FPA removes Perth Chapter chair

Jo-Anne Bloch

Former Perth Chapter chairman Julie Matheson has responded to her removal from the position by the Financial Planning Association’s (FPA) national board last week by announcing her own candidacy for the national board.

Matheson was ‘permanently removed’ as chapter chairman on September 6 for reasons she claims are “invalid”.

She told Money Management that she would not divulge “information on these reasons” now, but may be prepared to do so in a media release during her campaigning for the forthcoming national board elections, the results of which are due to be announced at the FPA conference in November.

Perth chapter chairman since March 2005, she said she had been “nominated for the elections on a platform of reforming the FPA in the interests of professional financial planners’ representation, rather than a head office corporate agenda”.

News of Matheson’s removal as Perth Chapter chairman came by way of her own media release yesterday, which she suggested was motivated by another example “of a head office agenda [running the FPA], rather than members’ interests”.

She said in the release that the FPA “decided not to inform its members of this decision [to remove her], but I feel compelled to do so because there are key matters of principle at stake here”.

“These go to the heart of the reforms required to return the FPA to a vigorous, member-engaging, open, accountable association that professional financial planners can identify with.”

FPA executive director Jo-Anne Bloch told Money Management that the FPA national board “took action on this particular matter after a lengthy period of discussion with Ms Matheson dating back to 2005”.

“The FPA board is required to protect all members from exposure to legal liability, and in so doing the board has taken action accordingly,” she said.

“We need to make it very clear that this action is reflective of a requirement to protect our members’ interests.

“It is in no way a reflection of stifling member debate, or in no way representative of the board’s desire not to encourage healthy and active debate.”