Our President is enroute to visit our members in the US. If you're a member get in touch for the itinerary. https://t.co/1PD6xczRfN— ICAEW (@ICAEW) September 10, 2017
Showing posts with label president. Show all posts
Showing posts with label president. Show all posts
Monday, September 11, 2017
Presidential Tour of The USA - Who Pays?
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
Hail To The Chief
Incoming @ICAEW president Andrew Ratcliffe on the future of the profession | http://t.co/RTU0Fz8uei pic.twitter.com/oANYtA6LY6
— economia (@economiamag) June 3, 2015Friday, June 06, 2008
Tax Safeguards
I wish David Furst (the new ICAEW president) and the ICAEW well as they campaign to insert safeguards against new HMRC powers in the finance bill.
I hope that the campaign is assertive and vocal, and that the ICAEW stands up for itself.
I hope that the campaign is assertive and vocal, and that the ICAEW stands up for itself.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Vice Presidential Election
Good luck to the three candidates standing for the position of Vice President of the ICAEW.
They are:
- Gerald Russell, senior partner in the London office of Ernst & Young
- Ian Hayes, managing director at Vataxworld London
- Paul Wagstaff, client partner at HLB Vantis Audit in Wokingham.
Voting closed yesterday, and the successful candidate will be announced at the ICAEW council meeting this Thursday.
The new vice president will take up the role in June. He will then become deputy president after 12 months in office, before being elevated to the post of president of the institute in 2010.
It is a pity, and indeed a mystery, as to why the membership of the ICAEW are not allowed by council to vote for the vice president.
Anyone would think that council and the ICAEW are not interested in the views and opinions of the membership, but only interested in taking our subscriptions from us each January.
Surely not?
Is this an example of effective corporate governance?
They are:
- Gerald Russell, senior partner in the London office of Ernst & Young
- Ian Hayes, managing director at Vataxworld London
- Paul Wagstaff, client partner at HLB Vantis Audit in Wokingham.
Voting closed yesterday, and the successful candidate will be announced at the ICAEW council meeting this Thursday.
The new vice president will take up the role in June. He will then become deputy president after 12 months in office, before being elevated to the post of president of the institute in 2010.
It is a pity, and indeed a mystery, as to why the membership of the ICAEW are not allowed by council to vote for the vice president.
Anyone would think that council and the ICAEW are not interested in the views and opinions of the membership, but only interested in taking our subscriptions from us each January.
Surely not?
Is this an example of effective corporate governance?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Look East
The ICAEW is looking Eastwards as it attempts to increase its size. It has announced a deal with the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CICPA) to award credits to each other's examinations.
An agreement will mean that CICPA members, who have passed all five subjects of the CPA Uniform Exams, will be awarded credits in the professional stage of the ICAEW's ACA qualification.
Richard Dyson, ICAEW president, said the agreement between the two parties is "one more step forward in helping to create a global accountancy profession".
Size of course is not everything, quality is the key issue.
Dyson, as if anticipating the above comment, went on to say:
"By providing mutual credits for prior learning, we are making it simpler for members of both the ICAEW and CICPA to achieve qualifications which will enable them to work in each other’s territories."
So long as this does not dilute the ICAEW brand, or expose the ICAEW to ethical problems, then in theory this agreement should cause the ICAEW no problems.
The devil is in the detail.
An agreement will mean that CICPA members, who have passed all five subjects of the CPA Uniform Exams, will be awarded credits in the professional stage of the ICAEW's ACA qualification.
Richard Dyson, ICAEW president, said the agreement between the two parties is "one more step forward in helping to create a global accountancy profession".
Size of course is not everything, quality is the key issue.
Dyson, as if anticipating the above comment, went on to say:
"By providing mutual credits for prior learning, we are making it simpler for members of both the ICAEW and CICPA to achieve qualifications which will enable them to work in each other’s territories."
So long as this does not dilute the ICAEW brand, or expose the ICAEW to ethical problems, then in theory this agreement should cause the ICAEW no problems.
The devil is in the detail.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
A Contradiction In Terms
On the assumption that the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) really is the independent UK regulator responsible for promoting confidence in corporate reporting and governance.
