ACCA members have exercised their right an in accordance with the bye-laws and have called an EGM. Rather than gracefully accepting the mmebers' decision and permitting a free debate, the ACCA chief executive, Anthea Rose, is already trying to stifle the debate.
The leadership has already lost some £8 million pounds on the membership of the Joint Disciplinary scheme, £600,000 on the bungled name change, £300,000 on the hostile takeover of CIMA and CIPFA, huge losses on TV programme making, £50,000 per annum on the officeholders taking their spouses on world travels, £80,000 per annum of bonding sessions (a party really) for council members, £70,000 a time glossy mailshot from Presidents to members, 21% increase in the chief executive's salary, unsuccessful campaign to defend small company audits and much more. The £80,000 cost of the EGM (if that is what it is) is a small investment to revive the Association. But of course the leadership does not want members to be in control.
As usual, the ACCA chief executive is economical with information. EGMs are the only way because the in-house magazine is censored. ACCA chief executive was well aware that a number of members are unhappy with ACCA policies, strategy, management, services and structures. Yet she made no attempt to talk to the organizers of the EGM. Why such arrogance? With all doors firmly shut what can the concerned members do? The EGM is the only alternative and is the inevitable consequence of the management style dominant at ACCA.
Both in 1995 and 1996. The ACCA's official magazine did not allow any debate through its in-house magazine though it carried the leadership's comments. But they did not permit debate. In 1996 the same magazine (upon whose instructions) conducted a hate campaign against the organizers of the EGM who despite writing to ACCA President were denied any right of reply.
Despite all the obstacles and with the ACCA Presidents casting huge number of proxy votes, the 1995 EGM secured 33.4% of the vote in favour of the resolution. As a result overseas members were able to send candidates to the council. The leadership's profligacy was curbed, but only temporarily.
In 1996, due to the 'hate' campaign conducted by the Association, sponsors of two of the motions were too frightened even to move the resolutions. They were not moved. The other resolutions were lost. Only a tiny percentage of ACCA members voted. Most were disenfranchised by fear and the censorship policies. Mrs. Rose cannot refer to any overwhelming mandate from members to support the status-quo for anything. Since 1995, ACCA has acquired 20,000 new members who have never had any opportunity to have a say.