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

Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

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

Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by Brett Stevenson » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:33 pm

Hi Members (and interested others),

An anniversary email.
It is a year to the day when I sent out my first group email regarding CPA Australia, and a lot has been achieved since then.

This one will be very brief.

Special Resolutions

I have already sent out Special Resolutions on
1. Directors Fees and
2. Directors Tenure (refer my previous email)

Here are attached Special Resolutions (the ones I sent out before were just drafts) on
3. Direct voting by Members for the Board, and
4. Full disclosure, especially on remuneration, not minimum disclosure.

It has taken a lot of time and effort to compile them so can I encourage you to at least have a read and if you approve, return them signed to me.
We need 100 signatures on each resolution.
I will then lodge them by the deadline, being the 21st March.

N.B.
a. The third one is what I regard as the most important as it enables Members to vote directly for the Board, and as such will put in place a much stronger governance model where our leaders are answerable to the membership That will be a whole new experience for many of us as that has not been the case for a darn long time. This one presumes changes being prepared by the Board (Nominations Committee and Council of Presidents) so I trust CPA take that on board with the resolution.

b. The Spillers for whatever reason seem reluctant to share these emails and resolutions with their mailing list so those on mine will possibly need to act on this to share with others and/or sign yourselves. I will regret saying anything further.

c. This is about the best I can do on these matters.

d. My gut feel at the moment is that many want this all to go away, and to let the new board take the reins, and to just accept their recommendations. I think that is folly but I hardly need to go over my reasons why again with you.

e. Remember the 21st March is the deadline for members to have any effective say by submitting resolutions. I think it is sheer naivety to think changes from what has been proposed by the new board will occur without the membership forcing their hand. So, speak to your divisional councillors is the best I can suggest, apart from signing these resolutions.

f. I have come to the conclusion (and happy to be proved wrong on this) that the CPA heavyweights (esp. in Victoria) have had a big influence to ensure a very soft approach in changing CPA Australia. Pathetic in my view. Unaccountability is not what I regard as the foundation for a strong CPA.

Legal Action

I think the new Board are not being fair dinkum in seeking this. One thing I have learned through this whole process is the importance of who writes the brief for the lawyers. I leave you to think about that a bit.
For Peter Wilson to say in his Note to Members of 9th Feb 2018 that “The Board is of the view that there is no basis to take legal action against CPA Australia’s past directors” is more a reflection on the current Board than anything else. And they want us to take them seriously?
I think Professor Steven Taylors words after mentioning some of the ‘utterly appalling’ decisions and poor governance at CPA Australia perhaps best summarise what I think on that when he says (AFR 13/12/17) “I simply can’t find any accountability.”
Therein is my response to the new board also.

Big disappointment plus a positive

1. Academics - a disappointment
I think it is fair to say that the silence of the academic members (with a few notable exceptions) on what has been happening at CPA Australia is a big disappointment. I know many of them have been very supportive of the changes and the exposure of the last year. But I do think it’s not just academic freedom that’s at play here but also the power of CPA Australia (through its grants and moneys given to the universities in various ways) and the perceived impact on student numbers because of the appeal of offering the pathway through to CPA Australia membership, that has kept the academics silent.
I find that disappointing but perhaps others might say I am being naive now. And they are possibly correct. The examples of Macquarie University connections with CPA, and even Sydney University (especially with their strong accounting tradition with the likes of Ray Chambers and Frank Clarke etc) in view of what has been exposed seems such a shame.

2. Divisions, Committees etc - a positive
It is heartening to hear of the change in the divisions (NSW anyway where I am from) from what was a seemingly complicit and acquiescent approach in the past. Seems to me that the divisional councillors and especially the Presidents will be doing a heck of a lot more than the Board. The obvious conclusion I draw from that is why the blooming hell are we paying the board so much and divisional councillors nothing. But of course in this environment where we are trying to get the ‘pigs out of the trough’ I hardly think selling an increase to DC’s will fly too well.
But I think it should, so much so that I would think the boards remuneration should be reduced even more if they are really taking to heart what they expect of the divisions (which should be the engine room of CPA in terms of member engagement).

Fighting Fund
No change on this since last mentioning it. It is currently being ‘audited’ so I daresay in my next email which will really be just a gentle reminder on the resolutions in a week or so, I should be able to give you the detailed report.

