also a heck of a lot of other traits. I also think we should move back to the selection of directors on a proportional and geographic representative basis because it better serves the needs of CPA Australia and the accounting profession.

I emphasise that I regard the members directly electing directors as a much better way to appoint directors at the AGM, and is the common approach with most public companies.

I. A quick comment on the skills based governance emphasis by the IRP and the new board

I think we need to take it all with a good dose of salt.

Have a look at the 2016 Annual Report where we have already been utilising such an approach. The word skills was so used that it almost makes you cringe when you see what it produced. All of the 12 directors placed these among their skillset - corporate governance, leadership, strategy, financial/commercial acumen.

Just think of what transpired with our governance, with the wasted money on strategy focussed on the CEO, with the dismal leadership they showed and with the financial acumen shown with CPA Australia Advice.

What we also need is a character or virtue matrix!

I believe all the focus on the skills based governance model is such an easy thing to game and to develop a box ticking approach. We have had it, and it is awful.

For the Independent Review Panel to serve up more of the same as some great insight or answer is just foolish (I believe). The theory sounds all so good but in reality it leads to even more ‘eminent and well connected’ directors who sound so impressive but oftentimes as we have seen with CPA Australia cannot even get the basic things right about leadership.

The IRP is so strong on this emphasis that they conveniently forgot (or failed to mention) that it was a bunch of non-eminent members and some non-member journalists who were prepared to cop the criticism (from our own leadership in particular) to expose all of this rubbish in the first place.

I am no big fan of all this over-emphasis on skills such that members become disenfranchised. Sure directors need to have them but crikey they need a little bit more than that, and I would prefer a greater emphasis on those character and virtue traits for which I suggest members have a better gut feel and why they should vote directly for them.

J. Detailed look at the their opposition to members directly voting for directors

I personally was very surprised at this recommendation by the Independent Review Panel and the reasons they provided. For the new board to then echo them makes me even more concerned.

So I thought it would be helpful to spend some time evaluating these reasons provided to oppose members directly voting for directors. I will go through each one but keep the overall message they are conveying in view

Board - directly elected - no way - not representative etc

Divisions - directly elected - yes - very representative etc

The rationality of their position defies me.

i. Incompatible with skills-based approach - wherever did this notion of direct voting and skills based selection being mutually exclusive come from. Surely we can still have a process to shortlist candidates based on skills (and other things) and leave it up to the members to directly vote for them.

We have seen how that operated with the Representative Council. For me I much prefer the untidiness of members directly voting. They can often discern those traits and characteristics in the shortlist that an exclusive group cannot (as we all only too well know).

ii. Risk of constituent pressure on directors - wow, and they wrote that with a straight face. That is a fact of life for directors however they are appointed so let’s not attribute that as being the sole risk attributed to direct elections. I suggest a bit of director training to teach them how to resist and deal with constituent pressure might not go astray, after all that surely is corporate governance 101 where you take off your constituent hat when you enter the board room and put on the hat of the company.

iii. Disruption caused by using a skills based matrix to shortlist candidates then electing them directly. I think that is what this piece of gobbeldy gook is saying. If anyone else can make more sense of that then I am all ears. It seems to suggest direct elections and selecting shortlisted candidates is incompatible or disruptive. Akin to the first one above I think.

iv. Historically low voter turn-out. The obvious response to that is that member engagement is critical (and boy o boy do we know that). But of course that is not the option they prefer. No, they would think a smaller group better represents the great mass of members. Of course this one is not trotted out when they wax lyrical about the election of divisional councillors.

v. The time and cost involved versus the Appointments Council process
- I think this perhaps more reflects the lack of expertise of either the panel and/or the CPA staff to utilise the very effective and cheap modes of voting nowadays. Recall the main method of communication with members is email, and we are living in the 21st century. I would suggest the Panel could well have done having a chat to some of the service providers to the NFP sector (rather than using CPA as the standard) to see that there are some very efficient and effective member management programs around now to handle elections on a doddle.

vi. Risk of gerrymandering by certain divisions - surely safeguards can be put in place on this such that directors can broadly represent the geographic and demographic spread of the membership. That is just trying to create difficulties to avoid some application of brain power.

vii. Those favouring direct voting did not provide a detailed critique of the other methods. Is the IRP kidding. You mean to say when a suggestion is made it can only get a hearing if it adequately provides a cost/benefit (merits and detriments) analysis of alternatives. Wow, does the IRP want to do any thinking for the money we are paying them.

viii. Directly elected directors don’t stay as long and don’t enjoy their time as much. Well well well. Maybe we should be pushing for directors by dictate of the President - they will stay longer and just love not being held to account to the membership. Crikey I have to shake myself to make sure that this was not written by a few of the past directors who so enjoyed the experience they just did not want to leave nor be accountable to the members. Shall I remind the IRP this is exactly why we favour direct elections. ‘Continuity of the board’ my big fat toe. That is straight out of the previous boards playbook.

I’m sorry for being so scathing of this section but really this was twaddle and I was honestly surprised they could trot these out.

