THE COMPLAINTS Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland is reviewing a complaint against a member by the former Isme boss, Frank Mulcahy.
The complaint concerns the treatment of accounts relevant to a controversy some years ago that led to Mr Mulcahy’s role at the organisation coming to an end.
Mr Mulcahy was removed from his position in 1998 during a controversy about the drawing down of finance from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment for Isme (the representative body for small- and medium-sized enterprises). He continues to contest the validity of claims made at the time.
A spokesman for the institute confirmed that its complaints committee has begun its inquiry. He said the institute has changed its rules following a rebuke by the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority. Earlier this year the authority fined the institute €10,000 for its initial treatment of Mr Mulcahy’s complaint.
The authority, which oversees the regulation of the accountancy profession by its various representative bodies, found the institute had made a “substantive and not merely a technical failure” in its treatment of the complaint.
Mr Mulcahy’s complaint was made in February 2007 and the member refuted it. A conciliation process facilitated by the secretary of the institute’s complaints committee proved unsuccessful.
The secretary then referred the file to the committee for direction as to whether it should be closed or further investigated. The obligation to formally transmit the file to the committee under the institute’s bylaws was not observed.
The committee wrote to Mr Mulcahy on November 30th, 2007, and told him the matter was closed “on the basis of the lack of substance to the complaint”.
The minutes of the relevant committee meeting showed it was concerned that Mr Mulcahy had made similar complaints against the member. Mr Mulcahy was told there was no avenue of appeal available to him.
However the authority, when it investigated the committee’s treatment of the matter, decided the manner in which it had been dealt with had denied Mr Mulcahy recourse to an independent reviewer.
