HOME NEWS & VIEWS MEETINGS COMMITTEE LAW REPORTS CONTACT LONDON INSTITUTE
Articles
Report on CIArb's first Congress
1st March
2005
The Institute's first Congress took place in Cyprus on 1st March 2005. Coincidentally, but fittingly, this was also the ninetieth anniversary of the Institute's founding in 1915. Congress is part of the Institute's Agenda for Change', now finally approved by the Privy Council after much negotiation and last-minute objections. There was further delay in bringing it into force, but at last the new Charter was formally signed into existence by HM The Queen the day before Congress started.
Congress is a meeting of Branch representatives held every two years. It is an opportunity for branches to raise topics and to give their views to the Board of Trustees (the Institute's governing body) and to the Secretariat. It does not take decisions, but nevertheless it is a milestone in the development of the Institute and, potentially, a huge change in its governance. Never before have so many branch representatives met to discuss Institute business. We arrived from all over the world, from Australia to Scotland and from America to East Asia (Hong Kong).
The day was divided into three sessions. It started with a discussion of the Institute's future pattern of training and accreditation. James Mumford, member of the South East Branch and Chair of the Institute's Professional Committee, and Veena Kanda, the Institute's Education Officer, put forward proposals for 'Competence-Led Programmes'. The aim was to promote a high standard of Institute training and qualifications, maintaining the 'gold standard' of Chartered Arbitrator and eventually introducing Chartered Adjudicator and Chartered Mediator. The proposal also included a lesser 'accredited' status for the three disciplines (already used for mediators). The proposals were generally supported but with reservations, mainly as to whether the case had been made for Accredited Arbitrator status to be available as well as Chartered Arbitrator. (For the moment, only 'accredited', which does not require Privy Council approval, will be available for mediators and adjudicators.)
The second session covered two topics: a proposal from West Midlands Branch for election at future Congresses of all chairs of Institute committees, and a call by East Midlands for the Institute to play a far greater role as an appointing body. On the first topic, there was recognition that the process of electing the Trustees and the President had produced many new candidates. There was interest in extending this process, but concern that it was too early to do so for Institute committees, particularly as their number and remits had not yet been decided. On the second topic, the Institute's role in appointments was discussed. There was recognition that no promises were made to new members, but at the same time understanding of the frustration felt when success in becoming a Chartered Arbitrator did not lead on to work in dispute resolution. There was concern that increasing the appointing role could be counter-productive, as this would lead to more competition with other (particularly international) appointing bodies with whom the Institute currently co-operated, especially on training. As your representative, I broadly supported the proposal, citing the Branch's desire to identify unmet demand for dispute resolution and to create new schemes within its area.
The final session was also devoted to two topics: the European Branch's proposal for affiliate status, and a wider discussion on sustaining membership growth. The European Branch proposed affiliate status (which was found to exist already) to facilitate recruitment from countries where potential members could not afford the full cost of membership. Most participants were comfortable with affiliating other societies and professional organisations. They were less comfortable with extending it to individuals, as this might just reduce the numbers joining as associates. On the topic of sustaining membership growth, I put forward the South East Branch proposals for developing links with other dispute-resolution organisations and for rejuvenating meetings and other activities.
Congress does not make decisions, but votes and notes were taken for the Trustees to consider. The Trustees had themselves held their first meeting the day before and a number stayed on for Congress and contributed in their personal capacity. It was noticeable that there were new faces joining the Board of Trustees, and representatives from many branches that had not before taken such a full part in the overall governance of the Institute. Brian Egglestone as President took pride in handing over, at the end of a long process of changes, to the new guard.
Our last task was to elect Presidents for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Manifestos had been circulated to the branches, and there had been some limited campaigning (too little for some representatives, who would have liked candidates to be present for questioning). There were twelve candidates, of whom six went through to the second round of voting. Eugen Salpius (European Branch) was elected for 2005, Colin Wall (East Asia) for 2006, and Hew Dundas (London) for 2007.
At the end of it all, what can the branches expect to have gained from sending representatives to Congress? First, as chairman, I learnt much from meeting other branch chairs. Each branch is doing much the same, promoting activities for its members, trying to attract new members, and promoting private dispute resolution and the interests of the Institute. Each branch does it slightly differently, and I learnt quite a few lessons. Most striking was that the similarities between branches in different parts of the world far outweighed the differences. Many branches are much smaller than South East Branch and face more difficulties. If they can prosper, so can we, and we should view the prospects of developing the branch and increasing membership with confidence. Second, my reaction was that the time is ripe for new initiatives to promote and develop branches within the UK, something that would be of benefit to all. I hope that the Trustees will share this view, and that individual UK trustees will respond to calls from the branches for more involvement.
Report by: Robin Orme, Branch Chairman