ICAEW - The Video

The ICAEW have published a jolly wee promotional video outlining (albeit very briefly) its foundation, founding fathers and place in the modern world.

I am pleased to see that phrase "chartered accountant" has been used.

However, it also claims that it was founded in the UK; is that entirely accurate given that Scotland has its own institute, and that the video shows only England and Wales in red (symbolising the region that the ICAEW was founded in)?

A Penny Saved

The ICAEW has reportedly recruited researchers to ask selected members about their current sentiment wrt the institute and its strategy.

I can save the ICAEW a few pennies on this exercise, by suggesting that the researchers do not waste ICAEW time and money on sending me their survey.

I will be having lunch with Michael Izza on the 20th of this month, in my club (The East India), and will be happy to let him know personally what I think of the ICAEW.

Breaching The Walls of The Bunker

Executives around the world believe that it takes companies slightly more than three years to recover from a crisis that damages their reputation.

That at least is the conclusion drawn from to market research carried out by Burson-Marsteller.

The research is based on the opinions of 685 business "influentials" - CEOs, senior executives, financial analysts, business media and government officials in 65 countries.

It shows that quickly disclosing the details of a scandal or corporate misstep should be management's top priority, as it begins the process of restoring corporate reputation.

The latest research conducted by the firm took a closer look at the crisis
management strategies that a company should use to protect, manage and build its reputation.

According to the market research, the top ten crisis management turnaround strategies are:

-Quickly disclose details of the scandal/misstep (69%)
-Make progress/recovery visible (59%)
-Analyse what went wrong (58%)
-Improve governance structure (38%)
-Make CEO and leadership accessible to the media (34%)
-Fire employees involved in the problem (32%)
-Commit to high corporate citizenship standards (23%)
-Carefully review ethics policies (19%)
-Hire an outside auditor for internal audits (18%)
-Issue an apology from the CEO (18%)

Deborah Bowker, chair of Burson-Marsteller's U.S. Corporate/Financial Practice said:

"A crisis can have a devastating impact on a company's reputation in terms of its profitability, credibility, competitive position, and ability to retain and attract top performers.

However, companies can lessen their recovery time and be welcomed back into the fold, with their reputation restored, if they follow a few well executed and integrated turnaround strategies."

Bearing in mind the long list of recent disasters that the ICAEW have inflicted on the membership, and the brand value, of the ICAEW; including, but not limited to, the following:

• The failed merger


• The unseemly public row with ICAS over the name


• Poaching members from other bodies


• Using the services of Media Strategy, a PR company that breached the Code of Practice of the Association of Professional Political Consultants


• Postponing the new exam syllabus until 2007


• Not introducing and ethics paper until 2007


• The Durgan Debacle


• The failure to publish the results of the investigation into the Durgan Debacle


• The failure to conduct an independent review/investigation into the causes of the Durgan Debacle

Do you not think that the ICAEW should take heed of the above advice from Burson-Marsteller?

I certainly do!

The question is, are the ICAEW open to advice from outside the Moorgate Place bunker?

Misrepresentation and Shabbiness

Today's Independent reports that the qualifications of the president-elect of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Graham Durgan, were misrepresented on his company's website.

Seemingly Durgan was being passed off, on the Emile Woolf International College website (a company which he owns 60% of), as having both LLB and FCA qualifications.

The only trouble is, according the The Independent, he is neither a bachelor of law nor a fellow of the ICAEW. He is in fact a bachelor of sciences, and an associate of the ICAEW.

I recall Durgan teaching me at BPP, back in the 1980's (he was very good), and do not understand why he is not an FCA; given that if you keep up your CPD etc, you become one after a defined period of time should you choose to apply.

This news comes hot on the heels of the report in yesterday's Independent that revealed that Durgan's company has been named as the "recommended supplier" of training, for the newly won ICAEW contracts to provide training to Russia and China.

It is reported that this could generate contracts worth £200,000 a year to EWI.

Not surprisingly the Independent notes that Durgan's senior role within the institute and EWI has fuelled concerns over potential conflict of interest.

The Independent quotes one member of the profession as saying:

"It's a bit shabby that he was allowed to pitch. If you want to be a commercial business, then don't be president...It's a bit grubby."

Durgan's spokesman is quoted as saying:

"During his deputy presidency, Graham has stepped away from any commercial decisions by the institute that could benefit his firms. During his presidency, he will play no active executive role in his businesses."

