My contribution to a board
I could help a board examine whether the financial resources in a recommendation are available for the commitment being proposed. Site contribution, bank balances and future restoration estimates each require a clear boundary. My experience includes a forecast I supported that omitted a material cost, so I would not approach the discussion as though errors belong only to other people’s models. I would ask management to show the obligations, assumptions and approvals that connect the headline number to the requested decision. Directors should be able to understand what remains constrained or unresolved without preparing the model themselves. I have no statutory service to claim and would need induction into the receiving company’s particular business. The useful contribution would be a more complete investment argument, with qualified accounting, legal and operating owners retaining their responsibilities.
Judgement in practice
01A positive contribution depended on a missing cost
The twenty-eight-site forecast suggested ₹1.7 crore contribution before central overhead, finance and tax. Including the omitted ₹2.2 crore demand charges changed that to a ₹0.5 crore deficit. I would ask a board whether the cost boundary is visible and reconciled to the actual operating agreements before it approves an expansion. The question is not whether directors can reproduce every spreadsheet cell. It is whether management has explained what the displayed contribution includes, what it excludes and why that measure supports the proposed commitment. Our fourteen-site recommendation was deferred while the account was rebuilt. I would also make clear that the uncommitted investment was not money recovered, and the corrected subtotal was not yet a full company profit measure.
02A funded near-term plan did not settle the whole site obligation
Of thirty-six leases reviewed, thirty-four had an understood restoration planning scope and two remained unresolved. The ₹2.4 crore cash allocation addressed eight nearer-term sites, while ₹4.8 crore related to twenty-six later locations. I would ask directors whether the presentation preserves those later and unresolved responsibilities beside the funded part. A neat near-term schedule should not imply that all site-exit obligations have been dealt with. Accounting recognition and measurement also require their own qualified assessment; a three-year cash allocation cannot decide when a liability belongs in the accounts. The board’s oversight concerns the completeness of the commitment and the assurance supporting it, while management and advisers own the detailed contractual, engineering and accounting work.
My first year on a board
My induction would follow one major investment recommendation from its operating assumptions through finance review to the board decision. I would also examine how treasury reports distinguish cash held, restrictions, undrawn facilities and management headroom. Meetings with the relevant executives and assurance providers would take place through the chair’s agreed process. I would want to understand how unresolved site obligations reach directors and whether accounting conclusions are clearly separated from funding plans. The proposed twenty-five annual days would have to accommodate preparation, meetings, learning and exceptional demands, with employer agreement before acceptance. I would seek feedback on whether my questions expose a consequential assumption or simply reopen work already supported by suitable assurance. A useful first-year contribution might improve one investment paper’s account of future commitments without creating an additional reporting exercise that obscures the decision.
Conflicts and their management
The CFO role provides access to financing terms, investor discussions, property agreements, supplier pricing and confidential operating forecasts. Those relationships can matter even though I hold no personal equity. I would disclose employer, lender, investor, landlord and other relevant commercial connections before protected material is shared for a prospective appointment. The receiving company must assess eligibility and independence in its own circumstances, and my employer must agree any outside commitment. I would not transfer private financing knowledge into another company’s negotiations or offer access to counterparties as the purpose of a seat. Recusal may address a specific matter, but repeated exclusion from the main funding or site-investment agenda could make the appointment ineffective. Capacity needs the same candour, including year-end and refinancing demands. I would decline an arrangement that expects informal accounting approval or privileged financial introductions instead of collective oversight supported by the company’s own professionals.
My independence statement
Employment, financing counterparties, investors and property relationships require review for any proposed appointment. No personal equity is held, but that fact alone does not establish independence.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Financial reporting and liquidity discussions · Investment and asset-obligation oversight |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 25 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Energy and charging services · Asset-based businesses operating on leased sites
- Company type
- A company whose board examines contractual constraints alongside its growth plans
- Company stage
- Expanding a site network or reviewing obligations beyond the current operating period
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider a first non-executive role under an experienced chair who wants closer scrutiny of the financial commitments behind an asset-based service model. Preparation and company-specific assessment must precede acceptance; presenting to directors as CFO has not made me a statutory director. I could contribute initially to liquidity, financial reporting or investment-obligation discussions alongside established expertise, without offering to chair a statutory committee. The board should explain which capabilities it already has and where my operating-finance perspective would add value. I would want the appointment to preserve management’s responsibility for forecasting, treasury and contract execution. The contribution I seek is to make the board’s decision more informed about what the company can commit now, what it must provide later and what remains unresolved, rather than to become an extra finance manager outside the reporting structure.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
This would be a first statutory appointment. Governance learning, any applicable registration and eligibility assessment remain incomplete; no proficiency result or exemption is claimed.
- Learning how directors challenge financial commitments without taking over treasury execution
- Preparing to assess appointment duties, conflicts and the boundary of committee contribution
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Vezlqathi Charge Networks
Board finance and investment discussions
April 2022–present
Presents treasury and site-obligation recommendations through the CEO; executive evidence, without a director vote.
Reported to a committee
Vezlqathi Charge Networks
Investment review through the CFO
April 2018–March 2022
Prepared the revised site-cost account after withdrawing the 2019 forecast; reporting responsibility rather than statutory service.