No matter how it’s explained, or what context is employed, the membership of the ICAEW will look upon the resignation of Eric Anstee and think of only two things – the failed attempt to merge with CIMA and CIPFA, and the furore surrounding Graham Durgan, the man supposed to become president but forced to stand down after it emerged that his own company had won an institute contract.

Looking back at the last three years it will be hard to see past those things. The merger looms large over Anstee’s time in office – for all the wrong reasons – after all, he failed to win enough support and was forced to shelve it. Worse, the epidosde left a bitter feeling among a large proportion of the members who believed they had been alienated by an executive that no longer had their interests at heart.

But just as the dust looked as if it might settle, Anstee revealed this year that he was prepared to take the institute through it all again, and merger would be back on the agenda by 2007. The reaction was swift and the letters page of Accountancy Age soon echoed to demands for Anstee’s resignation and, at one stage, the resignation of the whole executive committee.

The Durgan incident has hurt the institute, and though it did not perhaps involve Anstee directly, it will be said that it happened on his watch and questions will be asked of how a thorough chief executive could let such a thing happen. Damage by association can sometimes have a sting all of its very own.

Anstee also found himself in conflict with other institutes. Most recently with CIMA, which asked the Financial Reporting Council to look into ICAEW efforts to poach the members of other professional bodies. The Scots institute also felt the need to complain after it was mooted that a newly merged institute would call itself the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

The fact is that Anstee has had a torrid time. His term of office has been marked by public wrangling, near visceral criticism of his tenure and a tendency to roll from one conflict to the next. Large chunks of the institute’s membership will not be sorry to see him go; there may even be more senior members of the profession happy to see the end of an era in which the ICAEW has appeared to be much more divided than at any time before.

In reality, Anstee’s arrival and departure marks a battle for the institute’s future. Would it come of age, recognise the need to expand into the global economy, and forge relationships that would expand the membership and international reputation of the institute? Or, would it remain UK-centric, a somewhat inward-looking organisation focused rather narrowly on remaining an elite British club?

It was clear what Anstee wanted to do. His problem was convincing a certain part of the membership. If he failed at anything he failed at that - to persuade them he could expand internationally and still service the needs of the institute member in the smaller practice. In short, they had little faith in the institute’s ability to serve their needs and Anstee's understanding of what their needs were.

Anstee himself admitted his persuasion failure this year, a statement which at the time gave no hint that his time at the ICAEW was coming to an end. He talked confidently about approaching the members again to convince them that merger was a necessity and that it risked nothing.

Accountancy Age backed the merger plan, essentially because it began the process of rationalising the profession and reducing its fragmentation. It made good sense. Anstee could see that and falling student numbers made it an imperative. Without a healthy number of new members each year to offset losses, the institute would condemn itself to a slow but almost certain decline. Its influence would be undermined, its prestige diminished and its ability to attract students damaged still further. It would be in a very sorry state of affairs.

Perhaps it was Anstee’s declared intention to push ahead with another merger proposal that makes today’s statement so surprising. Anstee earlier this year was clearly looking forward, and was still planning for a time when that central issue had been settled once and for all. His intentions then, and his decision now, seem to sit oddly together.

That said, this remains the end of the road for the institute’s first 'chief executive'. Let’s not forget that previous leaders were ‘secretary generals’ and largely hobbled from taking the kind of initiatives Anstee was hired to instigate.

This may be a moment for the institute to consider whether it should continue with a CEO. It would not be wise. Leaders need to have the right powers and without the authority of a chief executive’s powers the leader of the institute would be nullified.

So that means finding a new CEO, a task that looks like a tall order at the moment. Candidates are likely to be wary of the current divided nature of the membership and where the institute appears to be going.

The first task would be a review of the institute’s strategy. A serious candidate would want to play a part in developing that rather just adopting an off-the peg list of objectives of his predecessor.

The second job will be to find some way of reassuring all the dissident members that their interests have not been forgotten. This may prove the hardest thing of all given their current entrenched position. A new CEO could find himself with a very severe test of his skills indeed.