Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Merger most foul

by
9th Jul 2007
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The recently bungled announcement by ICAEW and CIPFA of their so-called “strategic partnership” raises a number of issues.

1. As noted, the announcement was bungled. In theory, it was due to be released on Thursday 5th July. However, as the ICAEW has more leaks than the Titanic it was liberally leaked to various interested parties the day before. Still, on the 6th of July neither the ICAEW or CIPFA website had posted the announcement, despite the fact I’d e-mailed them at 9:00am asking them where it was. Does this striking you as being an example of competence? It certainly doesn’t me. The leak also shows that not everyone in the ICAEW bunker is as enamoured of the idea as the leadership would have membership believe.
2. Izza and his acolytes would have us believe that this is in no way a merger by the back door. They argue that it’s merely two professional bodies co-operating together as professional bodies should. Nonsense. It is most clearly an ill-disguised attempt to circumvent the membership votes in 2005 against the merger. Additionally I would note that CCAB is the forum for the ICAEW and other professional bodies to co-operate. Yet for reasons that are unclear, CCAB remains unloved and ignored by the ICAEW.
3. CIPFA, rather interestingly, have put a different spin on the strategic partnership compared to the ICAEW. They almost state that it is a route to merger. My compliments to CIPFA for having the cojones [Ken Frost is currently holidaying in Barcelona – Rob] to be more honest than the ICAEW have been.
4. The “strategic partnership”, or back door merger, flies in the face of the current ICAEW media campaign that states that the ICAEW qualification is the qualification of choice.
5. The back door merger contradicts the recent announcements by Izza that the merger was dead and buried.
6. The ICAEW, instead of wasting time and resources pursuing its rejected merger should be focussing on bringing ethics to the forefront of the qualification, reducing the size of council to no more than 12, addressing the pensions black-hole, and abolishing the antiquated Victorian trading association rules with respect to nominations and elections, which ensure council is nothing more than a private club for the boys.

Can we ever trust Izza or the ICAEW bunker again? No we can’t. This is an attempt to merge by the back door and should be killed off without delay.

Ken Frost

Tags:

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By AnonymousUser
29th Aug 2007 05:40

Those who voted, those who did'nt and those hesitant ones

I wish to input as follows concerning the vote for merger :

* those who voted, didn't vote and hesitant ones

- what are their age group? 50 + above?, or young energetic onces like 40 - below?

- Why I asked? I was informed of an overseas UK body that their alumni council members trying "so hard" to seek that oversea country recognition are from the age group of 45 + above and doing very well, eg holding senior positions. What happened was, they "committed" a lot of promises after promises to do this and that for recognition, and up til today, there is no recognition yet.

ICAEW is still a prestigious qualifications to me, though CPA is ranking first placing world-wide. If those voted are just old "guns", that confirms what we analysed of of that oversea country described above.

The young ones, or younger ones, are eager to preserve their prestigious ACA titles. Very patriotic indeed.

Older and old ones could care less, and forget about it all together. They are retiring soon, or could be holding senior positions and just hope the next generations can take over with care and full support to maintain or sustain their prestigious leadership qualification.


Thanks (0)
avatar
By martinfoley07
28th Aug 2007 20:36

ken, whilst......
....some of your comments are insightful and valid, it would help your cause to use less spin.

"..................the membership votes in 2005 against the merger"

is a classic of the genre.

Those ICAEW members who bothered to vote were somewhere in the region of 2 to 1 in favour of the merger.

We will not know, by definition, what those who did not bother to vote would have wished - despite valiant attempts by both sides to claim they mysteriously do know.

You accuse the establishment of spinning - please do not reciprocate.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
03rd Sep 2007 10:32

Alan Mok said .....
Alan Mok, on the other thread, admitted that ACCA's removal of CPA Ireland from its MRA list is a mistake.

Very very good then.

Let this mistake have ICAEW Izza's eyes on by recognising CPA Ireland members into direct entry to ACA without conditions since CPA Ireland is so high standards.

Izza, there are at least 3,000 qualified members in the CPA Irish body. Taking the 80:20 rule, I believe in the 'big' 80% would go for ACA membership.

ICAEW can go about absorbing more than 80% of CPA Ireland members if it wishes to.

This would only prove ACA being very great and still maintaining its pioneering status over the ACCA.

Good Luck ICAEW.

Thanks (0)