You can vote online against the proposed ICAEW merger with CIPFA here:
Online voting form
Please make sure that you vote before 23rd October.
I would also be very grateful if you could point your colleagues and friends, from the ICAEW, in the direction of this site.
Thanks for your support.
Ken
Friday, September 30, 2005
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Monday, September 26, 2005
Reasons To Vote Against The ICAEW Merger Proposal
I have recorded a short video outlining my personal views about the ICAEW merger proposal.Please click the following link to watch the video ICAEW Video 10MB.
I also have a "high quality" 22MB version, which you can view here ICAEW Video 22MB.
Reasons To Vote No
- The merger will dilute the brand
- Merging CIPFA and the ICAEW is not a merger of equals, we should be merging "like with like"
- The merger will increase the size of Council, from its current unwieldy and inefficient size of 90, to 115 members
- A two tier membership, as promised by Council, will be confusing to the membership, the outside world and impractical to administer
- Council will renege on its promise to run a dual qualification system
- To hand over control of the governing council of the ICAEW, to a new body, will denude the current membership of its right to veto who can become an accountant
- We should be talking to ICAS about merging, not CIPFA and CIMA
- The ICAEW have mismanaged the merger proposal from day one, by talking to the wrong bodies and by antagonising ICAS over the choice of name
- The Audit Commission has noted that 25% of submitted local council accounts have to be resubmitted, because of significant errors and "significant" departures from UK GAAP
- The mixture of qualifications that the merged body would embrace, would mean that it could not accurately claim to be called The Institute of Chartered Accountants
- The proposal to takeover CIPFA will add only another 13500 members to our numbers, that represents a mere 11% of our current membership. This will not alter the status quo, or increase our standing within the financial community
- If the merger were truly "revenue enhancing", as the ICAEW would have us believe, why did they raise subscriptions by 9% for 2006?
- The ICAEW is meant to represent the interests of its members, yet it is ignoring the membership and wasting our money on trying to convince us of the need to merge with CIPFA
ICAEW Merger Resolution
Those members of the ICAEW who wish to take an early look at the merger resolution should visit CIPFA's site, where they publish it in full.
The relevant section of the site can be accessed via this link CIPFA.
The relevant section of the site can be accessed via this link CIPFA.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
ICAS Receives Support
ICAS received support this week, from the Indian and Australian institutes, in its fight to preserve its name.
The institutes have backed ICAS's insistence that there is an "unbroken global convention that chartered institutes use their geographical designation".
ICAS has already lodged its objections with the Privy Council, and has not ruled out legal action.
Des Hudson, ICAS chief executive, said:
"It is now very clear that this proposal from ICAEW is demonstrably unpopular across the world's chartered accountancy institutes. The argument in opposition to the change is totally consistent from ICAS, our Australian colleagues and now our Indian colleagues."
The institutes have backed ICAS's insistence that there is an "unbroken global convention that chartered institutes use their geographical designation".
ICAS has already lodged its objections with the Privy Council, and has not ruled out legal action.
Des Hudson, ICAS chief executive, said:
"It is now very clear that this proposal from ICAEW is demonstrably unpopular across the world's chartered accountancy institutes. The argument in opposition to the change is totally consistent from ICAS, our Australian colleagues and now our Indian colleagues."
Sunday, September 11, 2005
A Poor Choice of Adviser
We are now approaching the last few weeks of the merger campaign, being mounted by the ICAEW.
As I have noted in an earlier post, the ICAEW are hosting a series of roadshows and mounting a publicity campaign; under the direction of their PR firm Media Strategy (perversely enough paid for by us, the membership), brought in to swing the vote of the membership in the favour of the ICAEW.
Unfortunately, those of us who oppose the merger do not have the resources to be able to afford to hire Media Strategy (Media Strategy list the ICAEW as a client); even though we will, via our subscriptions, be paying for Media Strategy's involvement.
I am therefore very grateful to an anonymous visitor to this site who has drawn my attention to the following Early Day Motion (EDM), filed on the 13th of July 2005, by Paul Flynn MP.
