An Engine for Change - A Chronicle of the Engineering Council

1991-1995: THE FAIRCLOUGH YEARS 105As another consequence of the Fairclough Initiative, Engineering First, a new newspaper forRegistrants, together with a new corporate identity and logo, was prepared in 1995 ready forlaunch in January 1996.PeopleDenis Filer’s Contribution to the EngCFrom his arrival in 1988 to mid 1995, Denis Filer had built upon existing activities and addedothers, particularly acting as a bridge between the EngC and the Institutions during thecomplex negotiations surrounding the Fairclough Initiative. He considerately postponed hisretirement to provide continuity while the arrangements for the “new” EngC were being putinto place. According to his successor, Mike Heath, this involved “changing the aircraft’sengine while it was still in flight” but as he stated in the 1995 Annual Report, “that issomething that engineers are uniquely equipped to do”. Equally importantly, as we haveshown in this chapter, Denis Filer had encouraged the advancement of many other EngCactivities whilst the higher-profile Fairclough Initiative was dominating this period. He alsoinitiated the exploratory work in late 1994 for the EngC to become recognized as an “Investorin People” - which was finally achieved in 1998 as we shall see in the next chapter.Denis Filer had a strong track record in his involvement with the profession. When hebecame Director General of the EngC he was a Vice President of the IMechE. In the NewYear List for 1992 he was honoured by being awarded a CBE. After completing his tenure asDirector General he later became President of the IMechE. He wrote:“When I arrived at the Engineering Council as Director General, I inherited a situation wherethere was constant friction between the “Big 4” Institutions and the Engineering Council. Ibelieve this was in part caused by the imposition in 1983 of the newly created EngineeringCouncil, following the Finniston Committee, onto the Institutions. They didn’t want anEngineering Council and would have preferred to stick with the old, ineffective CEI.[Authors’ note: As we pointed out in Chapters 1 and 2, there were at least three different opinions onthis point.]“However, one of the principal reasons for the antagonism was the perceived lack of controlby the Institutions of the Engineering Council and indeed criticism of the rather undemocraticelection process for members of “Council” of the Engineering Council - Council voted fornew members of Council and there was no way that Institutions could get their nomineesonto the Council.“In an attempt to improve this situation the Chairman at that time, John Fairclough, embarkedon his “Unification Initiative” which is well documented. With considerable help from AlanRudge [then President of the IEE], John Fairclough persuaded 39 Institutions to sign up to hisinitiative and give their support to the reformed Engineering Council.“The most dramatic part of the reorganisation was the changed election system, under which24 members of the Engineering Council Senate were elected by Institutions, 24 byRegistrants and 6 by the Privy Council. In practice, many of the 24 elected by Registrantswere nominated on the initiative of the Institutions!© Engineering Council UK 2004