|
|
05 Jul 2011
MARGARET MAY has accused CIMA of "bad faith and bias" in bringing a disciplinary case against her, saying "politics" is behind her accusation of professional misconduct.
The hearing continued today. May's lawyer, Garrett Byrne, argued there had been an abuse of process, saying the institute "breached the safeguards of the disciplinary regime".
Further reading
Byrne said the way the case came to light – through an email in which CIMA members urged others to back their complaint – was compounded by inappropriate handling, bias and "a manifest failure to properly investigate at all".
He said politics had inflated a small spat that ordinarily would have been handled internally and denied that May's alleged misconduct was a matter of public concern.
CIMA's lawyer Fenella Morris blasted this interpretation, saying May's "lack of truthfulness, integrity and respect for confidentiality goes to the heart of professionalism". On this basis, she argued, May's conduct warranted the official hearing.
However, Morris was less confident in denying the accusations of bad faith and bias; she argued instead that, even if such politics did play a part, there lacked sufficient grounds for the case to be thrown out.
Both sides are due to present their closing arguments this afternoon but the hearing may continue if the process is not completed within the allotted time.
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
Friendly Settlement
Hope to see Margaret can reach out of proceeding’s friendly settlement with the Institute.
Posted by: George Lee, 05 Jul 2011 | 17:35
Settlement?
I thought that the independent observations of the AA had already suggested that this 'spat' would be best resolved in the Council's Chambers. Did the Council mis-read the message?
Posted by: Clifford Moggs, 06 Jul 2011 | 19:24
CIMA
It should have been glaringly obvious to the management of CIMA that the decision to hold a public disciplinary panel meeting would lead to a guaranteed lose/lose position.
As it is, the defendant, prior to any verdict, has had her business and her personal life disrupted and damaged to an extent grotesquely disproportionate to the alleged offences.
CIMA makes great play of honesty, integrity, openness, transparency and accountability, but as this case has unfolded the tawdry behaviour of some
very senior officers is being exposed as of a rather different nature.
In addition to seriously damaging the public standing of the Institute, the action is spending the subscriptions of many members for no positive return.
CIMA suggested their legal costs so far at about £70,000 and with possibly two more days needed this suggests a total outlay of around £100,000.
It appears that CIMA are picking up the legal costs of a non member i.e. the CEO
to pursue an action against an FCMA who has served the Institute for 17 years.
The defendant has apparently been refused the customary indemnity by decision of a senior staffer who reports directly to the CEO.
Thus the venue where the hearing is held has lawyers paid by CIMA, CIMA witnesses whose expenses are covered one way or another by CIMA, and it is understood a panel funded by CIMA.
On the other hand the defendant pays her lawyers and her expenses whilst her witnesses pay their own bills.
It is very difficult to understand how, or why the all powerful Council of around 60 members authorized or approved the decision to take this path.
Posted by: Geo, 08 Jul 2011 | 21:18
DId they?
Geo I read your commentary and fully agree. There remains clarity to - "Did CIMA's Council really approve of this action?" Perhaps more damning is, "Does this type of action, by some, require Council's approval?"
Posted by: Clifford Moggs, 13 Jul 2011 | 19:41