The EDM (number 581) concerns the activities of Media Strategy, and urges:
"..all Right honourable and honourable Members to have no contact with the clients of Media Strategy until this matter is resolved; and believes that it is inappropriate for public sector organisations such as the Audit Commission, the Police Federation, Southwark Council, Westminster City Council, The Royal Parks, The Environment Agency and others to retain the services of a company that behaves in this manner.."
It seems that Media Strategy breached the Code of Practice of the Association of Professional Political Consultants (Lord O'Neill had joined their advisory board) and, as a consequence, resigned its membership of that body rather than face an investigation.
The Association of Professional Political Consultants issued a public statement about the affair, on the 11th of July 2005.
Here is an extract:
"..It was agreed by the APPC Management Committee at its meeting on 8th July that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to show that Media Strategy had breached Clause 8 of the APPC Code of Conduct by employing Lord O'Neill to justify referring the issue to our Professional Practices Panel. Media Strategy's early resignation from the APPC means that this course of action is not open to the Association (resignation is not, of course, permitted after a complaint has been referred to the Panel).
The APPC Management Committee was also disappointed by Media Strategy's readiness and happiness to resign from the APPC and therefore its' Code of Conduct. The Committee felt that Media Strategy had dismissed the seriousness of the complaints made against them, and the importance of the Code of Conduct to the industry as a whole. This is unwelcome and inconsistent with the commitment and compliance of APPC member companies to the Code of Conduct and its underlying principles. The Committee felt it inappropriate for any member company to treat membership of the APPC in a similar vein whereby a member would rather resign than sort out the problem or comply with the Code..."
The association of the ICAEW with a body whose reputation is being questioned in this way, does our brand value and image no good whatsoever; it also brings into question the judgement of the ICAEW, in using the services of Media Strategy.
The ICAEW continue to mishandle the merger issue, and their judgement is questionable.
Please vote against the merger.
I reproduce the full text of the EDM below:
EDM 581
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL POLITICAL CONSULTANTS AND MEDIA STRATEGY
13.07.2005
Flynn, Paul
That this House notes with profound concern that the public affairs consultancy Media Strategy, which represents a wide range of public sector and commercial organisations, has been forced to resign its membership of the Association of Professional Political Consultants after a flagrant breach of the Association's Code of Practice; further notes that the breach involved a contravention of Clause 8 of the Code, which prevents the employment of any honourable Member or Peer, or the payment of money or other awards to such honourable Members; is shocked that Media Strategy's response to the investigation of this complaint was to resign from the Association to prevent a formal inquiry rather than to put its house in order; is appalled at the flippant comment of the Media Strategy Director, Charles Lewington, that although Lord O'Neill was indeed to be paid for services to the agency 'he won't be doing much given the money'; welcomes the statement by the Association that the appointment compromised the profession's integrity; urges all Right honourable and honourable Members to have no contact with the clients of Media Strategy until this matter is resolved; and believes that it is inappropriate for public sector organisations such as the Audit Commission, the Police Federation, Southwark Council, Westminster City Council, The Royal Parks, The Environment Agency and others to retain the services of a company that behaves in this manner.
Source Parliamentary Information Management Services
As I have noted in an earlier post, the ICAEW are hosting a series of roadshows and mounting a publicity campaign; under the direction of their PR firm Media Strategy (perversely enough paid for by us, the membership), brought in to swing the vote of the membership in the favour of the ICAEW.
Unfortunately, those of us who oppose the merger do not have the resources to be able to afford to hire Media Strategy (Media Strategy list the ICAEW as a client); even though we will, via our subscriptions, be paying for Media Strategy's involvement.
I am therefore very grateful to an anonymous visitor to this site who has drawn my attention to the following Early Day Motion (EDM), filed on the 13th of July 2005, by Paul Flynn MP.
The EDM (number 581) concerns the activities of Media Strategy, and urges:
"..all Right honourable and honourable Members to have no contact with the clients of Media Strategy until this matter is resolved; and believes that it is inappropriate for public sector organisations such as the Audit Commission, the Police Federation, Southwark Council, Westminster City Council, The Royal Parks, The Environment Agency and others to retain the services of a company that behaves in this manner.."
