The Personal Finance Society (PFS) is recruiting two full members to serve as directors on its board.
In an advertisement on its website, the professional body said: “We are seeking applications from eligible individuals across a diverse range of backgrounds and experiences to ensure the board is representative of the broad skillset amongst our member base.
“Appointments are open to all PFS members who are DipPFS and above.”
The main duties of directors include promoting the success of the PFS for the benefit of its members as a whole and complying with all relevant laws and regulations.
Directors are also responsible for setting the values, vision and strategy to achieve the professional body’s objectives and monitoring progress against an agreed business plan.
They must uphold high standards of conduct and professionalism both internally and externally.
The PFS said it expects directors to attend quarterly board meetings and ad-hoc board meetings when required, along with induction and strategy days and the annual general meeting.
Successful candidates are expected to serve for an initial three-year term commencing October 2023 and may serve for up to six years, subject to annual performance reviews and rotational approval at annual general meetings.
The closing date for applications is 21 August 2023 at 5pm.
Last month, the PFS appointed Carla Brown and Daniel Williams as board directors.
The previous month, news broke that two independent directors had resigned from the board due to “significant concerns” regarding the independence of the organisation.
Brown and Williams will both serve on an interim basis until the PFS AGM on 20 September, when their terms will be formally ratified.
Towards the end of 2022, a feud between the CII and PFS escalated when the CII appointed three new institute directors to the PFS board with immediate effect.
The CII also said it was aiming to form a majority on the PFS board, which it did.
Some PFS members at the time referred to this move as a ‘Christmas Coup’.
The CII has insisted a series of “serious governance risks” at the PFS left it with “no alternative” but to step in.
Among the failures listed were a “lack of collective decision making” by the PFS board and a failure to act in line with the articles of association approved by PFS members.
Comments