How can Eric Anstee's (ex CEO of the ICAEW and newly appointed chairman of IFA) appointment as a non-executive director of the new board of the Financial Reporting Council provide a leg up for IFA, as IFA president Professor David Hunt states?
Independent bodies do not provide leg ups.
How can Eric Anstee's (ex CEO of the ICAEW and newly appointed chairman of IFA) appointment as a non-executive director of the new board of the Financial Reporting Council provide a leg up for IFA, as IFA president Professor David Hunt states?
Independent bodies do not provide leg ups.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Transparent Council
Over the recent weeks (most especially after having met and had lunch with Michael Izza CEO of ICAEW), I had begun to feel that maybe the ICAEW had finally started to get the message from its members and that it was genuinely trying to make itself more accountable to the membership, relevant and fit for purpose for the 21st century.
Unfortunately that feeling of optimism was blown away when I read Richard Dyson's (President ICAEW) piece in Accountancy (December 2007 page 113) entitled "Seeking Council".
I would provide a link to the piece, but Accountancy haven't entered the 21st century either and don't have it on their website.
In brief, Dyson extols the virtues of the ICAEW council; noting that "council's work is too often unnoticed and unsung..."
Well, there is a very good reason for that; none of the membership are told what council discusses!
In brief I will summarise why I totally disagree with Dyson's views:
Why does the ICAEW insist on prospective candidates for council needing 10 signatures from the local area, before they are even allowed to stand?
Why does the ICAEW need 90, or more, council members?
Operating a Victorian trading association model simply will not do for the 21st century.
Until the ICAEW gets that point it will go nowhere.
Judging from the self congratulatory tone and contents of Dyson's article, it is evident that the ICAEW still doesn't get it.
Unfortunately that feeling of optimism was blown away when I read Richard Dyson's (President ICAEW) piece in Accountancy (December 2007 page 113) entitled "Seeking Council".
I would provide a link to the piece, but Accountancy haven't entered the 21st century either and don't have it on their website.
In brief, Dyson extols the virtues of the ICAEW council; noting that "council's work is too often unnoticed and unsung..."
Well, there is a very good reason for that; none of the membership are told what council discusses!
In brief I will summarise why I totally disagree with Dyson's views:
- As I have stated on this site on many occasions, the size of council (over 90 people) is absurd (see Best in Class). Dyson attempts to justify the size of council by saying:
"..once a body is larger than, say 15 people, it doesn't really make any difference if it's 30, 60 or 90 strong.."
Clearly he doesn't get it, council should be less than 12 people (as I have outlined on numerous occasions) if it is is to be effective. Following Dyson's "logic" we may as well increase the size to include every member.
I would note that were the same proportion of MP's, compared to the population of the UK, to sit in parliament as there are council members to ICAEW members, we would have a parliament of 42,857 MP's.
Would that be an effective body? - Dyson proudly states how the ICAEW have made progress, and have tried to make council meetings more transparent and open to scrutiny.
That being the case, why can the membership of the ICAEW not access transcripts of council meetings?
I did raise that question during the ICAEW's abortive merger campaign, and got a very irate email from one member of council who informed me that the minutes of the meetings should not be available to the membership as the were "confidential".
Ah yes, progress indeed! - Dyson concludes by inviting prospective council members to contact him.
Now I know where I went wrong, when I attempted to stand for council at the beginning of this year. Had I contacted Dyson, then maybe the ICAEW would not have refused to let the Croydon membership know that I was looking for nominations.
Why does the ICAEW insist on prospective candidates for council needing 10 signatures from the local area, before they are even allowed to stand?
Why does the ICAEW need 90, or more, council members?
Operating a Victorian trading association model simply will not do for the 21st century.
Until the ICAEW gets that point it will go nowhere.
Judging from the self congratulatory tone and contents of Dyson's article, it is evident that the ICAEW still doesn't get it.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
EC Books Failed For 13th Year Running
Accountancy Age reports that the European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the European Commission's books for the 13th year in a row, citing a "lack of supervision" and "irregularities" in its accounts.
The audit did not unearth any major fraud case. However, it noted that some of the EU's farm subsidies and aid for development of poor regions had/may have gone to ineligible people.
