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.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
ICAS Update
Mike Hathorn, President of ICAS, has issued another open letter to the members of ICAS; which updates them on the issues surrounding the ICAEW name change proposal.
He starts by saying:
"I have been overwhelmed with the volume of responses in the last few days.."
The full text can be read here ICAS open letter.
The name issue is causing a lot of bad feeling, on an international level, and is something that could have been avoided if the ICAEW had properly thought the merger proposal through.
More to the point, the ICAEW should have conducted discussions with ICAS with a view to merging.
He starts by saying:
"I have been overwhelmed with the volume of responses in the last few days.."
The full text can be read here ICAS open letter.
The name issue is causing a lot of bad feeling, on an international level, and is something that could have been avoided if the ICAEW had properly thought the merger proposal through.
More to the point, the ICAEW should have conducted discussions with ICAS with a view to merging.
What's In A Name?
My thanks to Kamran, who sent me the following message:
"It has recently come to my notice that members of a UK based professional body are already using the MICA designatory letters.
The name of the body is the International Compliance Association - ironically the abbreviation for this body is also ICA.
Their website is at www.int-comp.org
We are now going ahead with a vote to form an Institute whose name is undecided, and whose members will use designatory letters of some other Institute.
This goes to show how ill planned this merger is.
It is like sitting for exams without any prior homework or revision!"
VOTE NO TO THIS MERGER OR ELSE LETS FORM A BREAKAWAY INSTITUTE!
Regards,
Kamran Sekha, ACA, CPA"
As Kamran says, this is another example of how the merger has not been properly thought through.
"It has recently come to my notice that members of a UK based professional body are already using the MICA designatory letters.
The name of the body is the International Compliance Association - ironically the abbreviation for this body is also ICA.
Their website is at www.int-comp.org
We are now going ahead with a vote to form an Institute whose name is undecided, and whose members will use designatory letters of some other Institute.
This goes to show how ill planned this merger is.
It is like sitting for exams without any prior homework or revision!"
VOTE NO TO THIS MERGER OR ELSE LETS FORM A BREAKAWAY INSTITUTE!
Regards,
Kamran Sekha, ACA, CPA"
As Kamran says, this is another example of how the merger has not been properly thought through.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
ICAS Stops Fastracking CIPFA
ICAS have announced today that they have closed a scheme which offered CIPFA members fast-track membership of ICAS. Around one in six CIPFA candidates who began the scheme completed it and became members.
The focus in the ICAS syllabus on International Financial Reporting Standards has meant that CIPFA candidates, many of whom have not covered IFRS, can no longer be given the exemptions that made accelerated entry to the Institute possible.
Chief Executive Desmond Hudson said:
"When the course was first offered to CIPFA members, the accountancy landscape was very different. However, the educational content of today's CA qualification has changed dramatically. Unfortunately for CIPFA, it means it is no longer sustainable for their members to benefit from this fast-track entry to ICAS."
Executive Director of Education at ICAS, Mark Allison added,
"We will shortly be contacting our remaining CIPFA students to confirm the transitional arrangements which will allow them to complete their studies".
Source ICAS
ICAEW should take note of this.
The focus in the ICAS syllabus on International Financial Reporting Standards has meant that CIPFA candidates, many of whom have not covered IFRS, can no longer be given the exemptions that made accelerated entry to the Institute possible.
Chief Executive Desmond Hudson said:
"When the course was first offered to CIPFA members, the accountancy landscape was very different. However, the educational content of today's CA qualification has changed dramatically. Unfortunately for CIPFA, it means it is no longer sustainable for their members to benefit from this fast-track entry to ICAS."
Executive Director of Education at ICAS, Mark Allison added,
"We will shortly be contacting our remaining CIPFA students to confirm the transitional arrangements which will allow them to complete their studies".
Source ICAS
ICAEW should take note of this.
Letter From The President
I draw your attention to the open letter written to the members of ICAS by Mike Hathorn, President of ICAS.