It seems that Media Strategy breached the Code of Practice of the Association of Professional Political Consultants (Lord O'Neill had joined their advisory board) and, as a consequence, resigned its membership of that body rather than face an investigation.
The Association of Professional Political Consultants issued a public statement about the affair, on the 11th of July 2005.
Here is an extract:
"..It was agreed by the APPC Management Committee at its meeting on 8th July that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to show that Media Strategy had breached Clause 8 of the APPC Code of Conduct by employing Lord O'Neill to justify referring the issue to our Professional Practices Panel. Media Strategy's early resignation from the APPC means that this course of action is not open to the Association (resignation is not, of course, permitted after a complaint has been referred to the Panel).
The APPC Management Committee was also disappointed by Media Strategy's readiness and happiness to resign from the APPC and therefore its' Code of Conduct. The Committee felt that Media Strategy had dismissed the seriousness of the complaints made against them, and the importance of the Code of Conduct to the industry as a whole. This is unwelcome and inconsistent with the commitment and compliance of APPC member companies to the Code of Conduct and its underlying principles. The Committee felt it inappropriate for any member company to treat membership of the APPC in a similar vein whereby a member would rather resign than sort out the problem or comply with the Code..."
The association of the ICAEW with a body whose reputation is being questioned in this way, does our brand value and image no good whatsoever; it also brings into question the judgement of the ICAEW, in using the services of Media Strategy.
The ICAEW continue to mishandle the merger issue, and their judgement is questionable.
Please vote against the merger.
I reproduce the full text of the EDM below:
EDM 581
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL POLITICAL CONSULTANTS AND MEDIA STRATEGY
13.07.2005
Flynn, Paul
That this House notes with profound concern that the public affairs consultancy Media Strategy, which represents a wide range of public sector and commercial organisations, has been forced to resign its membership of the Association of Professional Political Consultants after a flagrant breach of the Association's Code of Practice; further notes that the breach involved a contravention of Clause 8 of the Code, which prevents the employment of any honourable Member or Peer, or the payment of money or other awards to such honourable Members; is shocked that Media Strategy's response to the investigation of this complaint was to resign from the Association to prevent a formal inquiry rather than to put its house in order; is appalled at the flippant comment of the Media Strategy Director, Charles Lewington, that although Lord O'Neill was indeed to be paid for services to the agency 'he won't be doing much given the money'; welcomes the statement by the Association that the appointment compromised the profession's integrity; urges all Right honourable and honourable Members to have no contact with the clients of Media Strategy until this matter is resolved; and believes that it is inappropriate for public sector organisations such as the Audit Commission, the Police Federation, Southwark Council, Westminster City Council, The Royal Parks, The Environment Agency and others to retain the services of a company that behaves in this manner.
Source Parliamentary Information Management Services
Friday, September 09, 2005
Reasons To Vote No
We are now approaching the last few weeks of the merger campaign, being mounted by the ICAEW.
They are hosting a series of roadshows and mounting a publicity campaign, under the direction of their PR firm Media Strategy (perversely enough paid for by us, the membership), designed to swing the vote of the membership in their favour.
Unfortunately, those of us who oppose the merger do not have the resources to be able to afford to hire Media Strategy; even though we will, via our subscriptions, be paying for Media Strategy's involvement.
Therefore I ask you to help me out in the last few weeks of the campaign, by emailing this post to as many members of the ICAEW and of the media that you know.
Please can you ask them to
-Visit this site
-Forward this post to their friends and colleagues in the ICAEW
-And, most importantly of all, vote against the merger
Reasons To Vote No
Ken Frost FCA
www.stopthemerger.org
They are hosting a series of roadshows and mounting a publicity campaign, under the direction of their PR firm Media Strategy (perversely enough paid for by us, the membership), designed to swing the vote of the membership in their favour.
Unfortunately, those of us who oppose the merger do not have the resources to be able to afford to hire Media Strategy; even though we will, via our subscriptions, be paying for Media Strategy's involvement.
