ACCA vote scuppers dissident's proposals

Sepp Blatter will be pleased that resolution 5 was defeated. He's looking for a new job and it looks ike ACCA may be just the thing.

ACCA can't ignore these votes

The votes show a clear dissatisfaction with the ACCA.  Over 25% dissatisfaction for some, closer to 50% for others.  These don't show an unrepresentative minority - they show a significant minority that will only grow unless ACCA change it's ways!  I think they also show apathy of the membership when so few votes are cast compared with the very large number of members eligible to vote - no doubt because lots of members feel disengaged with the ACCA.  They need to regard this as a warning shot across the bows rather than a success on their part!

not the whole truth

 What your resume does not show is that three or four of the resolutions would have been passed but for the president's blocking vote.

Against every item on the list the president held between 709 and 760 open proxies.

 That is those members had given the president the right to vote for or against the resolutions as the president thought fit. Worse I believe the election of ACCA council members was decided in large part by similar use of open proxies.

This gives rise to several conclusions.

1) It is acceptable  that a member may cast his /her proxy votes for or against, or not vote at all if he or she has no strong feeling on the subject.

I find it objectionable that qualified accountants, whose whole training is to assess and give opinion, would in this instance say, "We have no opinion in this matter, you use our vote how you wish".

You guys/ girls are entitled not to vote, along with the approx 97% of members who took no part and cast no votes at all in the proceedings, but ACCA is not supposed to be a banana republic president's fiefdom. (ICAEW take note)

2) It would be interesting to know how many of the approx 700+  members involved are associated with the ACCA in some additional way (employees, officers whether paid or unpaid, persons elected under this system) apart from being ordinary members

3) The president of ACCA in effect personally elected at least some of the council members, and his bonus, and the results of some of the resolutions.

4) I fully accept that all those ACCA executive members I have individually spoken to, are in fact ordinary nice people, nevertheless (as with charities, chairmen of cricket clubs and religious communities, and similar I have dealt with) they have fallen into the error of believing they are the ACCA.

5) As with AccountingWEb, HMRC, ICAEW, ACCA - accountants as a species seem to much prefer sitting in their offices and bellyaching, rather than collectively doing anthing to ameliorate the situation. Bit similar to a mild toothache, enough to be a nuisance but not enough to visit the dentist. Wait a while, toothaches do not go away!

We shall have another go next year...

... if it's good enough for the SNP it's good enough for me.

Tony Thorne, if you are reading this - try again. I am sure if you can further appeal to those of us on AWEB who are ACCA members you might get a bit closer.

I agree with what Ken Howard said - surely the Council can't just do an Admiral Lord Nelson and see no ships?

and another BIG question

 I have been trying to discover whether ACCA members are covered by limited liability provisions or not.

 No person yet seems able able to give a straight "Yes"or "No" answer

 At least one senior member sincerely believes that under its present governing document, ACCA members have joint and several liability for ACCA.

 Is anyone out there able to give a definitve answer, quoting chapter, verse, and legislation?

 The answer really does impinge on the preceding discussion.

ACCA's Royal Charter

You could always petition the President of the Privy Council to say that the ACCA's Royal Charter denies members basic rights - I am not sure how approachable Chris Grayling would be or the civil servants who undertake the Charter reviews prior to the documents going to Privy Council.   I do not know how far you would get, but it could open a huge can of worms as 10% is a reasonably standard percentage to petition for an EGM for Charter bodies.  This percentage is based on old company law when the membership list could be accessed by anyone, so a group of members could mobilise the troops to change the Charter, etc.  (Prem has mistyped his information - 10% would be 17,800 members to petition for an EGM - virtually impossible to organise without access to the ACCA membership database.)  

Well done to the "dissidents"
I cast my vote online, supporting many of the dissident resolutions.

The ACCA defences are crumbling and one more push next year, we should break through.

Proxies aside

It's interesting that even if you eliminate the proxies held by the president, a large percentage of votes still went against resolutions 5 and 7. I would have thought that the concept of management being subject to disciplinary procedures as members and that council members should also be qualified would resonate with most members who a) are subject to disciplinary procedures and b) had to pass their exams???

What was the official reason for voting against these resolutions, was it a case that the ACCA was unaware that the resolutions were being tabled and caught by surprise on the day?

ACCA is not a democracy

 It is not constructive to talk about ACCA as if it were some poltical entity. "Democracy" does not come into it.The issue is constructive governance relevant to the organisation.

 1) If it were a trading concern, the chain holding it, and its officers,  down would be the need to make profits.

2) If it were a charity the chain would be the need to satisfy its donors, beneficiaries, and the charity commission.

