With declining member numbers, and an exam and learning proposition that is dated and in my opinion not fit for purpose, in addition to a lack of investment in exam delivery methods, leaving them unable to innovate and provide a continued and consistent service during the pandemic, has seen falls in membership and exam revenue.
This coupled with a supposed massive overspend on failed transformation and IT projects has, in my opinion, had a detrimental impact on the finances of the CII, which could not even be resolved with the £21mn sale of Aldermanbury, our heritage building, as again can be seen in the published accounts.
However, rather than being transparent about the causes for the financial situation, they have sought to lay the blame on the PFS through the allegation that the PFS has underpaid their share of group costs.
This is a myth that was clearly dispelled when in 2022 the then PFS Board appointed a well respected accountancy firm to undertake a thorough and independent review of the recharge and services provided.
'Not about money'
Despite what I believe to be the very worrying state of the CII finances, they have professed that the action they have taken is ‘not about money’.
However, it is crucial for members to be aware that based on legal advice received, claiming that there have been “governance failings”, is the only way in which the CII could justify to members the addition of further Institute Directors to the PFS Board to create a majority.
My fellow member directors and I completely and strongly refute all allegations made by the CII in respect of governance failings and despite numerous requests to provide evidence of these governance failings, to date, none has been forthcoming.
Why is this?
I believe it is because there is none, and these allegations are in my opinion blatantly the only avenue remaining for the CII to access the funds I believe they need to prevent the organisation completely failing.
In addition to which, it is important that all members are aware that all governance services for the PFS are provided by the CII for which the PFS pays an annual fee through the recharge.
I believe it is very coincidental that the so called governance failings at the PFS have only been identified at the point that the CII are, in my view, desperate for money.
As a member of the PFS and the PFS Board, I cannot support the actions taken by the CII and by implying they are forming the majority without consultation, they have treated members with utter contempt.
