An Engine for Change - A Chronicle of the Engineering Council

1981-1985: THE CORFIELD YEARS 21Evans (IChemE). However, such larger and longer-established Institutions often professedscepticism of the ability of the EngC to make more progress than they could themselves.They were always conscious that a small number of them, perhaps a few as six, had about90% of the total Chartered Engineer members yet had no direct representation on the Councilof the EngC.To some extent there was here a difference in attitude between the smaller and largerInstitutions. The smaller, many of which were concerned mainly with TEngs and EngTechsrather than CEngs, generally welcomed the opportunity to belong to a strong nationalorganisation. This quotation from one of them is fairly typical: “We look to the EngineeringCouncil to set and promote the agenda for the future success of engineering in society and toprovide a global benchmark for both setting standards and for the discipline of the individualmember”.In these circumstances it was always recognised that the best possible communicationarrangements between the EngC and the Institutions would be extremely beneficial. Thusregular meetings were arranged with the Secretaries and Presidents of all the Institutions,including a special set of meetings with the largest. No doubt there were faults incommunication and attitude on both sides but it is apparent from the record that so far as theEngC was concerned every effort was made to explain, develop and improve the relationship.One difficulty that emerged, and persisted, was that in most Institutions the Presidentchanged annually and entered office with only a superficial knowledge of the EngC’s aims.Most Presidents were, therefore, on a steep learning curve and naturally much influenced bythe views of their Secretaries. It is notable that those who previously or subsequently becameinvolved as members of the Council, or of one of its major committees, were much moresympathetic and enthusiastic towards the Engineering Council. So much so in fact that onmore than one occasion they were accused by their own Institutions of ‘going native’. Wewill return in later chapters to this theme, and the ways in which relationships subsequentlydeveloped during the life of the EngC.Interfacing with the RegistrantsThe Regional Organisations (ECROs)Following Dr Miller’s meeting in November 1982 with the elected representatives of the CEIBoard, he had developed the idea of addressing the needs of individual engineers throughoutthe country. He suggested establishing an elected Engineering Assembly that could meet atleast annually and have regional committees to encourage local activities and provide a twowayflow of communication between the EngC and its grassroots. The EngC Charter had nospecific provision for directly-elected representatives but Dr Miller met elected CEI Boardmembers again in January 1983 to consider this concept. Subsequently, a consultativedocument “The Engineering Assembly and Regional Structure” was published by the EngCin June 1983. This resulted in an interim structure of Engineering Regional Organisations(EROs) in nineteen regions being established under the auspices of several of the CharteredEngineering Institutions, so bringing together, in each region, registrants in all branches ofengineering. At a joint meeting of the EROs in June 1984 the consultative document wasdiscussed and a policy statement published, leading to elections in the Spring of 1985. Ineach of the 19 regional constituencies the registered engineers elected four CharteredEngineers and two Technician Engineers.© Engineering Council UK 2004