 3) If it were an educational establishment, the need would be for its alumni to demonstrate that its degree is worth the effort for the purpose of the individual's personal economic advancement.

4) If it were a trade union its success would be measured by the degree of protection it gives its members against overweening employers and or government.

 It appears to me the only area where ACCA is demonstrably successful is 3), above.Demonstrably and statistically, this how over 90% of its members see it, and act accordingly. Similar to graduates of universities, they have a bond, they meet they talk to each other, this is pleasant family chat, that is it.

 The consequence is that in large measure the object of the ACCA is the perpetuation of the ACCA. This filters down to the view of self by those who have become the executive of ACCA.

 The irritation is those members who are in the business of accountants in public practice.

 A senior manager from one of the big three clearing banks said to me, "Actually to make profits we do not need the retail network. The branch system is a a costly pain in the [***].

The reason we keep the retail network is the need for PR"..

So it is with the ACCA. The "Profession" is the tail of the dog. So it is that ACCA has through default acquired a management and executive which really mostly has no experience, understanding of the workings, or the needs of the "Profession". Especially in the UK.

Their object clearly set out by the president in his address, is to create a "Global" ACCA brand, whatever that means.

 Notwithstanding this, my opinion, I declare an interest as a person working in the profession, is that the profession is the core of the business of accountancy -in the UK, at least-. However wide the tree spreads its branches, it is dependent upon its tap root. 

 It needs and deserves governance by persons who are of it, and understand its needs.

 It does not need a governance structure (which has grown like Topsy)  pretty much akin to a second-tier dodgy property PLC. I know whereof I speak.

My difficulty is the persons concerned are not evil tyrants bent on world domination. They are ordinary persons.

 Unfortunately they seem to live on a different planet to Joe / Josephine  Bloggs ACCA, sitting in his / her office on the High Street.

Knight17 makes a reasonable case, but

 An accountant who works for Tescos is not in the profession of accountancy. He is in the Supermarket business, applying his particular skill to the advantage of his employer.

 This example covers the working circumstances of, according to ACCA publicity, 73% of UK members, ( approx.76,000 UK members in total). Of the remaining 27% in practice, perhaps half are "Principals" within accountancy practices. That is about 10,000 souls.

 So, yes those 10,000 souls are seen as the tail of the 178,000 members dog. They appear to be treated as such, not deliberately, by the ACCA executive. This for all the reasons mentioned previously, but not at all with malice aforthought..

 So, HMRC with HM Goverment take their cue from our own executive.

 Nevertheless we 10,000 represent and are the financial advisors for, perhaps 1,000,000 businesses, with perhaps three or four times that number who are indirectly influenced by them.

 That is quite a constituency, and it dwarfs the number of businesses represented by the other 66,000 UK members.

 IN practical terms HMRC with HM Goverment are increasingly talking about us and acting as if we are something an incontinent dog left on the carpet.

To my personal knowledge ACCA has done nothing substantive during the last ten years to address, or rather redress, this fraught situation. Whether ACCA as an organisation could do anything more than irritate the powers-that-be is a fair question. Notwithstanding this, at least make the effort!

 In marketing terms, It may be "Fun" and good for the ego, hobnobbing with PLC chairmen, and Civil Service bosses, and or International panjandrums, but how many customers does that put you in touch with, compared to the influence of practitioners?

In my one-man band practice I guess my advice directly and indirectly influences perhaps two or three hundred persons with the right to hire and fire, and or to invest or not invest, and or form an opinion about HM Government. I guess it might take as many as eighty accountants not in public practice to wield similar influence.

 We are not the tail of the dog.

ACCA AGM practices in UK Parliament

Today I saw this tweet from PQ Magazine:

Concerns over ACCA AGM voting procedures have been highlighted in a House of Commons early day motion (no 626)

Few searches later, got this from UK Parliament site:

That this House is concerned at reports of voting procedures employed at the Annual General Meeting of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) during which the President is alleged to have cast hundreds of proxy votes against motions from members calling for an end to the delegated proxy vote system; understands furthermore that a recommendation from the ACCA Council was printed prominently on ballot papers urging members to vote against motions seeking more democratic voting procedures; is further concerned that those ballot papers were approved by Electoral Reform Services Ltd; and therefore urges that those electoral practices be investigated by an appropriate Government agency with a view to seeking reforms to ACCA's voting procedures for the future.

It is sponsored by Kelvin Hopkins of Labour.

Proxy outdated surely...

I became a member of the ACCA in 1973, long before the current internet world and in those days proxy voting made sense as members (many fewer in number) would not always be able to attend an AGM in person.  But in the 21st Century?  Given that we're expected to do everything on the internet these days surely anyone who wishes to vote can do so directly without this nonsense of proxy voting which is really a device to maintain the status quo.