Concerns FPA board has sidelined practising planners

The make-up of the board of the Financial Planning Association (FPA) is not adequately representative of practising financial planners, according to recently resigned FPA board member Rob Pedersen.

With the FPA board ballot due to close in late October, Pedersen told Money Management he was concerned practising planners would still be in the minority on the new nine-person board, filling just three of the available positions — up from the previous two positions.

The remaining positions will be filled by two principal directors and three additional directors. The chief executive officer (CEO) is also appointed to the board.

Pedersen said so-called “practitioner members” filled just three positions “and I just don’t think enough practising planner members of the FPA understand the situation”.

He said he believed practitioner members should fill as many as six of the positions.

Pedersen, who is a director of Matrix Planning Solutions, resigned his position on the FPA board last month citing concerns with respect to governance and other issues, and specifically referencing the recruitment process that led to the appointment of new FPA chief executive Mark Rantall.

He said that while he had no objection to Rantall’s ultimate selection, he was concerned that the new CEO’s appointment had been made by a board sub-committee rather than the board as a whole.

FPA chairperson Julie Berry defended the board’s processes and the manner of Rantall’s appointment.

Claiming he was not now prosecuting an agenda, Pedersen told Money Management he was concerned practising planners were losing an appropriately representative voice at a time when their views needed to be heard in Canberra.

He said he was also concerned that the FPA’s ownership of the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) designation was tending to distort the level of planner support the FPA actually commanded.

“There is no question that some people maintain their membership of the FPA based on the CFP designation,” Pedersen said. “It raises the question of whether the industry should move to an alternative, independent qualification.”

While Pedersen acknowledged the public nature of his disagreement over governance issues with respect to the FPA board and the earlier suggestion by Matrix that the industry’s interests would be served by a merger between the FPA and the Association of Financial Advisers, he insisted he was not prosecuting a political agenda.

“I am not pursuing political objectives. I am simply trying to point to the position I believe planners have found themselves in,” he said.