|
|
05 Sep 2011
THE FIRST STAGE of a disciplinary hearing has dealt a blow to the defence of a long-standing CIMA council member.
A professional conduct panel found Margaret May "did not honestly believe" an email she sent was accurate after she was accused of acting contrary to the institute’s code of ethics.
Further reading
May is charged with breaching the code because she attempted to send a key document to CIMA’s member network following an executive committee meeting, which the institute’s disciplinary body claims voted only to pass the paper to a governance working party.
CIMA claims her actions amount to misconduct. The latest finding forms part of a hearing to establish facts involved in the case. May is expected to face a second hearing in November on the substantive charge of misconduct.
The executive committee meeting, held in February last year, is central to her case and discussed what to do with a paper written by May.
In her email, May claimed it had been agreed that the paper could go to the members' network, and distributed it for comments.
However, Sunday's disciplinary panel ruled that the executive meeting had instead voted to pass the paper to the working group.
Matters have been complicated by a recording of the committee meeting from which the two parties have produced non-identical transcripts.
The panel concluded it was not "reasonable" for May to have viewed the meeting in this way.
However, during the course of the hearings May produced two witnesses to support her view of events at the executive committee meeting.
At the heart of May’s defence is her contention that the executive committee did not have the authority to restrict circulation of the paper, it could only offer a recommendation.
May claims that it was she, as chairman of CIMA’s members services committee, who had the authority.
May also faces a second charge of misconduct relating to a separate email about CIMA chief executive Charles Tilley.
In the email, sent to other council members, May refers to Tilley's non-executive directorship of Great Ormond Street Hospital.
May is accused of misconduct because she wrote: "surely [he] should resign", following negative media coverage of a whistle-blowing case at the hospital.
May claims the phrase was rhetorical and that she acted out of concern for possible risks to CIMA, but the institute has attacked the way she dealt with the issue.
A council member for 17 years, May's lawyer indicated during the hearing that the case rests heavily upon politics at the institute. Garret Byrne said there were people with "very large axes to grind" against her, arguing their testimony should be taken "with a very large pinch of salt".
* This is a corrected version of the original article first published immediately after the first stage hearing. The corrections respond to concerns raised by Margaret May regarding the reporting of her defence. We apologise if our original article was misleading.
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
Who'd be a member of an Institute
Sadly if you're a member of an Institute then you're held to account by people who usually have no experience of business/industry, sole practice or dealing with the public rather than big business. You also get people with political axes to grind or a desire to show that the process is robust by finding guilt on people's say so rather than any actual evidence at all. And that leads to defamation by peoples' own Institutes. Then it's all put in the public domain making you look worse than any unqualified who could routinely do loads of things wrongly or unprofessionally.
If is the knowledge that this hearing is going ahead at all - especially as it is being published - that leads CIMA into disrepute. If they are too busy having internal petty squabbles how on earth can they be concentrating on the problems professional accountants are facing today. What use are they really to qualified members?
Posted by: Frustrated, 06 Sep 2011 | 11:43
transparency @24/7
wash dirty linen in public 2 jeopardise cima disripute @usa level of integrating with yankee institutes!!omg
Posted by: faro, 06 Sep 2011 | 12:16
Why bother with the Institutes?
As a practising accountant in a small firm, it seems to me that being the member of a professional accountancy institute leaves you kicking uphill, against the wind. The fact is the Institues exist for only themselves, not unlike big business, the bankers, government etc etc.
Posted by: john a gibbs, 06 Sep 2011 | 13:18
Who has the problem?
CIMA informs its members tha Council is 'in fact' de facto Board of Directors. Please tell me which Board of Directors would act as the current group have in CIMA? It only shows that this 'group' have no qualification to be in charge of CIMA or any organisation for that matter
Posted by: Clifford Moggs, 06 Sep 2011 | 13:31
Disciplinary Committees
My understanding is that, as with other professional bodies, for good reasons, these act independently of Council (the Board of Directors). However I do personally believe that there is an area of concern, particularly when litigation costs can prevent individuals from challenging findings.
Posted by: Michael Agate, 06 Sep 2011 | 18:08
Where are the transcripts?
For a process of discipline to be held under the context of a 'public' access the transcripts of the proceedings are not available, why not? The AccountancyAge made the observation that CIMA had created a new interpretation of 'open'. The question remains, also posed, where is the 'Board of Directors'? Forget what other professional bodies may or may not do, this is purely a CIMA affair. Didn't AA recommend 'resolve it internally'? This seemed to be a valid independent view......we know the answer. Is CIMA's Council ineffective?
Posted by: Clifford Moggs, 07 Sep 2011 | 19:48
Who cares?
Mike. CIMA’s disciplinary process in which it is the complainant violates the principle of “nemo judex in causa sua – one should not sit in judgment in one’s own cause”. The Privy Council, the Regulator (POB), Council and members (some 7% voted) all accept (or ignore) that CIMA can sit in judgement for its own cause, CIMA wishes to reject the principle. So, in that all Council Members will always act in the best interest of its members, how are the best interests of its members being served in this matter?
Doesn’t the ‘issue’ cover two items, first a distribution of a ‘paper’ and secondly a call for Tilley (CE) to resign from his NEC role with The Great Ormond Street Hospital Trust on which he had requested CIMA to approve. At the time all of this was within the boundary of CIMA’s Executive Committee and no one else. What is clear, the Executive Committee has demonstrated a failure to manage itself. Its leadership did not wish to simply ask its members (curiously it is 12), “do you agree with Margaret on these two items, yes or no”?
Who therefore has brought this to this stage and for what purpose? CIMA refuses to release the transcripts of these proceedings – the answer must be to believe that its silence is for the ‘benefits of its members’. On the other hand it would enable the reader to hear the responses from the various participants.
Posted by: Clifford Moggs, 08 Sep 2011 | 13:32
CIMA Council must uphold its and its peers' reputation
A matured council must have the courage, power and integrity to stop the institute from getting involved in this petty politics and personal squabble that are damaging the all members' interest. What and whom CIMA council is trying to serve?
Posted by: Lee, 08 Sep 2011 | 16:54