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