Posted By Ken Taylor I've just received a glossy brochure telling me that IOSH has received chartered status, that it will improve the standing of the Institution and that they are are not going to call it the Chartered Institution of OS&H but will continue with the logo 'IOSH'. Am I missing something here?

Posted By Tony Birchall Perhaps we will see a list of the member benefits soon!

Posted By JULIE SANDERS EXACTLY WHAT BENEFIT ARE WE, AS MEMBERS TO GAIN FROM THIS?

Posted By Tony Birchall I just hope it doesn't dishearten those people in the industry, at grass routes, who are trying to climb the ladder in the field of occupational safety,health and environmenatl management. For example, those of graduate calibre in Environmental Science for example who then have to undertake a Nebosh Part 1 (or equivalent) to even achieve TechSP because it isn't recognised. After all practitioners are told how health and safety is integrated with environmental management. Others, who achieve a Nebosh Certificate (and have not taken a University route)after much hard work for little recognition. I am not being cynical but it seems to be getting tougher with the Chartered status yet we can't use chartered designatory letters. There must be a reason.

Posted By Jack Mark I think you may be confusing 2 issues here. It is the Institution which is Chartered not individual members (although that may happen in future).

Posted By Ken Taylor So, we're not to be called Chartered Institution (despite being chartered) because the Council decided - but this could be changed if the Council decides! There must be a better explanation than this.

Posted By Ron Young In light of the rather sceptical/cynical postings on this subject, perhaps we could get a response from council as to their reasons why they didn't include "Chartered" in the overall re-branding exercise. On the face of it, it does seem to be a missed opportunity but there may be a logical reason behind their thinking.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Ashley If you read the response posted under the Website co-ordinator you will note that it was a deliberate Council decision. Note also it will change if and when Council decides to do so. The offering to members at an AGM or EGM will not I suspect be essential as I think the change in status away from a company limited by guarantee would result in automatic changes to the articles of association. The need for an AGM is actually Company Law. I would be pleased to hear from Paul F or other that IOSH will maintain the member vote at a General Meeting as a final decision,ie. retain the current articles and decision making processes intact. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Jim Criticising council has been a sport since IISO and IMSO joined over 20 years ago, as the French would say "That's Life". I know many of the members of Council and they are all decent and hard working for the future of the institution. I think there is always a tension however between the need for a democratic structure where individual members feel involved and party to decisions and the need to make decisions quickly. The Chartered issue is a reflection in many ways of this divide. We all know people who like you and I who would prefer the Chartered in the title. A decision on the path forward has to be made however and I think the information given to Council on this needs to be questioned. My instincts are always towards democracy and the individual, I can put up a very effective case for anarchy as the purest form of democracy but that is another story. Perhaps this is why I tend to prod Council to get a positive response that is pro-member control. I think this thread shows that there is still a level of asking "Who is in control?" Bob

Posted By Bryn Maidment If you search the archives you'll find a number of instances where the 'Chartered' issue was raised. The last thread I remember was when (i think)Ciaran McAleenan posted an extract from an article that raised valid concerns about Charterhood in the modern setting. I particularly asked the Council to explain the fundamental benefits of gaining such status. I was not satisfied with the vague "raising profile and standards" response. Many of you are expressing chagrin at losing the opportunity of displaying an extra meaningless letter in your qualification (for many reasons). Perhaps we should all be asking Council the same question "Why Chartered status at all?" I remain very sceptical of the reasons why , perhaps it's seen as the thing to do , blindlessly following other organisations down the "Royal association ,however tenuous, is good" route without stopping and thinking. Despite Chartered status IOSH remains the same (literally, where the title is concerned) as far as work and aims are concerned, so what are the benefits? I mean the organisational benefits and not the short sighted, selfish designatory letters benefits. I'd be willing to bet that the pro Chartered, tenuous Royal association is good lobby are keeping Princess Diana at the No 2 spot in the Beeb Great Briton vote. ;-)

Posted By Ron Young FAO Paul Faupel, You're message is clear and to all intents I agree with it. However, to further an issue; you said that a clear explanation of the route to charter was placed in SHP in July, I agree, it was very informative and SHP is the correct medium to use. You also mention that you addressed the issue of not using "chartered" in the IOSH name and individually, via the branch network medium. As one of those (many) members who, due to a variety of reasons, do not attend branch meetings, I am not au fait with your address. I would therefore ask, why wasn't your address also published in SHP (I can't recall seeing it), which would have had the effect of informing those who don't attend branch meetings of the reasoning behind the council decisions process. I would also ask if you would care to publish the basis address in a forthcoming edition of SHP. I believe, perhaps wrongly, that this course of action would answer some of the questions asked on this thread. Ron