In it he explains the rationale for the opposition by ICAS to the proposed name change by the ICAEW, if the merger between ICAEW and CIPFA goes ahead.
One paragraph particularly caught my eye:
"After months of ICAS asking to meet to attempt to resolve the dispute sensibly, talks finally began on 17th August 2005. Although we believe these discussions should have started many months ago, we remain committed, as we have been from the outset, to pursue them honourably and seriously..."
This again confirms one of the main points that I have been putting forward on this site, namely that the ICAEW has mishandled the merger issue from the very beginning.
The issue regarding the name, and the delay in meeting with ICAS, has soured relations with the one body that we we should be discussing merging with.
The full text of the letter can be read here Open Letter.
In it he explains the rationale for the opposition by ICAS to the proposed name change by the ICAEW, if the merger between ICAEW and CIPFA goes ahead.
One paragraph particularly caught my eye:
"After months of ICAS asking to meet to attempt to resolve the dispute sensibly, talks finally began on 17th August 2005. Although we believe these discussions should have started many months ago, we remain committed, as we have been from the outset, to pursue them honourably and seriously..."
This again confirms one of the main points that I have been putting forward on this site, namely that the ICAEW has mishandled the merger issue from the very beginning.
The issue regarding the name, and the delay in meeting with ICAS, has soured relations with the one body that we we should be discussing merging with.
The full text of the letter can be read here Open Letter.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Welsh Members' Press Release
Bruce Lawson FCA, of the Welsh Members' against Consolidation, asked me to publicise this press release today.
Does this not rather make a mockery of Accountancy's assertion (October issue page 30) that there is no organised opposition to the proposed ICAEW/CIPFA merger?
Your Vote Counts Double - Use It To Vote 'No'
Members Against Consolidation (MAC), a group of Welsh practising accountants supported by many others across the U.K., believe the proposed merger is flawed, face saving, expensive and will tarnish the Chartered status of members of ICAEW.
Consider The Following
ICAEW have a "planned deficit" for 2005 of £1.39 million. Why?
Subscriptions went up by 7.5% in 2005 and are set to rise 9% in 2006. Why? The final proposals speak of "net cost savings of not less than £4 million will be achieved by the end of the first two years".
"CIPFA represents 13,500 members working" Page 3, Message from Council. CIPFA has, in fact, 10,584 active members (Accountancy, October 2005). ICAEW webcast talks of 14,000. Why the spin?
Two straw polls in Wales and the Marches in February and August 2005 involved 700 practising accountants. 120 of those replied, of whom 90% were against the merger.
MAC wrote to all 2005 Council Members (95 of them) in September. It emerges in replies from several of them that they are gagged on the merger issue; one member commented "At present, members are not permitted to discuss the merger in public or let their views be known". There is not unanimous support on Council for the merger.
Nevertheless, senior partners of all major firms have written a collective letter in Accountancy Age promoting the merger. Presumably they all have partners on Council!
Another former Council member comments "When I was on Council, I too tended to feel that we were being fed a lot of spin that required us to trust the Chief Executive and the Officers although I understand at least one of them had been gagged and did not support the merger".
Another ICAEW Council Member resigned within the last year over "woolly financial planning and reporting".
Another Council member commented that the presentation at Council Conference in July of the merger figures was poor, and that another meeting was convened for September when it was then reported that due diligence was not quite complete! He felt reluctant to accept the mooted £4 million saving.
CIMA have no place for a merger in their future strategy (see their website).
The merger is unnecessary. ICAEW have already alienated Institutes in Australia, India, New Zealand and Scotland over the name issue. The Privy Council may not accept the Institute of Chartered Accountants as a future name. What then?
What are the costs to date of this activity - £1-£2 million? How many man hours have been devoted to this issue, which could have been better used elsewhere.
