8th May 2000

In the Public Interest

The rapid growth in recent years of risk management as an area of professional practice has shown a corresponding growth in the memberships of relevant professional bodies. In the UK alone, there are at least 15 professional bodies that are exclusively or mainly concerned with risk management of various kinds. Their combined memberships are in excess of 50,000.

Public protection and good governance demand that all professional bodies in this area should always themselves demonstrate high standards of ethics and integrity. We believe that most do and that all are well intentioned. However, a number of potential ‘blind spots’ affecting good governance and reputation have been identified.

If you would like to participate in our research into the governance of such bodies, please let us have your observations, comments and experiences via e-mail to waringa@awa.demon.co.uk or fax to (+44) 208 367 1114 no later than 31 August 2000. Please indicate clearly which professional body you are discussing on and keep data on each body separate. Your identity will be held in strictest confidence. As a benefit, you will receive an advanced summary of the results free of charge and will be kept informed of related developments.

The following are not intended to limit the issues that will be addressed but may enable you to ‘audit’ your professional body (or bodies) on some of the potential blind spots:

Not being Economical with the Truth

Data about current membership must be open and truthful. For example, it would be improper to massage data to imply that the proportion of members who are university graduates is far greater than it is.

It would be dangerously improper to imply that the majority of members hold full professional qualifications if this is not so. Those with low grade qualifications may be deluded into believing that these are sufficient for full professional practice. Employers, clients and the public at large may also be misled or, worse, harmed.

Key questions:

Are all membership data and analyses comprehensive and fully disclosed to the membership and freely available for public inspection? If not, why not?

Is confidentiality ever used as a pretext to avoid disclosure of facts that should be fully available to members, if not the public?

Strict Control of Commercial and Other Vested Interests

There must always be concern about the extent to which individual members, whose external commercial or financial interests could benefit from decisions and activities, are allowed to hold positions of influence in professional bodies. Directors or employees of consulting firms, software houses and training companies are just some of those who are likely to face a potential conflict of interest. The executive administration of a professional body must never lose sight of the fact that it is the servant of all members and not just of particular interests.

Key questions:

Are members of committees and working parties required to formally declare all their commercial or financial interests? If not, why not?

Does the professional body keep a register of committee members’ declared interests that is freely available for public inspection? If not, why not?

Are members required to withdraw when a committee or working party discusses a subject in which those members have a commercial or financial interest? If not, why not?

How do the chief executive, secretariat, officers and other administrators ensure that they are not subject to undue influence from committee members who have external vested interests?

Open Governance and Administration

The senior officials and committee members of a truly professional body should have broad shoulders and not only accept constructive criticism but actually welcome it as a necessary part of good governance. When embarrassing facts regarding the body’s identity, membership structure, level of qualification or whatever are identified, especially those affecting the public interest, they should be admitted openly and dealt with appropriately. Denial or, worse, attempts to stifle public debate via blocking independent dissemination of cogent analyses and seeking to dictate the agenda, timing and content of debate would be totalitarian and is remote from the behaviour expected of a professional body.

Key questions:

How co-operative is the body’s administration towards independent discussion and analysis of its progress?

How positive or how defensive is the body’s administration when subject to constructive criticism?

Has the body ever sought to stop information about its membership and activities from entering the public domain?

For Further Information Please Telephone:
(+357) 24824913
(+357) 99327865
(+44) 208 351 7457

Facsimile:
(+357) 24824913
(+44) 208 351 6562

For Further Information eMail:
waringa@cytanet.com.cy
waringa@awa.demon.co.uk

Click Here for Books by AWA