Posted By Bryn Maidment Hmmm! Paul I feel I have to respond. Like Geoff I don't really care about Chartered status. Whilst I applaud IOSH staff for their efforts in achieving it I cannot help but wonder why so much resources (time, effort & money) have been used to to gain this anachronistic embellishment. Your responses in July and today, and the SHP article, still didn't answer my questions I'm afraid. I'm not alone. I am rather saddened by the disdain with which you hold the "poor quality" discussion on this issue. The strength of IOSH has always been it's members and if some have opposing views to yours, or views that appear uncomfortable, that doesn't make their contributions "poor". Regarding joining the structure of IOSH, I have more pressing needs such as a family, a job and work to hold down. I'm happy to leave such efforts to people like you but that doesn't mean I forfeit my right to chip in now and again. Anyway, thanks for your response. Regards

Posted By Tony Birchall David, Only if it a relevant degree. I don't think IOSH should take any Tom, Dick or Harry just because of degree status. My point is that certain qualifications (Environmental Science related) should be considered as the qualification covers integrated issues of Health, Safety and Environmental Management. Clearly also, the individual needs to demonstrate workplace experience in this sector to support such an application. I know many people, without such a degree, in this sector who are embassadors to both IOSH and the discipline of SHE Management!! They're knowledge and method of delivery in getting things done is second to none!!

Posted By Ken Taylor Those who have read my original contribution will have seen that it related only to the non-use of the term Chartered in the Institution's title and not to the designation of individual members. As one who supported the application for chartered status I was surprised to hear that the Institution would not be calling itself chartered - and, as yet, have not heard or read the reason for this. Confident that I am not the only member to have missed the President's explanation (and not having detected it in his response above), I should be grateful if he would put me and the many others out of our bewilderment.

Posted By Geoff Burt Ian I, for one, appreciate your reasoned response to this discussion - thank you. Am I being naive in expecting the same from the 'elected' President rather than a patronising put down? Geoff

Posted By Hazel Harvey Bob, At the AGM on the 3rd December 1996 the AGM of IOSH overwhelmingly endorsed a Special Resolution calling on the Council to take all necessary steps to petition for the Institution to become incorporated by Royal Charter. You can verify this in your 1997 Annual Report.

Posted By Ken Taylor Thankyou Ian and Stuart. Helpful responses are appreciated. We, at least, now know that there was a number of reasons for the decision and that one of these was a desire to retain the acronym IOSH. In oder to make known our chartered status, I would have hoped that a 'footnote' or similar could have been added to this and to the use of the full name of the body when used on letter heads, official publications and the like stating that we are a chartered institution - at least until the members can have an opportunity to assert that having attained the status we wish to be known as such in title. How about a questionnaire on the website asking 'Now that we are a chartered institution, do you wish us to be called Chartered Institution of Occupational Safety and Health?'?

