In my capacity as a member of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana (ICAG) I was present at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on March 29, 2012 at the ICAG office.
The election of the executive for the new term was the key purpose of the meeting. A reasonable person would think that the election process would be held in a scenario where everyone has equal opportunity to be elected to the executive.
The core of my dissent with the process was that non-executive members require two members of the ICAG to recommend a member to be voted onto the executive with the recommendation required to be sent to the ICAG three days before the AGM. Members who are already on the executive and are up for ‘retirement’ do not need to be supported by two members or provide three days’ notice before the meeting when offering themselves for re-election. In the absence of new executive members being recommended by other members of the ICAG, the retiring members offered themselves for re-election to their former posts on the executive. However, it was not communicated to members whether the offer to serve again by retiring members was done verbally, in writing or by telepathy.
In my opinion the dichotomy between how a new executive is elected compared to the retiring executive being returned to office makes a charade of the election process.
ICAG needs to review and change the laws governing the election of executives to allow for an election process that is fair to all members. When I pointed out the lack of a level playing field, one of my professional colleges stated that I should be asked to apologize for opining that the election process appeared to be a charade. The chairman of the meeting, Mr Colin Thompson, suggested there was a vacuum on how the election process is conducted. It may be that he will also be asked to apologise!