Quote:
"The most frequent errors were claims for illegible expenditure and failure to carry out tender procedures as well as a lack of evidence to support the calculation of ... costs involved."
This humiliation could not come at a worse time for the EC.
Marta Andreasen, the former chief accountant of the European Commission, has said she is up against a "mafia" in the Commission whose aim it is to frighten off whistleblowers.
Andreasen lost her appeal against her dismissal by the EC last week, but that said she plans to appeal that judgment too.
Andreasen was suspended by the Commission in 2002, and was later sacked after exposing failures and weaknesses in accounting procedures.
As if by strange coincidence the ICAEW has invited Siim Kallas (Vice President of the EC in charge of administration, audit and anti fraud) to address a meeting at the ICAEW on 26th November.
The meeting is being organised by the ICAEW (co hosted by CIPFA) to promote "improved understanding of the Commission's accounting and auditing process".
The meeting also aims to:
Given the ICAEW's current predilection for globalisation and co-operation with international professional bodies (despite an internal structure of governance that resembles a Victorian trading association) now would be a good time for the ICAEW to sally forth into Europe, and offer to train those in the EC who hold the purse strings, and have responsibility for spending our money, in the basics of accounting and financial reporting.
The audit did not unearth any major fraud case. However, it noted that some of the EU's farm subsidies and aid for development of poor regions had/may have gone to ineligible people.
Quote:
"The most frequent errors were claims for illegible expenditure and failure to carry out tender procedures as well as a lack of evidence to support the calculation of ... costs involved."
This humiliation could not come at a worse time for the EC.
Marta Andreasen, the former chief accountant of the European Commission, has said she is up against a "mafia" in the Commission whose aim it is to frighten off whistleblowers.
Andreasen lost her appeal against her dismissal by the EC last week, but that said she plans to appeal that judgment too.
Andreasen was suspended by the Commission in 2002, and was later sacked after exposing failures and weaknesses in accounting procedures.
As if by strange coincidence the ICAEW has invited Siim Kallas (Vice President of the EC in charge of administration, audit and anti fraud) to address a meeting at the ICAEW on 26th November.
The meeting is being organised by the ICAEW (co hosted by CIPFA) to promote "improved understanding of the Commission's accounting and auditing process".
The meeting also aims to:
- Consider objectively the progress made by the Commission in reforming internal accounting and auditing process
- Elicit an exchange of views on how public and private organisations deal with qualified accounts
Given the ICAEW's current predilection for globalisation and co-operation with international professional bodies (despite an internal structure of governance that resembles a Victorian trading association) now would be a good time for the ICAEW to sally forth into Europe, and offer to train those in the EC who hold the purse strings, and have responsibility for spending our money, in the basics of accounting and financial reporting.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Honorary Fellowship
My thanks to Dr Jeff Wooller, President of the Institute of Professional Financial Managers (IPFM), for awarding me an honorary fellowship of the IPFM.
The IPFM made this rare honorary award, for my work on this site in opposing the recently proposed mergers in the UK accountancy profession.
To read the full details please click here Honorary Fellowship.
The IPFM made this rare honorary award, for my work on this site in opposing the recently proposed mergers in the UK accountancy profession.
To read the full details please click here Honorary Fellowship.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Druckman Speaks Out Against Consolidation
Paul Druckman, ex president of the ICAEW, has spoken out against another merger attempt:
"I do think it important to not keep going back to the consolidation issue of the UK profession."
I agree.
"I do think it important to not keep going back to the consolidation issue of the UK profession."
I agree.
Friday, October 06, 2006
What Price The Presidency?
On Thursday the ICAEW council voted down a proposal to pay future council presidents £100,000 for holding office.
The FD states that the vote was close, 23 votes to 22, with "a number of abstentions".
Given that there are around 100 members of council, either there were a hell of a lot of abstentions or else a large number of council members did not bother to attend the meeting.
Why do we need a council of 100, when so many of them do not actually attend key votes such as this?
The FD reports that one member had argued that paying the president would send a bad message to members.
Quite!
Council member Alan Livesey then suggested that the vote should be retaken later, as some council members left the meeting before the vote was taken.
