|
|
18 May 2011
CIMA council member Margaret May has faced two charges of misconduct and violating the code of ethics at a disciplinary tribunal that began yesterday.
May was accused of bringing the institute into disrepute through sending allegedly controversial emails, one of which was interpreted as a personal attack on chief executive Charles Tilley.
Further reading
Her lawyer, Garrett Byrne, said the situation had been blown out of all proportion and implied that the case amounted to a witch-hunt, saying that politics was behind the accusations.
The first charge stemmed from an email sent by May following an executive committee meeting early last year. CIMA lawyer Fenella Morris claimed her correspondence was a clear and deliberate misrepresentation of the proceedings while the defendant insists her reading of events was reasonable and that there are two witnesses who agree.
There were two non-identical transcripts for the same meeting and it is upon their disparities that the argument rests. Bryne said May's was a true record of events and points to lines in the CIMA version that have been fudged or left out.
The second charge relates to an email sent by May in which she suggested Tilley should resign as non-executive director of Great Ormond Street Hospital and issue a public statement, relating to news reports about the hospital. CIMA said this constituted a personal attack and accused May of using inappropriate channels to air her views.
May's lawyer maintained she was justified in foregrounding the issue of reputational risk to CIMA, following negative press coverage of the hospital's dealing with a whistleblower in the Baby P case. Byrne said her email constituted a "sounding out of trusted fellow council members" – five in total – and that it should never have landed in Tilley's inbox.
Each party has accused the other of using inflammatory language, claims that are strenuously denied by both sides.
Three witnesses for CIMA have already been called and chief executive Charles Tilley will give evidence today. May will then have her chance to speak, as will the members supporting her story. Council is already discussing dates for an extension to the hearing, which continues today.
You may also like
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
AccountancyAgeInsight is a frequently updated resource centre for finance professionals, offering a free and easy-to-use digital library of briefings, white papers and other information resources. 
Visitor comments Add your comment
CIMA legals
I object to my subs being squandered on legal frivolities.
Perhaps the lady is right. After all, we don't do b/s and look what happened to Marta Andreasen for speaking out.
Posted by: mike, 18 May 2011 | 13:53
Something not quite right
Something doesn't add up here
Maybe some directors have dissented against the pull out from CCAB and the US tie up and need to be discredited
Posted by: Stuart Walker, 18 May 2011 | 18:27
Cronies
Sounds like the same old problem with Council too many of them, full of cronies and a closed shop, plus he isn't even a CIMA member
Posted by: Trevor Braybrook, 20 May 2011 | 09:17
Let's be fair
The issue becomes political. No matter what the CEO do, there is always members moan about this & about that.
Posted by: Steven, 20 May 2011 | 15:06
witch-hunt
Unnecessary waste of our subscriptions on trivial matter. Smell of witch hunt and personal vendetta. A reputable professional council should not have approved this action.
Posted by: OK Lee, 21 May 2011 | 16:00
Grow up
This is a spat, merely that, but between two institute heavyweights. As a CIMA Fellow I object to my subs being wasted on solicitors and legal proceedings that should be sorted out as adults via compulsary mediation. Council, you have my vote to remedy this nonsense.
Posted by: Nic Davison, 23 May 2011 | 14:15
Isn't Council the problem?
CIMA issued in Dec 2010 new Roles & Responsiblities of Council Members. First point - it is a 'collective' body. So did Council approve this or does Council even know what is going on? The answer will be seen soon - can Council remove this 'mess' from the street? Then you will know whose running the show.
Posted by: Clifford Moggs, 23 May 2011 | 20:30
11 days to go?
So TS has been informed that legal account now topping £70K and still proceeding to next 'hearing' on 28 June. Is Council running CIMA?
Posted by: Clifford Moggs, 17 Jun 2011 | 19:49