3rd January 2006, 06:52 PM
I'm not sure I entirely follow the reasoning that a small staff means limited power. They already seem to have done the hard work in being recognized by most bodies including the government as the closest the profession has to a professional institute. What exactly will increased membership/increased subs achieve? A few more staff?
Would doubling the number of members, allowing the hiring of presumably 9 more staff, to a total of 18, make a difference to what it achieves? I'm asking in all honesty here.
The other argument for increasing member numbers, that only members can be disciplined when failing to meet IFA guidelines, is a bit of a red herring. I am not a member but I can be compelled to meet IFA guidelines if consultants and/or curators put it in their paperwork. Easily achieved I would have thought, and a solution I am quite happy with. They don't need my membership to make me meet their standards.
I can't help but think that the IFA might have fallen into the trap that also afflicts most charities eventually. Growth and solvency become more important than the original goal of the organization.
Would doubling the number of members, allowing the hiring of presumably 9 more staff, to a total of 18, make a difference to what it achieves? I'm asking in all honesty here.
The other argument for increasing member numbers, that only members can be disciplined when failing to meet IFA guidelines, is a bit of a red herring. I am not a member but I can be compelled to meet IFA guidelines if consultants and/or curators put it in their paperwork. Easily achieved I would have thought, and a solution I am quite happy with. They don't need my membership to make me meet their standards.
I can't help but think that the IFA might have fallen into the trap that also afflicts most charities eventually. Growth and solvency become more important than the original goal of the organization.