To repeat:
Why do we need a council of 100, when many of them do not actually attend key votes such as this?
The FD states that the vote was close, 23 votes to 22, with "a number of abstentions".
Given that there are around 100 members of council, either there were a hell of a lot of abstentions or else a large number of council members did not bother to attend the meeting.
Why do we need a council of 100, when so many of them do not actually attend key votes such as this?
The FD reports that one member had argued that paying the president would send a bad message to members.
Quite!
Council member Alan Livesey then suggested that the vote should be retaken later, as some council members left the meeting before the vote was taken.
To repeat:
Why do we need a council of 100, when many of them do not actually attend key votes such as this?
Thursday, September 14, 2006
A Bold Prediction
Michael Cleary, the head of Grant Thornton, has made a bold call for unification of all six UK professional accounting bodies in a speech delivered to the Institute of Financial Accountants.
Cleary said that it is a "nonsense" for Britain to have more than six professional organisations.
He went on to predict that within a decade all the institutes will combine to form one nationwide institute.
Cairn Energy chairman Norman Murray, who is president of the Scottish institute (ICAS), disagrees:
"We have always said that consolidation is not inevitable.
To demonstrate to our members that merging would be in their interests and in the public interest, we need to show that we can work together closely with other institutes first and foremost.
At the moment we see no need to merge."
The ICAEW president, Ian Morris, also spoke up about co-operation when he visited Edinburgh to address the 1300 members of the English institute who work in Scotland.
Quote:
"Our relationship with ICAS is one of partnership.
I value the long-standing and constructive working relationship that exists between (us)."
I agree that a merger with ICAS would be beneficial for both bodies, if the membership can be persuaded. However, last year's appalling public relations disaster wrt the name change foisted on the ICAEW members by the ICAEW leadership has not done the ICAEW's reputation in Scotland any favours.
Ian Morris is right to say that we should value a long standing and constructive relationship with ICAS. Unfortunately, last year the leadership of the ICAEW did its very best to destroy the relationship.
As regards Michael Cleary's desire to merge all bodies, a merger should only be sought between similar bodies of equal standing in respect of qualifications and prestige. ICAS and ICAEW are two such bodies; CIPFA, CIMA et al are not.
That is why the merger with CIPFA failed last year, until the leadership of the ICAEW get that message we will not be able to move forward and engage in constructive dialogue with ICAS.
Cleary said that it is a "nonsense" for Britain to have more than six professional organisations.
He went on to predict that within a decade all the institutes will combine to form one nationwide institute.
Cairn Energy chairman Norman Murray, who is president of the Scottish institute (ICAS), disagrees:
"We have always said that consolidation is not inevitable.
To demonstrate to our members that merging would be in their interests and in the public interest, we need to show that we can work together closely with other institutes first and foremost.
At the moment we see no need to merge."
The ICAEW president, Ian Morris, also spoke up about co-operation when he visited Edinburgh to address the 1300 members of the English institute who work in Scotland.
Quote:
"Our relationship with ICAS is one of partnership.
I value the long-standing and constructive working relationship that exists between (us)."
I agree that a merger with ICAS would be beneficial for both bodies, if the membership can be persuaded. However, last year's appalling public relations disaster wrt the name change foisted on the ICAEW members by the ICAEW leadership has not done the ICAEW's reputation in Scotland any favours.
Ian Morris is right to say that we should value a long standing and constructive relationship with ICAS. Unfortunately, last year the leadership of the ICAEW did its very best to destroy the relationship.
As regards Michael Cleary's desire to merge all bodies, a merger should only be sought between similar bodies of equal standing in respect of qualifications and prestige. ICAS and ICAEW are two such bodies; CIPFA, CIMA et al are not.
That is why the merger with CIPFA failed last year, until the leadership of the ICAEW get that message we will not be able to move forward and engage in constructive dialogue with ICAS.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Consolidation Dead For Five Years
The consolidation of UK accounting institutes is a dead issue for the next five years, according to the new president of CIPFA Caroline Gardner.
I wonder if the ICAEW agree with this view?
I wonder if the ICAEW agree with this view?
