A week is a long time when it comes to CPA Australia.
On Friday, June 16, CPA chair Jim Dickson went out of his way to praise the now former CEO, Alex Malley, for his leadership and vision as he announced a "fiercely independent" review of the organisation by prominent admirers of Mr Malley
Mr Dickson also confirmed that Mr Malley would not stand aside during the investigation.
"As we have made clear in our annual report, at our AGM and in a range of member communications, CPA Australia is enjoying unprecedented success. In so many ways this is due to the leadership and vision of our chief executive," Mr Dickson said.
But like many other moves of the accounting body, instead of appeasing members, the concessions served to generate even more rage.
There were multiple concerns about the inquiry.
It was to be run by a panel, including former chief of the Defence Force Sir Angus Houston and former auditor-general Ian McPhee who had previously endorsed Mr Malley's autobiographical book, The Naked CEO: The Truth You Need to Build a Big Life.
Sir Angus wrote that Mr Malley is a "leader that I deeply respect", while Mr McPhee wrote "many CEOs have taken a winding road to the top. Not everyone drove a bright-orange Datsun like Alex did". Sir Angus did not want to comment but Mr McPhee told the Financial Review he hardly knew Mr Malley and had provided the endorsement out of courtesy.
In addition, Mr Dickson, who headed a board whose decisions would be examined said Sir Angus would work directly with him to determine the inquiry's terms of reference.
It was all too much for the 18-member NSW Divisional Council, which represents 41,000 CPAs. They had loyally held fire prior to the inquiry announcement in the hope of a positive outcome.
The inquiry's details made it clear that Mr Malley had no intention of standing aside, and the board was not going to force him out.
The members of the council mobilised. It is understood they held a series of meetings last Wednesday with CPA board members and members of the representative council, a group whose only power is to appoint members of the board.
The message was clear: Mr Malley had to go. At the time, the councillors had some inkling that there would be some sort of payout but were unaware of its quantum, the Financial Review has been told.
Last Friday, just seven days after praising Mr Malley, the CPA board held a marathon meeting and the decision was made to sack him.
The meeting lasted until around 10pm, with a release sent out shortly afterwards by an apologetic spokesman.
Again, the accounting body had resolved one member issue, only to create a whole new one, this time around the $4.9 million payout.
The size of the payout shocked the councillors. They and all the other splinter groups of angry CPAs will regroup during yet another long week as the body remains in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