Posted By Philip McAleenan The president is very sad to see this level of debate on the pending award of Chartered Status. Generally this type of statement is used to state that the level of debate is not of a high enough standard for the forum or the subject matter. And this is what Paul means as within his response he refers to the "poor quality debate" and though others have taken justified umbrage at this slight to the contributors to this forum, he fails to explains what standards are expected and where the debate falls short of them. Though, on the basis of his statement in SHP that the "new-found status is not... be dismissed by those whose personal views may not accord with matters monarchical", his sadness may be due to the fact that there is a debate at all. But a debate there is and Paul not only is a contributor to it, but as president his contributions, more than those of the rest of us, must be taken as official pronouncements of IOSH and given greater weight in our considerations and responses. Paul states, "We will not gain the respect of other professions which already have achieved chartered status if we continue to engage in such poor quality debate". The "poor quality debate" issue aside, there is a second point in this statement that is of note, namely that the inference is that IOSH currently does not have the respect of other chartered professions. If this is indeed the case, then there is much to concern us here but first what we need to see is the evidence of the lack of respect. Paul, you have said it in your official capacity, so now produce the facts that support this contention. However, if the statement is untrue, and I suspect that if other chartered professions did not respect IOSH, then the Privy Council would not be awarding a similar status to us, then what is the statement but mere rhetoric, chagrin at the fact there are those who question what IOSH is doing. And if that is the case, what now about the poor quality of debate? Paul continues from this sentence with accusations that there are contributors who have made extremely insulting statements about the nature of the charter and the work of members who contributed to its achievement. But what was insulting, and who was insulted, (as a point of fact an inanimate object such as the charter is incapable of taking insult, having neither mental nor emotional capacities). Again we have no facts to back up this statement, just pronouncement, and that is far from sufficient. Is it that opposing or critical views are what insults? Surely not? There was no name-calling and all statements were opinion, something contributors are fully entitled to hold. If people take insult from those who express a different view, then the insulted one is demonstrating a lack of openness to fair and honest debate. And what of this community of chartered bodies who have been insulted, do we have evidence from these august bodies, e.g. letters of protest, phone calls, or is this but Paul's "opinion" based on what he thinks they should be feeling as a result of this debate? Don't be insulted by statements that you disagree with, put a rational counter argument. Paul then goes on to talk about the insult members of other chartered bodies' feel because "Those persons acknowledge that the charter confers on their profession a status that defines its achievement in society". Is this necessarily true? Do ALL members of chartered bodies feel that chartership confers status that defines their achievement in society? Is it not possible for people to be in chartered bodies for reasons other than it being chartered? And as we have seen in this thread, not all members of chartered bodies will agree with being chartered, but will nonetheless feel that the achievements of their organisation are worthy of status. Again, let us have the empirical proof that supports such sweeping statements, or be clear that it is but an opinion rather than a statement of fact. Keep the level of debate high, with sound argument. What of this statement, "We will also be treated differently than before in relation to our dealings with other stakeholders and those we seek to influence. We are now recognised in a way that we were not before"? How will we be treated differently? Will we be treated better, and I assume that this is indeed what is meant? If we are less well treated at the present, what are we less well treated than? Where is the baseline against which Paul makes this statement? If we are not being treated as well as we should be now, what is the reason for it? If the charter (and not the quality of what we do) is the only thing that makes the difference is this not a rather superficial position for those who treat us poorly to take, and for us a superficial response to take? Paul this is no argument for chartered status; this is what Roy Hattersley (Privy Council Member) calls being "part of the deferential society"..."the belief that association with the sovereign reinforces authority". And if he states that, how then can the opinions of previous contributors who stated similar views, be insulting? What may be insulting is that IOSH can make no better case than this. Let us go on to a few other statements in which the inferences are that IOSH is much less of an organisation than we have been led to believe, and the members less worthy. "If we seek to be chartered as individual practitioners, then we must demonstrate that we merit such a status". Do we not merit that Paul? What is it that we must demonstrate? Does the Privy Council have higher OSH standards for individual qualifications and practice than IOSH has, or the universities and companies who qualify and employ us? Are we as individuals operating below acceptable standards? If IOSH, after five decades, has not brought the profession to an acceptable standard, surely it is time to disband rather than to seek elevation to a "higher" position in society. Likewise, when you state that "In pursuit of that objective, we must first have a unified and coherent membership structure", do you infer that IOSH does not have such a structure? If so that one would be hard to swallow. There is and has been a clear membership structure for some time, and though there are those who would argue and criticise the route to varying levels of membership, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. If it wasn't, do you really think that the Privy Council would be awarding the charter now? And why is it necessary to link it to the new ENTO core competences alone. IOSH claims to be an international organisation and the leading safety professional body in Europe, surely there are other standards for safety practice besides ENTO? "We must also have a robust system for assuring and maintaining that competence". Give us the evidence that IOSH does not have such a system in place now. If the institute cannot assure and maintain the competence of its members, why are there so many corporate members, in fact why are there any at all? The competence required for gaining, never mind retaining, corporate membership couldn't be assured if your statement is correct. But if it is incorrect, withdraw it. And what does Paul say about democracy within the organisation. "If you join a club, you agree to abide by its rules. If you want to change the rules, it's always best to get yourself onto the management committee. That's how I came to be President!" Notwithstanding the tone used in this statement, the implication is that in an organisation such as IOSH with 26,000+ members, rule changing is by the small minority who are on the management committee. Up to this point, i.e. In advance of IOSH officially becoming a chartered body, the constitution makes provision for rule changing by all those who have corporate membership (the other 50% + are disenfranchised). It does not say that rule changing is the responsibility of the management of IOSH. For the President to state that being on the management committee is the best way to change rules is for that committee to act unconstitutionally and against the interests of the membership. But it should also be noted that should the chartered status be finally conferred next year, even the management committee would have no right to change the rules (Colin Gore please note). This prerogative will belong to the Privy Council, "(d) incorporation by Charter is a form of Government regulation as future amendments to the Charter and By-laws of the body require Privy Council (i.e. Government) approval." (http://www.privy-council.org.uk/secretariat/1999/chart-bodies.htm) And there is a point in this element of chartered status that has not been made clear, namely that the Privy Council requires that there "needs to be a convincing case that it would be in the public interest to regulate the body in this way". Let me ask at this point, Paul, for that case to be published now. I trust that this contribution has in someway elevated the level of debate to something approximating an acceptable standard, and that as it is a debate, we will see persuasive arguments for and against the case for chartered status. After all it is only written on a bit of paper, not carved in stone. Fraternally, Philip

Posted By Laurie Thank you Philip Laurie

Posted By Geoff Burt I don't think I have ever seen a case better put. However, unless I'm very much mistaken, there will not be a response from Paul. I could go into the reasons why he won't respond but I think we all know them now. Well done Philip. Geoff