An ICAEW spokesman is quoted:

"Throughout the process, the deputy president declared a financial interest in EWI which had been approached to do the work. He was not involved in any way in the evaluation process."

They don't get it do they?

It is not just a question of being independent, it is a question of being seen to be independent.

That is drummed into you from day one of your training contract, it is lamentable that the ICAEW who spend so much time lecturing others about ethics and independence cannot practice what they preach.

The story gets worse, the ICAEW are reported to have described the agreements with EWI as "non-exclusive". Yet this is contradicted by CEO Eric Anstee, who is quoted in the Independent as saying:

"We do not envisage working with further training firms until the volume of students in each location builds".

Indeed, as if to rub further salt into the wounds, ATC International told the Independent that it was not asked by the ICAEW to pitch for its contract for Russia.

Correct me if I am wrong, but based on my experience running fraud investigations, audit departments and companies, open tendering is the bedrock of an ethical and well run business. This is another area that the ICAEW is fond to lecture the world on, yet fails to practice what it preaches.

It now seems that the ICAEW has realised that is has got itself embroiled in yet another mess, that could have been so easily avoided. They have told the media that no agreements with EWI have been signed, and that a committee of past presidents will look into the selection process and will report in the next few days.

The phrase "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", springs to mind.

I assume that, depending on the level of outcry and damage to the brand that this sorry little tale produces, there will be some form of political fudge; ie Durgan will step aside, or the contract will be awarded to another supplier.

Too little, too late.

The damage has been done.

We should never have been placed in this position in the first place. The ICAEW claims that it is run by professionals, with industry and business experience. However, the leadership have succeeded yet again in damaging the brand value of our qualification.

This dismal story is another addition to the sorry tally of evidence, that has been building up over the past few months, that shows that the executive and council of the ICAEW are unfit to lead the ICAEW viz:

• The leadership of the ICAEW were trounced for trying to bully us into merging with CIPFA.



• Using the services of Media Strategy, a PR company that breached the Code of Practice of the Association of Professional Political Consultants which resigned its membership of that body rather than face an investigation.



• Damaging the ICAEW's reputation by delaying the introduction of the new syllabus, and most importantly the ethics module, for 2006.



• Wasting our money on a futile MORI poll asking us why we voted against the merger, don't they read or listen?



• Angering and alienating accountants around the world by trying to push through a name change, that ended up being blocked by the Privy Council.

Individually these points are damning enough, yet put together they speak volumes about the quality of leadership at the helm of the ICAEW.

I ask the following of the membership:

• When will we be rid of this shambolic leadership?



• When will the ICAEW learn that it is here to serve the interests of the membership, not the other way around?



• When will that Victorian anachronistic structure known as Council be removed from office?

Failure to address these issues will see the end of the ICAEW as a legitimate force, and respected brand, within the profession.

I don't want to see that happen, neither do the rest of the membership. The time for the membership to take control of the ICAEW is now.

I have voted against all of the proposals put forward by the ICAEW for the forthcoming AGM, as a protest about the way the ICAEW is being led.

I would recommend that, in order to send a clear signal to the leadership that we want change, others do the same.

If you cannot bring yourself to vote against all of the resolutions, then at least vote against the subscription rise (since it will only be wasted on yet another merger campaign next year), and the awarding of honourary FCA's (we are not a university).

The time for action is now.

The Price of Failure

Eric Anstee, CEO of the ICAEW, gave an interview to Accountacy Age in which he "explained" the reason for the failed merger attempt with CIPFA last year.

He cited the findings of the recent MORI poll conducted by the ICAEW, and paid for by the membership, noting that 33% of the members who voted no did so because they knew that the value of their qualification would be diminished.

This finding is hardly surprising, given the fact that this was one of the arguments put forward against the merger time and time again.

I fail to understand why the ICAEW felt it necessary to pay for a poll to tell them what was already well known.

Anstee's conclusion is that the "message" that the ICAEW was trying to deliver to the members was not "getting across".

This being the case I would like to ask, who was responsible for delivering the message?

Answer: The leadership of the ICAEW.

Indeed I would note that they even hired Media Strategy, a controversial PR company that had left its own professional body, to get that "message across". This was of course at great expense to the membership of the ICAEW.

The merger vote cost the membership of the ICAEW £1.4M.

