| Quite uncharacteristically for UK aecaurits one might think, the merger proposals represent a bit of a gamble, with quite high stakes. Very high stakes, it might be better to say. The demolition of our two historic professional bodies, well-known and respected thoughout the world, is of the utmost importance; and where is the risk analysis, of which we hear so much trumpeting these days? And why are Councils promoting their proposals on such a precipitate timetable and through a marketing organisation? Do they know somethimg we do not? There can obviously be no possibility of the Institute foundering through falling membership, and if such a possibility looms for the Faculty, where is the evidence for it? That would constitute the only valid reason for a merger. Instead we are offered by way of the main rationale only marketing-babble such as vibrancy', speaking with one voice'and world-class service organisation'. This will not do; we need more time and a proper objective study of all the pros and cons, no marketing, as befits a science-based profession before we do anything. At all costs we must not rush like lemmings over the Councils' merger cliff.Quite a number of us are members of both Faculty and Institute, and if it can be demonstrated that there is a real need for, and benefits from, a merger I for one would much rather grade-up to FIA than see the Institute demolished too just in order to accommodate me and other FFAs. FCAP? No, thank you.
|