I’m a big fan of democracy and for members to be able to vote directors in, and to vote them out. What is especially worth noting is the way they went overboard to find some pretty nebulous deficiencies to pad out there narrative. The direct electing of directors by members really does make the 'eminent and well connected’ have sleepless nights eh?

K. We need more details on the membership

One of the big changes mooted in relation to governance is the utilising of the divisions and branches in the process as being a better example of member representation and engagement. Thus I have asked CPA for a breakdown of the membership by division and branch (most particularly in Australia which they do not disclose) by associate and full member.

This will give us a better idea of the makeup and distribution of the membership. Remember full members have a high retention rate and can vote, while the associates have a very low one (which they refuse to tell us by the way) and cannot vote.

My suspicion is that the IRPFR made a special mention of this (with no supporting numbers as per above) because much is hidden in these numbers. The best gauge for us to assess the merits of the IRPFR and the new boards changes require us to know what they refuse to tell us.

I surmise the reason for the delay is to ensure the passage of the mooted governance changes with as little opposition as possible. Do you sense the deja vu here?

I have summarised this in a separate attached paper for the members to consider.

L. Where to from here?

I have found it hard to find the time to keep up with the changes, the reading and writing to the members on this whole CPA Australia matter. My detailed critique of the Independent Review Panels Final Report lies half finished at 28 pages, and possibly of little use now.

I am very conscious of the need to restore and keep whatever professional credibility the CPA designation has.

1. Corporate Governance CPA Style - Lessons for all Series

I am writing a short series of articles which I will publish on my blog and on LinkedIn to see what lessons we can glean from this whole mess. I can almost guarantee that they will not be published in our In The Black magazine which is reserved for all those lovely ‘pats on the back, very vaguely related to accounting, womens weekly’ type articles.

Can you believe that our own professional magazine has not even had an article on what happened last year. It is as if we are living in a parallel universe.

They will be very short one pagers, and I can possibly knock them off at the rate of one per evening over the next month.

The aim is to provide some governance lessons for others by looking at the failures at CPA Australia. We certainly have lost enough credibility as it is so let’s at least try to redeem something useful from it all.

Here are the titles of those I have ‘mentally written’ and roughly sketched out (in no particular order at this stage).
  • A Quick Recap. It’s not very pretty
    Forget the members. It’s all about the leaders.
    What about the accounting profession? Forget that!
    Leadership. It’s all a matter of perspective eh?
    Accountability? Forget that!
    Doesn’t look good Part One - No problem, just rewrite the history
    Doesn’t look good Part Two - Keep control for as long as possible
    Member engagement? Control it tightly.
    Members vote for directors? Never ever ever
    AGM’s. Keep the fiction alive
    Reporting to members? Game the system
    Worried about legal action? Have an Independent Review
    Tip One. Shoot the messengers
    Tip Two. Reward the silent one’s
    Tip Three. Bluff, obfuscate, mislead, never apologise and never ever tell the …….
    I don’t believe there is any way we can restore credibility to our organisation or to the designation without being really honest about what has gone on before. I regard the Independent Review Panels Final Report as a ‘professional whitewash’.
They can massage the wrongs into being unaccountable events that just happened with no people responsible to give the impression of CPA taking this seriously. But the reality is that it is just a clever way of ‘papering over major cracks’.

2. Special resolutions for the AGM

I shall still be developing these for the members to consider.

Some will no longer be needed given the mooted changes coming from the new board but one that will definitely be submitted is to reduce the directors fees to $50k, deeply presidents to $75k and the president to $150k. Wouldn’t it be good to see what associations were used in that benchmarking exercise done by Godfreys if the mid range for directors fees was $75,000.

Joe Aston was spot on with his column in the AFR on Monday.

I think the reality is that when boards get together the opportunity to encourage one another with ‘pats on the back’ and ‘we deserve it’ overrides all sense of perspective.

3. I am writing a book - crowdfunding to get started

I am going to write a book on this whole matter.

Topic: It will not be just an historical account of what happened (as interesting enough as that would be) but I am more aiming it at a wider audience and covering a broader range of material placing it into the context of the accounting profession, corporate governance and financial reporting with the CPA Australia situation and example providing the cameo.

Target Market: The main target market is accountants (CPA, CA, IPA, NIA, CIMA etc) both in Australia and overseas. I would think there will be enough meaty stuff included to be considered for university students (even if just as a complement to their subjects). It will be written so it appeals to a broader audience, mainly within the financial and governance areas.

Book size: 350 to 400 pages with roughly 25 shortish chapters of between 15 to 20 pages long.

Publication: I will self publish as a Kindle eBook

Selling Price: $9

Publication Date: Early in the new financial year - July/August 2018

What I need: Is time to focus on it (four to five months). So I am going to ‘crowdfund’ among the members (my first preference over say Kickstarter). I will need this to provide some income as I research and write (and not be distracted seeking other work) and to cover any proofreading and legal fees prior to publishing.

