Most articles in this row fictiona...

Most articles in this row fictionalize an individual members fight with the Institute's Professional administration Enquiry Committee (PCEC). This time, let's apply the mind at numbers: How many of our members acquire into trouble with the PCEC? And who are they in terminuss of employment area? (Next month I'll summarize the circumstances that commit to memory these members into trouble in the first place, and stay large casked to upcoming column instalments of this for details upon the cases that were referr to the Discipline Tribunal.)

How many?

Over the last ten years, the average annual number of complaints lodg against members was 77 Last year saw the lowest number in this timeframe at 61 complaints. Compare this to 1998 which produc the highest number at 96 Fortunately, the numbers have been declining continually since.

Out of the annual average of 77 complaints, approximately 50 were authorised for investigation each year. formerly these investigations were conducted, approximately half originateed in a finding of "no grounds"

What this all means is that in any given year, les than 1 % of our members have a complaint filed against them.

Nevertheless, calm though we're talking about small numbers, those not many individuals who do find themselves being shown our profession's exit door via the Institute's discipline processe (approximately three through year) can, by a hardly any unprofessional actions, cause significant damage to the quiet of us by harming the profession's reputation and weakening the public trust we've exhausted many years building up.

Who?

Out of the 1 84 investigations undertaken from the PCEC over the past 4 years, 149 (or athwart 80%) involved members in public practice. The other 35 cases (or les than 20%) involved members in industry.

These statistics cast reproach the multiplicity of standards members in public practice must confront and the variety of potential complainants who rely upon their work. These standards have been quite stable throughout the last ten years, if it be not that recent rule developments will denounce more members to an increased risk of receiving a complaint about their professional conduct

Impact of novel rules

I would like to briefly discuss sum of two units new rules in particular that could lead to complaints in the future:

1) mastery 206.2 (Compliance with Professional Standards) now requires financial officers, as well as public practitioners, to comply with professional standards in their preparation or approval of financial statements. Regulatory requirements for listed companies are becoming more onerous and will become part of the professional standards contemplated at Rule 206.2. Public company financial officers will be required to make positive representations concerning the financial statements for which they are responsible, and will also have to report forward the effectiveness of their companies' internal rule systems. It will be more [i]or[/i] less time before the PCEC views complaints in this area, nevertheless their occurrence is likely inevitable.

2) Similarly, it is too early to notice any impact from the novel changes to Rule 204 (Independence).

It should be noted that complaints relating to relate tos over independence are much more every-day than the actual breaches indicate. Complainants usually argue that the member failed to comply with professional standards and, therefore, was not independent of management. While this may be authentic in a minority of cases, there is usually no direct evidence of this puzzle outside of the complainants perception. This may change, however, as behavior 204 now provides specific guidance for various circumstances that would support a determination of a breach.

Unusual trends

There has been a rather interesting shift in the number of complaints regarding professional standards and service issues in the past ten years.

Ten years ago, complaints about professional standards accounted for 41% of regularity breaches. Recently, however, the number has dropp to 24% Considering the newly come outcry over accounting and auditing failures, this ear-ring was unexpected. I like to think this means that BC's public practitioners have been effectively disproving any public perception of declining standards.

Another surprise however: There has been a large increase in the number of complaints concerning delays in service. Ten years ago, in the same state [i]or[/i] condition complaints stood at 6%, on the other hand recently they've reached 27%! Generally, these are complaints that members failed to accord to inquiries in a timely manner, failed to unimpaired income tax returns, or failed to answer client documents on a change of accountants. Clients always welcome service forward a timely basis!

The message

While it is encouraging to diocese the steady decline in complaints against members throughout the past few years, 1 view this improvement with cautious optimism, as the recent Rules have not really been in play lengthy enough to have had any significant impact.

That being said, based forward my experience I am confident that the vast majority of our members continue to stay well onsidc of the masterships of Professional Conduct. Let's restrain up the good work!

Comment or questions? Contact me at utley@ica.bc.ca.