YOUR VOTE AGAINST COUNTS DOUBLE. ICAEW need a two-thirds majority. Read the interview in Accountancy Age with ICAEW executives (6th October, Page 20) carefully. Is it our professional institute or a Plc seeking growth for growth's sake?
PLEASE VOTE NO
If you don't, sadly we'll reach the stage, after 125 years, where the ICAEW logo and its universally acclaimed goodwill and reputation will be sacrificed simply to increase its size by a paltry 8%.
MEMBERS AGAINST CONSOLIDATION
(C. B. Lawson, F.C.A. and others 10 October 2005)
Does this not rather make a mockery of Accountancy's assertion (October issue page 30) that there is no organised opposition to the proposed ICAEW/CIPFA merger?
Your Vote Counts Double - Use It To Vote 'No'
Members Against Consolidation (MAC), a group of Welsh practising accountants supported by many others across the U.K., believe the proposed merger is flawed, face saving, expensive and will tarnish the Chartered status of members of ICAEW.
Consider The Following
ICAEW have a "planned deficit" for 2005 of £1.39 million. Why?
Subscriptions went up by 7.5% in 2005 and are set to rise 9% in 2006. Why? The final proposals speak of "net cost savings of not less than £4 million will be achieved by the end of the first two years".
"CIPFA represents 13,500 members working" Page 3, Message from Council. CIPFA has, in fact, 10,584 active members (Accountancy, October 2005). ICAEW webcast talks of 14,000. Why the spin?
Two straw polls in Wales and the Marches in February and August 2005 involved 700 practising accountants. 120 of those replied, of whom 90% were against the merger.
MAC wrote to all 2005 Council Members (95 of them) in September. It emerges in replies from several of them that they are gagged on the merger issue; one member commented "At present, members are not permitted to discuss the merger in public or let their views be known". There is not unanimous support on Council for the merger.
Nevertheless, senior partners of all major firms have written a collective letter in Accountancy Age promoting the merger. Presumably they all have partners on Council!
Another former Council member comments "When I was on Council, I too tended to feel that we were being fed a lot of spin that required us to trust the Chief Executive and the Officers although I understand at least one of them had been gagged and did not support the merger".
Another ICAEW Council Member resigned within the last year over "woolly financial planning and reporting".
Another Council member commented that the presentation at Council Conference in July of the merger figures was poor, and that another meeting was convened for September when it was then reported that due diligence was not quite complete! He felt reluctant to accept the mooted £4 million saving.
CIMA have no place for a merger in their future strategy (see their website).
The merger is unnecessary. ICAEW have already alienated Institutes in Australia, India, New Zealand and Scotland over the name issue. The Privy Council may not accept the Institute of Chartered Accountants as a future name. What then?
What are the costs to date of this activity - £1-£2 million? How many man hours have been devoted to this issue, which could have been better used elsewhere.
YOUR VOTE AGAINST COUNTS DOUBLE. ICAEW need a two-thirds majority. Read the interview in Accountancy Age with ICAEW executives (6th October, Page 20) carefully. Is it our professional institute or a Plc seeking growth for growth's sake?
PLEASE VOTE NO
If you don't, sadly we'll reach the stage, after 125 years, where the ICAEW logo and its universally acclaimed goodwill and reputation will be sacrificed simply to increase its size by a paltry 8%.
MEMBERS AGAINST CONSOLIDATION
(C. B. Lawson, F.C.A. and others 10 October 2005)
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Details Details Details
There is an interesting, yet maybe not obvious, difference in wording between the ICAEW merger proposal document sent to the members of the ICAEW, and the CIPFA merger proposals sent to the members of CIPFA.
The CIPFA document says (page 7):
"All members will use the title 'Chartered Accountant'".
The ICAEW document says (page 7):
"All qualified accountant members will be entitled to use the description chartered accountant".
The dual designatory letters, so emphatically emphasised by the ICAEW as being a guarantee of the ICAEW brand, will be debased and ignored if we are all called chartered accountants.
