An Engine for Change - A Chronicle of the Engineering Council

1999-2001: THE HAWLEY YEARS 175for the processes of regulation which was about the same as was currently spent on BERmatters while the ETB would retain the balance for its purposes. The second matter was thatof “Registrants’ democracy”. The existing situation, it will be remembered, was thatRegistered Engineers directly elected Senate members. The new proposals meant thisdemocratic element would be lost and replaced by Institution representatives nominated bythe Institutions. The underlying assumption was that the Institutions themselves weredemocratically governed bodies.Dr Hawley accepted that strong feelings existed about the possible loss of the democraticelement. He undertook that the Shadow Board would keep this matter under review and that aprocess would be put in place to ensure that the ETB and the NRB were fully advised ofconcerns and ideas coming from Registrants through the Institutions. He also suggested thatthe two Registrant members of each of the ETB panels [see above] might be elected first bythis Senate and subsequently by Institution processes. He also suggested that that democracywould be even stronger if the Chairman of the Registrants’ Panel [note : see ‘Role of ETB’above] was elected by the members of the panel or - and this was his preference- by anelectronic ballot of all Registrants.Dr Hawley concluded his remarks by emphasising that this was a unique opportunity that hadto be seized. He felt that the ‘status quo’ was not an option and that the credibility andreputation of the profession now depended upon moving forward with arrangements thatbroadened the vision and brought in the ‘wider community’. He stressed the unprecedentedstrong support from all the main players – the Institutions, industry, Government andacademia.In the debate that followed Dr Hawley’s powerful address, a number of members expressedthemselves generally in agreement with the proposals. Mainly the points of concern fromothers again centred on (i) the financial aspects and the propriety of passing funds to the ERBwithout first seeking the views of Registrants and (ii) the changes affecting the democraticprocess as far as Registrants were concerned. These concerns led to a number of amendmentsbeing proposed to the three resolutions and to address these Dr Hawley adjourned themeeting for 15 minutes.On reconvening, the Senate considered the revised resolutions that were then passed withlarge majorities. The resolutions are given below with italicised amendments to the originaltext.1. “that the ‘Engineering and Technology Board’ be incorporated as a company limitedby guarantee, with initial members and directors as nominated by the ETB ShadowBoard’s Nominations Committee and a governance structure as detailed to take overfrom the Engineering Council its main promotional activities, receiving allregistration fees for 2002 and subsequent years previously collected by theEngineering Council, and providing therefrom the funding required for futureregulatory activities; and the above to be subject to : (i) a proviso that there be electedmajority representation in the governance of the ETB (ii) the budget for futureregulatory activities being set by the NRB (iii) the level of registration fees to belevied on Registrants being a matter for the ongoing Registrants’ Panel which willannually make a recommendation to the ETB”. [Note: This can be seen as part of the‘ring fencing’ of finance for the NRB.]2. “that a formal petition to The Queen in Council be drafted seeking the grant of furtherSupplemental Charter to the Engineering Council, seeking to replace the Council’s© Engineering Council UK 2004