I hope you can sign the resolutions and return them to me asap so at least we can lodge and have for the AGM.
Cheers

Brett
Attachments
Special Resolution Full Reporting.pdf
(224.62 KiB) Downloaded 73 times
Special Resolution Directors Fees.pdf
(109.7 KiB) Downloaded 51 times
Special Resolution Directors Tenure.pdf
(104.67 KiB) Downloaded 75 times
Special Resol. Members Elect Directors.pdf
(488.6 KiB) Downloaded 70 times

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by Magnet » Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:02 pm

Very disappointing that the Spillers group has failed to help you out Brett...going to make it so much harder now!

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by Brett Stevenson » Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:29 pm

No big drama Magnet.
Once we get the 100 signatures and lodge them the real work will be to get the divisional councillors on board.
They might be able to make the difference especially on the direct election model.
If the DC's get engaged and active on this I think we shall really give it a good shake at the AGM.
Now that an alternative model is out there hopefully some good action from those in positions of influence (to me the DC's) we can gain some traction to win the proxy battle looming.

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by nakedadmin » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:30 am

Hi Brett,

I'm concerned that this method of voting for Directors may not actually give us much control. Basically the people nominated by the Divisions have control by having 4 of the 6 positions on the Nominations/Selections committee. The Directors have some influence with 2 on there.

I know we vote for the Divisions but then they nominate to the Rep Council and then the Rep Council to the Nominations/Selections committee. So it gets watered down twice and takes probably a couple years for the members votes to influence the make up of the Nominations committee, meaning not much feedback loop and positions on the Nom committee are basically inside the tent rather than representing rank and file.

Also I think the following clauses should be removed:
(b) amend article 51 (a) and (d) as follows
(a) The Board has the power to manage the business of the Company and may exercise to
the exclusion of the Company in general meeting all powers of the Company which are not,
by the law or this Constitution, required to be exercised by the Company in general meeting
or the (remove: Representative Council) Members.
(d) Except for the appointment of the Board in accordance with Articles 44 and 61(a)(i), the
Board is not required to act in accordance with any view, guidance, wish, advice, direction
or recommendation of or from the (remove: Representative Council) Members.
They were there to limit the powers of the RC. I don't think we need to limit the powers of members or explicitly state that the board does not have to do what the members want. In fact it may be illegal to limit the powers of members in this way.
The Naked Webmaster

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by Brett Stevenson » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:17 pm

Our control is that we vote for the nominees shortlist and select the ones to the Board.
There needs to be some way to reduce the nominations for directors to a manageable size for members to vote. Currently and certainly under the model proposed by the board that is done by another select group (appointments council)
I daresay you could pick holes in any process but this seems a pretty good one in relation to the Nominations Committee to reduce the influence of the Board to determine the shortlist themselves, but it is important that the Board have some input into the process.
Keep in mind that we do know the current system has not worked, and the IRP recommendations almost irrationally do not want members to vote for the Board (read page 31 of their Final Report to see their listed reasons), and their recommendations pretty much endorse the current model with a few bandages applied. They want more non-members, more skills based selection, no direct member vote, more power to an eminent and well connected elite etc). That has whiskers on it and all we need to do is look at what happened in the last ten years to see why.

So, sure maybe not perfect but a heck of a lot better. This needs to be an alternative which can be communicated and is reasonable for the members to understand.
I am firmly opposed to the notion of members not being able to vote directly.
Thats where the eminent and well connected just love to maintain control. Well anything that provides the members with the direct vote is better than what we have and is being proposed by the IRP and new board.
I think to portray it as watered down twice is a bit rich given what we have had and what is being proposed by the new board.
It is the members who have the final say, and the Nom. Comm. have to select a min of three and max of six, so lets see some merit rather than portraying this as the 'rank and file' having no say. That would be wrong.
The model being proposed by the IRP/new board gives the members no say whatsoever beyond voting for the div councilors.

