Momentous times! The Chartered Institute's Agenda for change programme has led to proposals for reform of the Institute's governance and for replacement of its charter and bye-laws for the second time in five years. At the time of writing this editorial in mid-July, Headquarters had just sent round a glossy package describing the proposals and inviting our views. By the time you read this page, the 29 August deadline for responses will have passed, and final texts will be in preparation for submission to an Extraordinary General Meeting on 25 November. Hopefully you as individual members will already have sent back your questionnaires telling Headquarters of your views.
The Branch, however, will have had no such opportunity. The consultation timetable, contained as it is within the summer holiday period of mid-July and end-August, has excluded the normal dates for meetings of SE Branch and Branch Committee (and probably of other UK branches too). This is a pity, as discussions at Branch level would have provided a uniquely considered in-put to the consultation process.
As it is, we should still like to know if there is anything in the consultation papers that generates strong feelings among you, the Branch members. If a Branch view emerges, then your Committee will surely find the opportunity to bring it to the attention of Headquarters and Council before the papers for the EGM are finalised.
So what are your views?
·
Do you support the new structure of Board of Trustees, President, and General Management Committee?·
Granted that the Institute is now a worldwide, not just a UK, organisation, do you support the broader constitution of the new Board of Trustees?·
Do the documents give enough recognition to the Chartered Institute's position as an appointing body, with a responsibility to increase members' opportunities for appointment and to develop new schemes to that end?·
Granted that the present disciplinary procedure was proving far too rigid and expensive, do you support the new disciplinary process, with its greater provision for dealing with disciplinary cases informally? Does it give adequate weight to the transparency and public accountability required of a body with the privileges of chartered status and with aspirations to international leadership?·
Do our mediator members feel that the new texts do justice to their side of the profession?·
What do you feel the Chartered Institute should call itself? Is it sensible - or sensitive - to persevere with a name that still seems to equate dispute resolution with arbitration?If you have views on these - or any other - questions and can let the editor or any Committee member know by 16 September, we can bring these into our Committee discussion that day. Even better, come to our Branch meeting that evening and put your queries and opinions direct to the Institute's President, who will be there.
Roger Clarke