Friday, June 16, 2006
The Unanswered Questions
The Durgan debacle refuses to die down, and there are rumours emanating from the ICAEW bunker relating to the how the Independent heard about the matter in the first place.
The post Durgan "clean up" by the ICAEW, in itself, has raised a number of questions which need to be answered:
The post Durgan "clean up" by the ICAEW, in itself, has raised a number of questions which need to be answered:
- Why was Council (and apparently also the Board) not informed of the impending problem sooner? These contracts had been under negotiation for several months not mere days.
- Was it just coincidence that the issue was raised at the very last Council meeting before the new President took office? Earlier notification might have enabled the matter to be resolved without the need for Graham to stand down.
- The Independent article was virtually word-for-word what the Chief Executive said to Council on 3 May 2006. Any leak would, therefore, appear to be either internal or a Council member with perfect memory.
- Why is it necessary to have a single "preferred supplier" status, why not simply a quality threshold (a "kitemark") with anyone passing it awarded appropriate status? Had EWI been one of two or more such suppliers, there would have been no need for Graham to stand down. Again, a coincidence?
- Council opted for the Group of Past-presidents to look into the issue rather than commissioning an independent, external audit. Council expected the Group to report back rather than just providing an oral comment. An external auditor would, of course, have provided a full written account of the issues. Perhaps Council was steered towards the route it chose as this was easier to influence.
- An internal audit has revealed "some issues" - why hasn't this report been made available to Council?
- Who overlooked inviting ATC International to bid, and why?
- The Special Council meeting was called at very short notice and attended by only 41 Council members (out of 96). Why wasn't the date advised to Council members earlier so that they could pencil it in their diaries... just in case a meeting was required. Indeed, were any Council members advised to pencil in the date prior to the official announcement? If so, who was advised, by whom and why?
- Has this just been a momentous cock-up by a junior member of staff, or a very cleverly orchestrated conspiracy by someone much more senior?
- Was the leak deliberately designed to bring Durgan down? If so, who leaked the story and why?
- Why is it left to this site to expose these issues, is it not the role of the professional media to be investigating this?
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
ICAEW To Review Internal Controls
Accountancy Age report that following the Durgan contract fiasco, there will be a review of the internal control procedures relating to how preferred supplier contracts are awarded.
The review will be carried out by Ian Morris, President of the ICAEW.
I have twenty years international experience working in industry, reviewing business controls, advising on best practice (eg purchasing and contract tendering), conducting fraud investigations and implementing codes of ethical conduct.
The ICAEW are more than welcome to contact me if they wish for some impartial, arms length, advice on this matter.
The review will be carried out by Ian Morris, President of the ICAEW.
I have twenty years international experience working in industry, reviewing business controls, advising on best practice (eg purchasing and contract tendering), conducting fraud investigations and implementing codes of ethical conduct.
The ICAEW are more than welcome to contact me if they wish for some impartial, arms length, advice on this matter.
Overwhelming Support?
Quote from yesterday's ICAEW press release:
"Members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales have given their overwhelming support to proposals that will enable the Institute, over time, to broaden its portfolio of qualifications for finance professionals in response to market needs.
At a special meeting of members, held on 6th June 2006, over 88% voted in favour of the resolution that enabled the Institute's Council to create new qualifications and schemes for the awarding of diplomas and certificates subject to Privy Council approval."
The 88% does seem to be "overwhelming"; until you realise that for each of the special resolutions less than 20000 members (16%), out of approximately 128000, voted in favour.
I don't know that I would be so keen to trumpet that as "overwhelming" support.
Ian Morris, President of the Institute is quoted:
"The strength of the Institute is its membership and I'm delighted with their support for this year's annual and special meetings.
The vast majority have voted in favour of the resolutions we put forward, a very visible demonstration of support for our strategic direction."
I am afraid that I must disagree with the above statement.
The vast majority have not voted, in fact over 80% of the membership have not bothered to vote.
That is not a vote of confidence in the strategic direction of the ICAEW, nor a very visible demonstration of support, but a clear signal of apathy and disengagement.
"Members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales have given their overwhelming support to proposals that will enable the Institute, over time, to broaden its portfolio of qualifications for finance professionals in response to market needs.
