Despite prolonged and concerted pressure from the institute aimed at the signatories to the petition and themselves, they have pursued their beliefs which, at the same time, has involved them in substantial personal cost.
Irrespective of whatever the Heady proposals are, I consider that the institute’s actions to prevent the meeting taking place have been heavy handed and unacceptable, particularly as the Heady supporters were merely pursuing their democratic rights in opposing the massive and costly changes currently being imposed without members’ consent.
We are advised that there is tremendous support for the changes, including the unanimous endorsement of all district society presidents, so it is difficult to understand why the institute has taken so militant approach against the call for an egm.
Surely a massive vote of support for the changes would do nothing but good for the standing of our institute, at the same time signifying to the outside world that we are a democratic body.
I wonder however whether their concern is due to a realisation that this is the fourth occasion when they have made, or are in the course of making, major decisions on behalf of members, all on matters seriously affecting their livelihood, particularly those from the smaller firms.
Messrs Heady and Kelleway and their supporters have been variously described as rebels, troublemakers and dissidents, but I and I am sure many of my colleagues will prefer to describe them as dedicated, ethical, committed and democratic, all qualities which I would have thought that every professional body would have been delighted to endorse.
- From John Cheetam FCA, Hull.