The question also arises, why is there a difference in wording between the two documents?
The CIPFA document says (page 7):
"All members will use the title 'Chartered Accountant'".
The ICAEW document says (page 7):
"All qualified accountant members will be entitled to use the description chartered accountant".
The dual designatory letters, so emphatically emphasised by the ICAEW as being a guarantee of the ICAEW brand, will be debased and ignored if we are all called chartered accountants.
The question also arises, why is there a difference in wording between the two documents?
Many Oppose The Merger
The Times notes today that the proposed merger between the ICAEW and CIPFA "faces opposition from many members of the ICAEW".
The article then goes on to add that "many believe the ICAEW will find it difficult to obtain the two thirds majority required".
Funny that Accountancy didn't note the large scale opposition, in their October edition?
The Times article even mentions the existence of website opposing the merger; again, funny that Accountancy didn't mention this?
The Times also has another article, which outlines the history of the previous failed attempts to merge.
In this article Damian Wild, editor of Accountancy Age, is reported to doubt that the ICAEW will succeed in its attempts to merge with CIPFA.
The article then goes on to add that "many believe the ICAEW will find it difficult to obtain the two thirds majority required".
Funny that Accountancy didn't note the large scale opposition, in their October edition?
The Times article even mentions the existence of website opposing the merger; again, funny that Accountancy didn't mention this?
The Times also has another article, which outlines the history of the previous failed attempts to merge.
In this article Damian Wild, editor of Accountancy Age, is reported to doubt that the ICAEW will succeed in its attempts to merge with CIPFA.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
First Minister of Scotland Backs ICAS in Name Dispute
The First minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell, has given his backing to ICAS's objections to the proposal by ICAEW and CIPFA to call the newly merged accounting body (if they win the merger vote) The Institute of Chartered Accountants.
McConnell is quoted in Accountancy Age as saying that the name would give a "false sense of representational status" to the merged body.
ICAS have confirmed that McConnell would complain to the Privy Council "if required".
ICAS state, in a press release, that:
"..ICAS has been deluged by a membership response from around the world entirely opposed to the name change and is heartened by the support of other Institutes..".
Des Hudson Chief Executive of ICAS said:
"The backing of the First Minister, Scotland's highest constitutional office holder, is terrific news for ICAS and an endorsement of the role of CAs in Scottish, UK and Global business. It is a very important step in ending this proposal.."
Needless to say ICAEW chief executive, Eric Anstee, is trying to push this under the carpet; by saying that "the name issue should not cloud voting".
The failure of the ICAEW to handle the name issue shows just how badly they have thought through the whole merger proposal.
The name issue is a clear example of the failure of leadership and planning shown by the Council, and the executive team, at the ICAEW.
I trust and assume that there will be resignations a plenty, once the members of the ICAEW have voted against the merger.
Vote for change, vote against the merger.
McConnell is quoted in Accountancy Age as saying that the name would give a "false sense of representational status" to the merged body.
ICAS have confirmed that McConnell would complain to the Privy Council "if required".
ICAS state, in a press release, that:
"..ICAS has been deluged by a membership response from around the world entirely opposed to the name change and is heartened by the support of other Institutes..".
Des Hudson Chief Executive of ICAS said:
"The backing of the First Minister, Scotland's highest constitutional office holder, is terrific news for ICAS and an endorsement of the role of CAs in Scottish, UK and Global business. It is a very important step in ending this proposal.."
Needless to say ICAEW chief executive, Eric Anstee, is trying to push this under the carpet; by saying that "the name issue should not cloud voting".
The failure of the ICAEW to handle the name issue shows just how badly they have thought through the whole merger proposal.
The name issue is a clear example of the failure of leadership and planning shown by the Council, and the executive team, at the ICAEW.
I trust and assume that there will be resignations a plenty, once the members of the ICAEW have voted against the merger.
Vote for change, vote against the merger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)