Target: $10,000.(i.e. 100 contribution units of $100)

How to do: I am offering $100 ‘units’ to members for which they will receive a copy of the book and a 30% share in the proceeds. Clearly members can contribute as many units as they wish.

Share of the proceeds: You will receive 30% of the proceeds we receive.

The proceeds: At a selling price of $9, Amazon keep 31% ($2.80) leaving our share as $6.20 (69%). Your share would be $1.86 (30% of $6.20)

I have done a little chart below to show the return to contributors based on the two variables of number of books sold, and the number of contributor units. My best guess is 50 contributor units ($5,000), and 5,000 books sold.

If that is the case you will get a return of about $186 on your $100 contribution plus a copy of the book. If 10,000 are sold then that return will be $372.

Have a look at this simple chart and see what you think. I shall just leave it up to you to decide. You know my style and where I am coming from. I think it is a fair deal.

There is a large potential market of interested persons out there, and the price is low compared to a hard copy edition, so I’m ‘optimistically realistic’.

Selling Price $9.00 Our share (69%) $6.20

Your share (30%) is $1.86 plus copy of the book

Book sales 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000

Your share $3,720 $9,300 $18,600 $37,200

Your return based on contributor units

50 $74.40 $186.00 $372.00 $744.00

100 $37.20 $93.00 $186.00 $372.00

150 $24.80 $62.00 $124.00 $248.00

Of course we can all dream and imagine a major bestseller.
One thing I will guarantee is that it will a better book than The Naked CEO.
I will even provide a chapter at the end for CPA members to provide their own comments on the impact and implications of this CPA matter from their perspective.

I have created a separate bank account in my name and will have it exclusively reserved for this, and shall be audited by an established CPA firm. I will provide a receipt and personal guarantee to contributors.

This story needs to be told but I think in a broader context so that it is a more positive ‘contribution’ to the profession.

Final Date for Contributions: 15th March 2018 with some flexibility up to publication date.

Bank Details for those interested (please email me with details to receive receipt

either OR

Bank Westpac

Name: Brett Stevenson

BSB: 732 505

Account No: 695 083

I will provide updates to contributors with the first being a rough outline, and progress to date. I just need some time to integrate the overall theme of governance, the accounting profession, membership organisations and financial reporting into a coherent whole (if possible). I want to make it meaty enough for academics but practical enough for accountants to apply and use. There is no doubt that public practitioners are a sector who have experienced a lot of the ‘pain of neglect’ by CPA Australia. I certainly will have a specific chapter on that. Just as I on the ‘areas of obvious neglect’ in the accounting profession such as intangible assets, people ‘assets’, increasingly irrelevant financial reporting and the loss of public trust in the profession.

I would contend that CPA Australia provides a cameo of the failure of our professional membership body to do its job properly. Growth and big membership numbers may build the balance sheet of the organisation but if the profession declines through neglect then to what end I say. It would appear that the AICPA in the USA could suffer from similar issues. But I will need to do research to bring it all together before writing.

Hope you can contribute.

4. Discussion of resolutions proposed this Thursday in Sydney 15th Feb

The Sydney governance and strategy discussion group have asked me to go through the resolutions I am proposing on Thursday night at their meeting. Happy to do so.

I shall be working on these over the next few days to finalise.

Just as a teaser one will be to restore the clauses in the constitution which required directors fees to be paid to the directors employers. I suggest that will sort out a lot of the issues with the directors fees very very quickly. Think about that one a bit.

Some I suggest will be presented to members for consideration irrespective of what governance model is adopted (such as 6 year directors tenure maximum, and directors fees at $50,000 plus CPI with deputy at 1.5X ($75,000), and president at 3X ($150,000) etc.

If you can come along that would be great. 6pm at CPA offices in Harrington Street, Sydney.

5. The Fighting Fund

We have $5,537.75 left in the fund, and it is being audited currently. I shall send out a detailed report on it once that is complete which I daresay will be early next week.

As to what to do with the balance I am not sure at this stage but my gut feel is to use to push for some of these resolutions at the AGM.

6. Consultation Meetings

That are going around the country in March are a great opportunity for us to really let the board and divisions know what we think of what has happened and what is proposed. I certainly will be attending.

I have told Peter Wilson that I shall be continuing to write emails and discussing these matters in the public arena. Surely the big lesson from before (just call and speak to the CEO or the Chairman of the Board) is that is how they kept a lid on it for so long.

Over time when trust has been restored we can return to the more professional approach (and certainly not hang our dirty laundry in the public square) but by gee the new board will have to do a heck of a lot better than the recent remuneration increase and ‘no legal action’ approach to restore trust (mine anyway).

Well I hope this is useful. I have also placed this on my new website, and in LinkedIn


Memo from CPA 16th March and Bretts Response.pdf
(513.92 KiB) Downloaded 51 times
Membership Details Required.pdf
(33.18 KiB) Downloaded 55 times
CPA Visual Governance Model.pdf
(290.54 KiB) Downloaded 63 times
3 Bretts Response to 2nd March 2017 CPA email.pdf
(459.36 KiB) Downloaded 55 times

Post Reply