The leadership now claim that it failed because the message was not "getting across", despite the fact that they put a lot of effort and money into getting their "message across", it is still in denial.

Responsibility for this costly failure clearly lies with the leadership of the ICAEW.

The ICAEW does not need another vote, but a radical overhaul and change of the leadership; ie those who failed should go.

Chaos At The ICAEW

I read with interest today the story in Accountancy Age, concerning the delay in the new ICAEW syllabus.

The new syllabus was meant to have been implemented in 2006, yet will now be postponed until 2007.

The rumour, printed in Accountancy Age, is that the delay is due to staff turnover; rather than a coherent strategy.

The story is of particular interest to me because in September the ICAEW advertised for professionals, interested in acting as examiners for the new syllabus; the advertisement noted that it would go live in 2006. The work would be for a few days a year.

There were to be 12 modules; one of which, Ethics (a new subject), I applied for.

I take a particular interest in ethics and corporate governance, and feel that these areas in many companies need some serious attention. Ethics is something that should be of great importance to the ICAEW as well:

• The ethical image and reputation of the profession has been badly undermined by the media coverage of eg Enron, WorldCom, Andersens etc



• The ICAEW needs to publicly display to the world that it is committed to ethics and integrity



• Including Ethics as a specific subject in the examination syllabus is an ideal method to send a message to the media, and the world, that we take ethics seriously



• Not to include it in the syllabus is an opportunity wasted (to say the least)

I was invited for interview on 19th October, along with 24 other candidates who had applied for the other 11 papers. Prior to the interview I was sent the 5 page Ethics syllabus to read through, together with some other information and a training disc.

I had a one to one 20 minute interview, then a 45 minute panel interview. Seemingly I was the only person to specify Ethics as my first/only choice of paper.

I was told that I would hear by the end of the month, and that if chosen I would have to make a decision quickly; as work on the paper would start in November.

I received an email on the 1st of November which stated that since the interviews the ICAEW had rethought the approach to Ethics, and that there may well not be an assessment of the kind envisaged.

As such no Ethics exam team would be appointed.

I found the change of heart, in such a short space of time, to be surprising and odd at the time. Hardly indicative of a well thought through strategy, given the time and money spent in preparing the syllabus, advertising and interviewing candidates.

Changing the syllabus within the space of a fortnight, seemed to me as though the ICAEW was making up policy as it went along.

Clearly, in the light of today's report, there is chaos within the ICAEW. The result being that not only are the current members being let down, but those who are studying for qualification, and the industries in which they hope to serve, are being let down as well.

This is a very sorry state of affairs indeed.

Merger Rejected

The merger between the ICAEW and CIPFA has been rejected, by the narrowest of margins.

65.7% of ICAEW members, who voted, voted for the merger; less than 600 votes below the 66.7% majority needed to carry the motion.

However, the 37,004 members who voted in favour of the merger represent a mere 29% of the total membership of the ICAEW.

Hardly a mandate for merger!

The close margin just goes to prove that the outcome was far from certain, and that every vote counted.

I am pleased to say that turnout was reasonably good, compared with other votes, 56,326 members (44%) voted.

I understand from feedback at the meeting, that the younger members, who have only recently qualified, were the most keen to maintain the brand value of the qualification that they have worked so hard for.

This puts into perspective the media spin that has been used by some, to portray the "anti merger camp" as being out of touch and "of a certain age".

I would like to thank everyone for their help and support in stopping this misguided merger proposal.

I am very pleased with the result.

The brand value of our qualification has been maintained.

However, there are issues that now need to be addressed:

1 The size of council needs to be cut from its current level of over 90, to 12.

2 Peace needs to be made with ICAS, with a view to merging in the long term.

3 £1.4M has been wasted, members of the ICAEW executive team should now consider their positions.

4 Our relationship with Media Strategy should be terminated.

I will continue to run www.stopthemerger.org, to ensure that these issues are addressed.

Once again thank you for your help and support.

Ken

£1.4M Wasted

According to today's Independent, the ICAEW has spent £1.4M on trying to win the merger campaign.

I would suspect that the figure excludes the fees paid to Media Strategy, the PR firm hired by the ICAEW to persuade us.

However, the article also notes that the ICAEW is preparing itself for an embarrassing climb down; as private polls show that it might lose the vote.