Therefore I ask you to help me out in the last few weeks of the campaign, by emailing this post to as many members of the ICAEW and of the media that you know.
Please can you ask them to
-Visit this site
-Forward this post to their friends and colleagues in the ICAEW
-And, most importantly of all, vote against the merger
Reasons To Vote No
- The merger will dilute the brand
- Merging CIPFA and the ICAEW is not a merger of equals, we should be merging "like with like"
- The merger will increase the size of Council, from its current unwieldy and inefficient size of 90, to 115 members
- A two tier membership, as promised by Council, will be confusing to the membership, the outside world and impractical to administer
- Council will renege on its promise to run a dual qualification system
- To hand over control of the governing council of the ICAEW, to a new body, will denude the current membership of its right to veto who can become an accountant
- We should be talking to ICAS about merging, not CIPFA and CIMA
- The ICAEW have mismanaged the merger proposal from day one, by talking to the wrong bodies and by antagonising ICAS over the choice of name
- The Audit Commission has noted that 25% of submitted local council accounts have to be resubmitted, because of significant errors and "significant" departures from UK GAAP
- The mixture of qualifications that the merged body would embrace, would mean that it could not accurately claim to be called The Institute of Chartered Accountants
- The proposal to takeover CIPFA will add only another 13500 members to our numbers, that represents a mere 11% of our current membership. This will not alter the status quo, or increase our standing within the financial community
- If the merger were truly "revenue enhancing", as the ICAEW would have us believe, why did they raise subscriptions by 9% for 2006?
- The ICAEW is meant to represent the interests of its members, yet it is ignoring the membership and wasting our money on trying to convince us of the need to merge with CIPFA
Ken Frost FCA
www.stopthemerger.org
Thursday, September 08, 2005
D Day
The deadline for casting your vote on the merger proposal is the 25th of October.
Please remember to vote, and please ensure that you encourage/motivate your fellow ICAEW members to visit this site and to vote against the merger.
The ICAEW need 67% of those who vote to vote in favour, if the motion is to pass.
Remember, as the ICAEW says:
"Our rigorous integrated education and training programme produces chartered accountants, auditors and business advisers, who are valued above all others in practice, industry, commerce and the public sector, in the UK and worldwide.
..The qualification will retain all the features that have made it the premier accountancy qualification in the world"
Let us ensure that our qualification, and brand, retains this premier position.
Thank you.
Ken
Please remember to vote, and please ensure that you encourage/motivate your fellow ICAEW members to visit this site and to vote against the merger.
The ICAEW need 67% of those who vote to vote in favour, if the motion is to pass.
Remember, as the ICAEW says:
"Our rigorous integrated education and training programme produces chartered accountants, auditors and business advisers, who are valued above all others in practice, industry, commerce and the public sector, in the UK and worldwide.
..The qualification will retain all the features that have made it the premier accountancy qualification in the world"
Let us ensure that our qualification, and brand, retains this premier position.
Thank you.
Ken
Friday, September 02, 2005
ICAEW Further Antagonises ICAS
The Herald reports that, in a move guaranteed to further antagonise the one body that we should be discussing merging with, Carl Bayley the Chairman of the ICAEW has stated that the merged institute will enjoy a huge rise in influence in Scottish affairs.
He claims that the removal of the "England and Wales" part of the name will eliminate the prejudice shown by the Scots to the ICAEW, which he says has had little influence to date in Scotland.
Des Hudson, chief executive of ICAS, is not impressed:
"The ICAEW is well aware of the concerns that ICAS has on their proposal to change their name to 'The Institute of Chartered Accountants'. The global convention for chartered institutes is, after all, to use the national designation in their names".
He claims that the removal of the "England and Wales" part of the name will eliminate the prejudice shown by the Scots to the ICAEW, which he says has had little influence to date in Scotland.
Des Hudson, chief executive of ICAS, is not impressed:
"The ICAEW is well aware of the concerns that ICAS has on their proposal to change their name to 'The Institute of Chartered Accountants'. The global convention for chartered institutes is, after all, to use the national designation in their names".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)