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by nakedadmin » Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:01 pm

Brett Stevenson wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:17 pm
Thats where the eminent and well connected just love to maintain control. Well anything that provides the members with the direct vote is better than what we have and is being proposed by the IRP and new board.
You're not proposing a direct vote.
Brett Stevenson wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:17 pm
I am firmly opposed to the notion of members not being able to vote directly.
You're not proposing a direct vote.
Brett Stevenson wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:17 pm
but it is important that the Board have some input into the process.
Why?
Brett Stevenson wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:17 pm
I think to portray it as watered down twice is a bit rich given what we have had and what is being proposed by the new board.
Well if voting for people who vote for other people works so well why has the Representative Council failed so badly.

Also I don't give a damn what the board is proposing. I want open nomination and direct vote.

Edit: Probably that last bit is a bit harsh but it's your resolution put what you want not something less bad than someone else.
The Naked Webmaster

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by Brett Stevenson » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:55 pm

I think nakedadmin you might be confused about what direct voting is. I cannot fathom your comments beyond that.

Members vote for the nominees (max 6 min 3 for each position) on a ballot paper.
What are you talking about?
I don't think I can spell it out much clearer than that.
If you can't see the difference between members directly voting for directors on a ballot paper rather than an Appointments or representative council then I'm afraid we really are at cross purposes.
Not sure what your issue is here but it sure defies me.

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by nakedadmin » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:23 pm

adjective: direct
without intervening factors or intermediaries.

So how is voting for people who vote for other people who nominate 4 to a committee of 6 (the 2 others appointed by this or the prior process) and the committee select 3 out of possibly 100 and then a final vote, direct?

Very gerrymanderable.

I'd agree that what you're proposing is better than what we've got at the moment. But I think you should go for more.
The Naked Webmaster

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by theallseeingeye » Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:11 am

nakedadmin wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:01 pm

Well if voting for people who vote for other people works so well why has the Representative Council failed so badly.
I am assuming this is not a rhetorical question. The answer seems to be -
- the rep council is not elected by Members directly. There is a call for nominations from the divisional councillors for someone to be on the rep council, then a “friendly” (at least in my eyes) was preselected by HQ, that name was put to us at our monthly council meeting for ratification which, being a fellow councillor and having a choice of only one, was something of a formality ..... as there were really no objective grounds to object to a fellow councillor putting their hand up to volunteer;
- HQ stacked the rep council numbers anyway, most obviously through adding unique roles that were not tied to a division , and held by members appointed by HQ ;
- HQ chaired the Council, not the members;
- HQ provided the short list of new potential Board members to the Rep Council, for selection...no visibility of any candidates rejected (so no means to form a view of the relative calibre of the short list versus any candidates that HQ deemed not to make the cut....a good way to keep out “troublemakers” who might blow the whistle on issues like remuneration....);
- the last point made worse because the CVs of the potential new Board members and skills matrix was allegedly provided at ridiculously short notice. Very little opportunity provided to query the selected candidate’s suitability at even at the most trivial level, ironic given they were about to be rewarded with a potential 9 year sinecure.
- the individual representing my division did not report back to us on the selection process in any detail , I suspect confidentiality was invoked there by .....HQ

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by nakedadmin » Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:05 pm

theallseeingeye wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:11 am
the rep council is not elected by Members directly. There is a call for nominations from the divisional councillors for someone to be on the rep council, then a “friendly” (at least in my eyes) was preselected by HQ, that name was put to us at our monthly council meeting for ratification which, being a fellow councillor and having a choice of only one, was something of a formality ..... as there were really no objective grounds to object to a fellow councillor putting their hand up to volunteer;
I had not known about this process. I had thought that it was a vote for the nomination to the Representative Council.

This quote is from the Important Member Information document sent on 16 March 2017:
Divisional Councils then elect a number of their members to the Representative Council (Article 62(a))
Note the reference to the constitution. What you are saying is that in practice it did not work like this. Can you provide any more information of documentation?
The Naked Webmaster

JWheldon
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:43 pm

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by JWheldon » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:26 pm

I would suggest that there is probably no documents, just like the minutes relating to the decision to increase Alex Malley's termination payment.

The rules didn't apply to the previous board and management team, and would argue they still don't, yet lets hope they can change. They had their own unwritten rules, which by the sound of it, most employees and state presidents and committee members were too sacred to stand up to.

Who enforces compliance with rules? Who do you report these issues to, when it relates to the board of CPA Australia or the management team? There is no independent panel within CPA Australia to review and take action, so you go to ASIC.

ASIC did not really do much, when the members raised issues about the compliance problems at CPA Australia, so what chance will the whistle blower have?