I would like to make this observation, the vote is not over until the polls close; as such it is vital to ensure that everyone votes on this issue.

Please make sure that everyone you know votes.

Thanks for your help and support.

Ken

Just in case you have forgotten, here are a few reasons as to why you should vote against the merger.

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

PR Blunder

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.

Parliamentary Motion Tabled Against Name Change

Motions are to be tabled at Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, opposing plans by the ICAEW and CIPFA to change their name to 'The Institute of Chartered Accountants'.

The name is the preferred choice of the two Institutes if their consolidation vote is successful.

The moves come after the First Minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell, announced his intention to officially object to the Privy Council about the proposal.

The Deputy Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and ICAS member, Michael Moore MP, is tabling an Early Day motion at Westminster, calling for the ICAEW and CIPFA to maintain the unbroken convention that Chartered Accountancy Institutes carry a geographical designation in their name.

Mr Moore added:

"The change of name should not be approved. There are many 'Institutes of Chartered Accountants' around the world. It would be quite wrong to allow one body to give the impression that there is only one, or that they were the first."

Brian Monteith MSP, the Conservative member for Mid – Scotland and Fife and also convener of Holyrood's audit committee, has tabled a motion which he is confident will attract cross-party support.

He said:

"This proposal is against the interests of ICAS and similar bodies across the globe. The Privy Council should not approve a Royal Charter change that would assert a false sense of superiority to the new body".

ICAS President, Mike Hathorn, welcomed the support:

"This backing at Holyrood and Westminster is an important endorsement for our arguments against this proposal. We continue our ongoing discussions with both the ICAEW and CIPFA to find alternatives to this increasingly unpopular choice of name."

Source ICAS

There is already an Early Day Motion against Media Strategy (the PR advisers to the ICAEW, paid for by the membership).

It is quite clear that this badly thought through, and badly managed, merger proposal is doing untold damage to the name, brand and reputation of the ICAEW.

Those responsible will have to resign once the vote goes against them.

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

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

• 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

Thanks for your help and support.

Ken Frost FCA

www.stopthemerger.org

Media Strategy

I understand that the ICAEW are using the services of Media Strategy, a PR firm based in London, to help them sway the membership in favour of the merger.

Media Strategy describe themselves, on their website, as being:

"London's fastest growing agency, specialising in corporate communications and government relations..."

I wonder what their advice to the ICAEW will be, and how much it will cost us (the membership)?

Reform Or Die

The following was sent to Accountancy, and a number of other media organisations, today:

"It is clear from the responses that I am receiving, in respect of the proposed merger of the ICAEW and other bodies, that many members of the ICAEW are not happy with the merger proposal and are very unhappy with the current structure of the ICAEW.

One area that needs urgent reform is that of Council.

"The purpose of Council, as defined in the 2003 accounts, is to consider, review and approve the overall Institute Strategy and Strategic Plan, including the Institute budget. Council scrutinises policies, policy changes and budgets proposed by The Board and the Directorate Boards in support of the Strategy. It also reviews the activities and performance of the Directorate Boards.

It represents, and articulates, the views of members on all these matters and otherwise delegates the powers and authorities conferred on it by the Charter and bye-laws. Council members take decisions in the best interests of the Institute as a whole."

There are currently around 96 Council members. This, to my view, is excessive; it is a hindrance to effective and rapid decision making.

I believe that a leaner, more focused, decision making body would best serve the membership in the 21st century.

I propose that the current arrangement, whereby members are elected from 22 regional constituencies, be abolished and replaced with elected representatives from the Lines of Business (LOB) of the membership.

The LOB's would be:

-Tax
-IT
-Finance
-Audit (Practice)
-Audit (Internal)
-Students
-Retired

In order to keep the size of Council manageable, there would be no more than two posts available for each LOB. Thus an elected Council of no more than 14 members would be created.

In my view this would be a significant step forward to making the ICAEW "best in class" in the 21st century.

I have been in discussions with Dr Jeff Wooller, of the Ginger Group, on this matter; he advises me that a motion to reduce the number of Council members was raised, and indeed passed, a number of years ago.

Yet it has been ignored by Council!

Question: the ICAEW is meant to represent the interests of its members, yet it is happily ignoring the membership; why?

I would appreciate it if you could publish the above article in Accountancy, as it is the only way to elicit a response from Council.

Kind regards

Ken Frost"