Reading the front page of today's Accountancy Age I wonder if the ICAEW and their advisers, Media Strategy, haven't made something of a PR blunder last week; by persuading some of the senior partners of the larger accountancy firms to publicly back the proposed merger with CIPFA.
I understand that at least one of the Big 4 has actually posted a notice to their staff indicating that it is their official policy to favour the merger.
Accountancy Age report that other professionals have expressed serious disquiet about influencing their own staff on the merger vote.
The professionals quoted in the report note that it may not be appropriate to try to influence staff, and that they did not want to put their firm's name to something that might not express a commonly held view.
I suspect that, human nature being what it is, many will feel more than a little annoyed at being told how to vote by their firms.
Were I in charge of the ICAEW, and I am not at the moment, I would be asking my PR advisers exactly why they thought that this media stunt was such a good idea.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteYou are right, except that following the EDM; Media Strategy should have been dumped and fast.
I really do not think it is appropriate for the Privy Council to enter into any meaningful correspondence with ICAEW or CIPFA.
What about "The CAs 1880 Preservation Society" for a club name?
ReplyDeleteSay, 10 or 12 committee members (initially perhaps the 10 MAC letter signatories), a low joining fee and a website to publish items of general interest even in quiet times.
Get 1,000 members and call upon 250 to force ICAEW meetings as necessary.
Get 5,000 or 10,000 members and the ICAEW Council would find it difficult to implement unrepresentative or unwelcome measures?
A major club could allow affiliate members from other appropriate institutes who wished to retain their separate identities.
ReplyDeleteICAS could be approached requesting they admit ICAEW members in good standing and wishing to transfer their membership to ICAS to allow continuance of the designatory letters ACA and FCA.
What could be lost except a few pounds even if the club were disbanded and any suplus funds donated to charities.
The rules could be established easily and quickly.
I look forwards to comment from K & K and others.
"Reading the front page of today's Accountancy Age I wonder if the ICAEW and their advisers, Media Strategy, haven't made something of a PR blunder last week; by persuading some of the senior partners of the larger accountancy firms to publicly back the proposed merger with CIMA."
ReplyDeleteI thought the vote was about the proposed integration with CIPFA??
All 10 ICAEW members of my organisation have just ceremoniously submitted our vote against the merger.
ReplyDeleteApart from the few people in Accountancy & Accountancy Age who have been interviewed I do not know of any members who are in favour.
I look forward to Anstee's resignation 2.00pm 25 October 2005.
Oops!
ReplyDeleteSorry for the "CIMA" typo, now corrected:)
Kamran,
ReplyDeleteI was aware of the details you gave at 8.58 but I reitterate the point made. I am talking about a major club and a transer to ICAS outwith the reciprocal arrangement.
The CIPFA cash is unimportant since as it is really the savings of £4m (year on year joke) that matters.
It may also be that with substantial funds under charitable status that CIPFA may not be able to release cash by,for example, the sale of their freehold premises at Robert Street even if they were surplus to joint requirement.
I am absolutely in favour of your suggestion to form a breakaway institute but the investment in time and set-up costs make it difficult, not to mention the official recognition which would be necessary. A large and powerful club with vast numbers of e-mail addresses would be a start and would probably suffice. I suspect that The Data Protection Act would make it impossible to obtain e-mail addresses from HO even if, unbelievably, they would have no objection.
Personally, you might be better off obtaining an additional qualification as a barrister, solicitor, engineer or chemist.
Seriously, I think you, Ken and the eight other MAC members might at least discuss forming a club for disillusioned ICAEW members.
Regards to all 10.
So, it appears ICAEW have a staff of 500 and CIPFA have 300. You can expect another 200 if they are crackers enough to seek global expansion.
ReplyDeleteAha, then it would be most informative to know how many staff ICAS, ICAI, ACCA and CIMA each have.
Any answers?
Whilst the position is true concerning pre merger assets of the CIPFA Charity, the ICAEW Council would be entitled to future surpluses released by the new Charity.
ReplyDeleteLooks like victory is ours
ReplyDeletehttp://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article319893.ece
Anon 1.57
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, perhaps Ken may copy a main post but no complacency - vote.