The CPA Australia whistle blower rules, provide no confidence, nor ensures that the individual(s) who make the complaint(s) or desire to raise issues would not be shown the door.

Lets not forget the non-disclosure rules that all staff and board members have to sign.

I would be sure that their are individual(s) within CPA Australia, that know why Alex Malley's contract was changed and his termination payout increased.

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by nakedadmin » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:53 pm

I'd like to get some evidence of how those procedures worked in practice. It's in the constitution as an election. If people are saying it's fixed because it will be described in the constitution as an election then I say that's misguided as the current process is described as such.

Under Brett's proposed model:

Members

elect*

Divisional Councillors

elect**

Representative Council

elect***

4 people to Nominations Committee

So what people are saying is that the previous process was rigged because at one of the election processes (in this case elect**) the board had control through as simple an issue as if you get about 10 people in a room none of which have performed that role before (and the could only have been there for max 1 year prior) and suggest someone who looks reasonable (although the people have no real knowledge of that) and then challenge them to object to a pre made selection rather than openly call for nominations. People will shut up and go with the selection rather than make waves on their first meeting with a bunch of people they don't know.

So the question is why would it not happen at elect** and elect*** in Brett's model?
The Naked Webmaster

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by Brett Stevenson » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:46 pm

Each to their own, but nakedadmin I would think you are doing your level best to stuff up any positive change for an alternative to what is offered.
Not sure what your agenda is but if you keep pushing the only acceptable solution is to have completely open nominations with no sorting of candidates then you might as well kiss goodbye to getting the membership on side.
A true 21st century Don Quixote perhaps.

For some unknown reason you just cannot comprehend that it is the members who have the final say in the direct vote. That has never existed in the previous model nor in the model proposed by the board and the IRP.
All you focus on is the shortlisting by the Nominations Committee.
The final say is the members, but you just want to keep muddying the waters to suggest this is the same or not much different to what went before.

Just plain unhelpful after all that has been done to get this far and in this critical juncture to get these special resolutions up.

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by nakedadmin » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:48 pm

Not trying to be unhelpful. I'm wanting for this to be constructive feedback.

Just saying there are 2 opportunities for the board to influence the make up of the Nominations Committee here and they only need to get 2 out of the 4 as friendlies and they control the Nominations Committee.

From there it's a simple task to get 3 friendlies on the ballot paper. The last vote will just be a placebo.

In this discussion we have some new information about how CPAA influenced the make up of the Representative Council. You have to listen to that and refine.
The Naked Webmaster

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by Brett Stevenson » Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:23 pm

Have you actually read what the resolution says?
It is minimum of three and max of six for each board position.
You are just muddying the waters with misrepresentation.
Hopefully others can read and see what is on offer a little more clearly.

Of course the Board need to have some voice on the Nominations Committee.
It would be foolhardy to not have board input into that.

I think you are being really unhelpful, and who knows why?

User avatar
jendalitz
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:20 pm

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by jendalitz » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:36 pm

I would like to set the record straight in relation to the comments above about the Spillers.

We have never refused to distribute your materials Brett, nor any other members. We informed you in writing the day before you posted the above comments that we would review your materials as soon as possible; no one would expect us to distribute something we hadn't read.

Glen, Andrew and I all work full time, have young families and other responsibilities, and cannot always meet the timeframes you demand. I really can't see how your comments will help in uniting members.

Glen, Andrew and I remain committed to CPA member engagement, this has always been our primary objective and hence why we (together with Chris and Robbie, when they had bandwidth) have built up the Spillers community: we knew there was no way we could get any major change through without a critical mass of likeminded people. We have agreed to continue to do what we can to support the member movement for change until at least the AGM. If our efforts aren't to your satisfaction then of course you're entitled to your view, but we really don't deserve to be badmouthed or bullied for our efforts.

If you would care to remove your comments above in that vein, and post a retraction on your blog, then I will in good faith include a link to this discussion in the next Spiller communication which is planned this week.

