The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) has confirmed it has received the minimum number of forms required under the Corporations Act for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to take place.
It would now put forward the resolution contained in the forms at the EGM.
"The resolution seeks to change the AFA Constitution in a manner that reduces the policy making powers of the AFA board," the association said in a statement.
"It is a special resolution under the Corporations Act and requires a 75 per cent majority support in order to be successful."
The AFA had previously informed the EGM initiator, Mark Dunsford, that it could not take the AFA Constitution to the membership as less than five per cent of the voting members were represented in the forms submitted, with 100 out of 230 being deemed invalid.
AFA president, Deborah Kent, then rejected the calls for the EGM, arguing it would stifle the association's voice on policy issues where there was little chance of reversing life insurance reforms that had bipartisan support.
The EGM must be held within two months, which is 30 October. The AFA would be required to inform members within 21 days of the EGM date.
Comments
Gee that wasn't hard was it, it just talk time. A normal democratic process provided for in the AFA Constitution. Yet the CEO and the President of the AFA chose to shoot the messenger by querying in a deliberate public manner the validity of the requests received from members to hold an EGM. This is despite the fact that the membership number mixup was caused by the AFA re-engineering their membership list and allocating new numbers sometime in the last two years. Shame on you AFA, this matter should never have appeared in the media and there appears to be a suspicion that some people may have been seeking to preserve their future. Let's get on with the EGM before the AGM so that the new board will have clear direction from its risk right are members as to what is expected of it in future negotiations with government.
well said
We have to ask the AFA Board why the LICG made far stronger submissions to Treasury and the Senate review committees about the poorly thought through LIF than the AFA Board did; and indeed the LICG were able to persuade more politicians to reconsider the LIF, whereas the AFA Board only supported the FSC.
The AFA cannot tell us one benefit of the LIF, so again why are they supporting this poor Legislation, no wonder the members want to be heard on this issue,
The LICG was a driving force in stopping the LIF coming into affect on 1 July this year, once again where was the AFA support??
The AFA and the FPA swallowed hook line and sinker, the argument by the FSC that LIF was a better outcome than what the government wanted to do after Trowbridge. It was a deliberate lie in their members interests and should have been seen as such. The link to institutions of both professional associations is as bad a conflict as the conflicts they consider are the flaws in the advice profession. Pot/Kettle.
Pity a vote on ousting the CEO & President isn't also on the agenda. The churlish way this has been handled, it would be better for both to fall on their sword and resign.
A Brexit moment hey, similar to David Cameron. Sounds like you're thinking they are not the captains needed to steer the ship, going forward. would make sense now wouldn't it.
Add new comment