At a special meeting of members, held on 6th June 2006, over 88% voted in favour of the resolution that enabled the Institute's Council to create new qualifications and schemes for the awarding of diplomas and certificates subject to Privy Council approval."
The 88% does seem to be "overwhelming"; until you realise that for each of the special resolutions less than 20000 members (16%), out of approximately 128000, voted in favour.
I don't know that I would be so keen to trumpet that as "overwhelming" support.
Ian Morris, President of the Institute is quoted:
"The strength of the Institute is its membership and I'm delighted with their support for this year's annual and special meetings.
The vast majority have voted in favour of the resolutions we put forward, a very visible demonstration of support for our strategic direction."
I am afraid that I must disagree with the above statement.
The vast majority have not voted, in fact over 80% of the membership have not bothered to vote.
That is not a vote of confidence in the strategic direction of the ICAEW, nor a very visible demonstration of support, but a clear signal of apathy and disengagement.
Friday, June 02, 2006
A Confused Message
There seems to be some confusion as regards the tendering process used by the ICAEW, in relation to the Russian and Chinese training contracts that caused the implosion of Graham Durgan's bid to become President and the ongoing media relations debacle.
Accountancy (June 2006 page 5) state:
"The ICAEW says the work was awarded on an 'open tender' basis..."
Yet an article (Misrepresentation and Shabbiness) was posted on this site (18 May), which Accountancy read, that stated:
"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."
Additionally, Dr Jeff Wooller, wrote in the comment section:
"The Institute of Professional Financial Managers was not asked to pitch. We have a good reputation for courses in Eastern Europe and our own website in Russian."
So, is that open tendering or not? It doesn't sound very open to me.
I have sent this to Accountancy asking them to clarify their report.
Accountancy (June 2006 page 5) state:
"The ICAEW says the work was awarded on an 'open tender' basis..."
Yet an article (Misrepresentation and Shabbiness) was posted on this site (18 May), which Accountancy read, that stated:
"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."
Additionally, Dr Jeff Wooller, wrote in the comment section:
"The Institute of Professional Financial Managers was not asked to pitch. We have a good reputation for courses in Eastern Europe and our own website in Russian."
So, is that open tendering or not? It doesn't sound very open to me.
I have sent this to Accountancy asking them to clarify their report.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Durgan Not to Stand - Confirmed
The Independent confirm's that Graham Durgan will be stepping aside as President of the ICAEW, as noted here yesterday.
The article notes that the ICAEW maintain that Durgan's interest in EWI, the training company awarded the Chinese and Russian contracts, were openly declared throughout the tender process.
However, what the ICAEW failed to do was hold an open tendering process allowing all companies to apply for the contracts.
That is why they are in this mess. Unfortunately, the ICAEW don't see it this way and are blaming the press for this.
The article notes that the ICAEW maintain that Durgan's interest in EWI, the training company awarded the Chinese and Russian contracts, were openly declared throughout the tender process.
However, what the ICAEW failed to do was hold an open tendering process allowing all companies to apply for the contracts.
That is why they are in this mess. Unfortunately, the ICAEW don't see it this way and are blaming the press for this.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Durgan Not to Stand
It is reported that Graham Durgan will not stand for Presidency of the ICAEW next week.
This has yet to be confirmed by the ICAEW.
Had the ICAEW followed an open tendering process for the training contracts for the Chinese and Russian contracts, much of this fuss would have been avoided and Durgan might still have been able to stand for President.
The ICAEW needs to practice what it preaches when it comes to best business practice.
Assuming that Durgan is stepping aside, he has saved the ICAEW a large amount of embarassment; I wonder if others will follow his example?
This has yet to be confirmed by the ICAEW.
Had the ICAEW followed an open tendering process for the training contracts for the Chinese and Russian contracts, much of this fuss would have been avoided and Durgan might still have been able to stand for President.
The ICAEW needs to practice what it preaches when it comes to best business practice.
Assuming that Durgan is stepping aside, he has saved the ICAEW a large amount of embarassment; I wonder if others will follow his example?
Thursday, May 18, 2006
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:
I ask the following of the membership:
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.
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.
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)