The right-wing manoeuvre to silence concerned ACCA members is on. Rather than campaigning to end the censorship of the in-house magazine or make the leadership accountable to members, ACCA member Ken Stones is organizing a motion for the 2000 AGM (what will be the cost?). This will require that all EGMs need the support of at least 1% of the membership. ACCA currently has 72,000 members. Some countries have very few members. For example, Argentina has one ACCA member, Austria has 11 members, Bangladesh has 3 members, Belgium has about 40 members, Brazil 9 and so on. Others like Malaysia have 4,500 and Hong Kong about 11,000. So the concerned members have a lot of work to do to call the leadership to account. The move will basically make it impossible for non-UK members to raise their concerns. It will also further insulate the leadership from pressures from members.
An ACCA 'insider' told AABA that the leadership supports the idea and wants to be seen to be tough. Of course, members would have no chance to debate the issues at district societies, functional societies or through the magazine. The resolution will be supported by a 'one-sided' statement and opponents will have no opportunity to argue the opposite. Such is the state of democracy in the ACCA.
The resolution will make a great deal of the costs of holding an EGM but will be silent on the money wasted by the leadership. Examples include £600,000 wasted on the bungled name change attempt, £300,000 on the hostile take-over of CIMA and CIPFA, £8 million wasted on JDS, million wasted on television program and publishing deals, £50,000 spent by officeholders to take their spouses and mistresses on world trips and so on.
The resolution will confirm what many already know. The leadership wants to avoid accountability at all cost. the resolution will effectively say to people outside the UK that they no longer form any part of the ACCA and should consider leaving the ACCA. Ken Stones and friends will curry favor with the ACCA leadership and might even get 'appointed' to major committees and council. They are, however, unlikely to accept responsibility for the eventual consequences and disintegration of the ACCA.