A Dublin-based corporate advisory firm, Governance Ireland (GI), has expressed concerns over the standards and fairness of disciplinary processes occurring over the past 10 years within Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI). Following an independent review of accusations of unethical conduct made by Dublin accountant and CAI member James Fennelly, GI found clear shortcomings.
Mr Fennelly, who engaged GI to create the report, scrutinised a prolonged disciplinary procedure initiated against him, which CAI originally dismissed in 2016 due to a lack of significant evidence. This matter eventually reached a resolution in April 2019 when CAI withdrew its case. A CAI spokeswoman refrained from commenting on the institution’s disciplinary issues or any third-party views commissioned by those lodging complaints.
Despite being brushed aside in 2016, the complaint took an extended turn when a demand for the decision’s review was made. The issue reached a termination in April 2019 when a settlement was reached between CAI and Mr Fennelly. Based on GI’s report, CAI agreed to provide €200,000 towards the legal expenses of Mr Fennelly to end the disciplinary controversy once and for all in 2019. This arrangement, while not signifying any admission of legal faults or regulation breaches by CAI, was carried out with no recognition of liability.
In 2021, CAI was publicly criticised by Irish Auditing & Accounting Supervisory Authority for procedural errors that extended the concern. During a special meeting for CAI members in 2019, Mr Fennelly raised doubts about the process that stimulated the review. He queried whether the CAI had confidence that all member reactions involved in disciplinary measures were ethically applied when deciding to reevaluate the complaint, after it was first dismissed. This decision led to the process being prolonged for an additional three years post its initial dismissal in April 2016.
Concerns raised prompted a detached examination of the case. Rather than employing an external nominee, a member of the CAI council was ordained by the institution’s surveillance committee to helm the review. No proof of unprincipled behaviour was found as a result.
GI, which clarifies it received no participation from CAI during the assemblage of its report, mentioned that this procedure had evident faults. Amongst other determinations, GI didn’t find CAI’s claim of the review’s independence trustworthy. GI’s stance was that CAI should concede that the investigation into Mr Fennelly’s grievances doesn’t embody an ‘independent review’. It recommended that CAI should reconcile with Mr Fennelly to elucidate the issue in a satisfactory manner and amend the communication to members presented during the annual general meetings of 2020, 2021, and 2022, thereby bringing the matter to a definitive closure.
Mr Fennelly expressed that CAI’s conduct was unsuitable and the report initiated by GI stemmed from anxieties regarding severe governance lapses at CAI. The deduction by GI that successive CAI presidents have uttered unreliable assertions is telling in itself.
The yearly general meeting of CAI is scheduled for Friday, where queries concerning the issue are anticipated to be voiced.