[Fulltext] At the Special General Meeting of the Institute held on 12th December 2001, a member expressed the view that Institute publications, statements, etc. tended to be self-congratulatory in nature and, with the exception of the suspension of the CPA merger proposals earlier in 2001, we never admitted that we ever got things wrong or made a bad judgement call. The point he was making was that if that was the case we would not need to be seeking a 20% increase in subscriptions for 2002.
Of course, we have made mistakes. Every organisation does, but they can usually only be seen with the benefit of hindsight. The one which is most commonly thrown at us is our handling of the Beef Tribunal Report in the mid-1990s. As Secretary to that Committee of Inquiry in that case, I am confident that as thorough an investigation as possible was carried out and the right conclusions were reached. However, in retrospect, it is clear that we should have handled it differently. We should have been more open and transparent about the process. We should have explained that the Revenue had told us they were not in a position to expand on the evidence given to the Tribunal, which was published in the Tribunal Report, even though that evidence was critical of Chartered Accountants. Above all, we should have published a fuller report on the outcome.
We have, though, learnt from our mistakes, and that is the important thing. The most obvious evidence of this was in the publication in December 2001 of the Percy Report. Elsewhere in this issue you can read about Professor Percy�¢??s findings in relation to the matters arising from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on certain Revenue Matters (the PAC Report on D.I.R.T.). This Report was published in full and is available to anyone in hard copy, or on the Institute�¢??s website. It sets out very clearly his terms of reference, how he went about his work, the reasons for his findings and his recommendations. It was an independent Inquiry carried out at arm�¢??s length from the Institute by an experienced and knowledgeable expert and, if Professor Percy had found that there were prima facie cases of misconduct to be answered, the Disciplinary hearings which would have followed would have been open to the public.
I do not accept the point that the Institute would not have to seek a 20% increase in subscriptions in 2002 if it had not made mistakes in the past. The reasons for the 20% increase have been well articulated in the letter from the President, dated 20th November 2001, and were outlined very clearly at the SGM by the Chairman of the Finances & Resources Committee, Martin Wilson. Essentially, it is that the environment in which we operate has changed fundamentally, and the financial model which we have used for many years �¢?? break-even budgeting and minimal reserves �¢?? is no longer tenable. The Public Concern Cases, which have depleted our financial reserves, and the new regulatory structures in the Republic of Ireland and the UK, are only the symptoms of a growing public demand for transparency and accountability which is frequently articulated by the media and by politicians. A greater degree of public reporting is expected in relation to public roles and, Chartered Accountants, no more than any other profession, cannot be isolated from this process if public confidence is to be retained.
So, we have made mistakes and, no doubt, we will continue to make mistakes. The important thing is to ensure that there are checks, balances and procedures within Institute structures to ensure that decisions are made only after full and informed debate and, if those decisions turn out to be wrong, honest re-appraisal can take place. I believe we have those structures at present.
Brian Walsh, FCA
Chief Executive
Accountancy Ireland, Vol. 34, No. 1 February 2002