It is now two years ago since our (then) new Director General produced
his ―Strategic Review into the Purpose and Future Direction of the Chartered
―Institute of Arbitrators.
The strategic review put forward (as strategic reviews should) a
comprehensive range of proposals. What has happened to these proposals two
years on? What is our members’
perception of progress – are they broadly satisfied? or not?
The strategic review’s main proposals were to –
l set a target of 10% membership growth per
annum;
l carry forward a public relations strategy,
in order to raise awareness of the Institute and support other strategic aims;
l improve arrangements for pupillage;
l review education and training,
- to
make it easier for current and aspiring members to achieve their personal
goals, and
- to
accommodate other modes of dispute resolution besides arbitration;
l investigate members’ concern over
constricted panel membership and the limitation
of appointments to too small a circle;
l continue the mentoring scheme so as to help
newly qualified arbitrators build up awards;
l develop more arbitration and alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) schemes administered by the Institute;
l provide funding for tutors;
l improve the database on members;
l make good use of the new headquarters
building to further the Institute’s business, develop the resource centre, and
provide hearing rooms and other facilities for members;
l develop an interactive Institute website;
l encourage young arbitrators
l review continuous professional development
(CPD) and improve its monitoring;
l make disciplinary procedures more
transparent;
l encourage the systematic delegation of
tasks to Branches, within the framework of Branch business plans;
l increase the involvement of the Institute
in policy making in the UK and internationally;
l
develop a research capability.
This was an ambitious plan. Members may have had doubts about some items; for instance, many
considered the target of a 10% annual increase of membership laudable, but
unrealistic. But broadly the plan was welcomed as identifying what the
Institute needed to do to maintain and enhance its effectiveness and
reputation.
Well, what has happened over two years? Certainly much has been achieved: awareness
of the Institute has been raised; ADR is increasingly being integrated into the
Institute’s activities; new arbitration and ADR schemes have been inaugurated;
a fine new headquarters building has come into use; much has been done to
increase the Institute’s influence overseas. In other areas perhaps progress
has been less conspicuous. The editors
propose to invite Headquarters to give us their view on progress with the plan;
and, all being well, we shall publish what they tell us in the next issue.
But what do SE Branch members think? Are you satisfied with progress on
those items that concern you most? Do you believe that the Institute is
on course and making good speed? or sailing in the wrong direction? or
becalmed? or (surely not!) sinking? Whatever you believe, please let me or
Peter Horne know. The SE Branch is one of the most numerous, and should be one
of the most influential. The health and
vigour of the Institute depends on your willingness to make your views known;
and if you do we shall publish a digest of them (without names!) in the next
issue. If you don’t, perhaps we should inspect the lifeboats!
Roger Clarke