Thanks,
Jen

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by Brett Stevenson » Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:30 pm

I’ll leave it for members to decide the veracity of your claims Jen and Glen and Andrew, and seemingly Chris and Robbie(?).
Clearly a Spillers strategy if the above comments you refer to are any indication.
The four resolutions stand which had been told to everyone on my mailing list which includes you all a good week before being sent out again but seemingly you want to be Chief Censors and arbiters. If I had stayed as a ‘team player’ with you lot then we’d all be moving camp to CAANZ.
I’ll leave it there.
Unhelpful is the best word that comes to mind.
You Spillers go for it as you see fit, I’m really past caring what you think.
I’d just encourage you to keep the big picture in mind rather than your little power games.

MSharif
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:19 pm

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by MSharif » Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:32 pm

Hi Brett

I have just signed the 4 petition documents Greg Angelo sent via email on 01-Mar-18. When I came to this site and checked the petition documents uploaded here, I realized Greg's attachments did not have the entire petition and was only asking for signing & returning the first page of each petition document. If this is not an issue, please ignore this post. If this is an issue i.e. each signed petition must contain the full post, let me know. I'll print again and re-submit.

Mehmud

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

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by Brett Stevenson » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:58 pm

Hi all,
I shall keep this very brief.

Four Special Resolutions

As of this morning we had approximately 100 signatures on each resolution.
Tonight we now have well over 130 on each. So I will lodge with CPA tomorrow.

A big thanks to all those who have signed and returned them. This really is the time I believe when if you want to make changes at CPA, then you need to act.
I think it is fair to say they are not favoured by some of the other members involved in exposing what happened at CPA Australia last year, which is clearly evident from the signatures obtained.

I have spoken with the new Company Secretary Andrew Kayne about them and they are okay. He was very helpful and is endeavouring to make sure any resolutions presented are correct ‘procedurally and legally’. Clearly any resolutions will need to be passed to be truly effective however it is refreshing to know they are not putting in place any unnecessary obstacles but rather trying to make this as open as possible for member participation.

Insofar as the rationale for the four resolutions, each has an explanatory memorandum, but let me make a few additional comments.

Directors remuneration - this one is important both in terms of setting realistic levels of remuneration but also to send a very clear message that the scandalous approach to remuneration at CPA Australia has changed. 10% and 20% reductions will not do that. They need to be significant reductions but still fair.

Directors tenure - this is imperative to limit tenure to 6 years to prevent some of the excesses that occurred before. I think the argument that a suitable replacement director cannot be found after six years is specious at best in an organisation of 160,000 members, and is just an expression of the sort of ego we can do without.

Full Reporting - this needs to be locked into the constitution, and the culture at CPA Australia needs to move from one of minimum disclosure to one of full and open disclosure. It’s an indictment that we have to codify this requirement into our constitution because of our organisations failure to do so voluntarily.

Direct voting by members for directors - the two critical aspects of this resolution are that the members decide who to appoint as directors, and that the criteria for member selection is codified (put into the constitution) to include a strong focus on character as well as experience and commitment to CPA Australia. For some reason some believe that the shortlisting of nominees (min of 3 and max of 6 for each position) is no different to the current set-up of using a representative (proposed appointments) council. I shall leave it to you to refer to the explanatory memorandum to refute that.


Proxies for the AGM

If you cannot attend the AGM but would like to have a vote then use your proxy well.
The official proxy forms are normally sent out with the Notice of AGM, presumably in late April.
You can give your proxy to anyone (does not need to be a member) and you can specify how they are to to vote on each resolution, or leave it up to them to decide.
The important thing is to notify the Company Secretary before the AGM.
I am happy to take proxies for members if they wish.

Can I encourage you to speak with other members to get them engaged on these matters, and to vote.

Mailing List

I shan’t be using this mailing list much more as this CPA matter is coming to a head with the AGM.

I am in the process of writing short lessons on corporate governance from the CPA Australia saga which I will post via website and LinkedIn. You can subscribe if interested.

The first one I shall post now in the Governance Section. Lesson One on Corporate Governance from CPA Australia

After the AGM I will discard the CPA mailing list.

Cheers

Brett

User avatar
The Nude CPA
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 4:21 pm

Re: Four Special Resolutions to review and sign for AGM

Post by The Nude CPA » Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:28 pm

Brett Stevenson wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:58 pm
After the AGM I will discard the CPA mailing list.
Might be worth hanging onto a bit longer? ...as there's no guarantee that we'll be able to communicate more freely following the AGM.

Post Reply