The mystery of CIPS Life Honorary Membership

We have previously discussed CIPS' License, and even Chartered Status, but I only recently became aware of CIPS Life Honorary Membership. 

My awareness started when one of you shared with me their intention to leave CIPS but only decided to remain when they were offered free lifetime membership - I don't want to share the details of those particular circumstances, but my friend's understanding was that the offer was made due to the number of years they'd been a CIPS member. 

Now I've been a member since the 80s so I decided to enquire about eligibility.  

As many of you will know I have been a great supporter of transparency of the procurement process and have advocated stating award criteria beyond the requirements of the EU Regulations. It strikes me as just good practice. I would have thought CIPS would have advocated a similar approach to transparency. However, when I wrote to CIPS I received this reply:

Thank you for your email. I must advise that you are not eligible for life honorary membership. I cannot advise the criteria for this membership but I recommend you email again with your query in a few years.

Of course, that was like waving the proverbial 'red rag to a bull', so I challenged the 'secrecy' and it was reiterated: "As advised I am not able to discuss the criteria", and subsequently:

Life honorary membership is rewarded on a discretionary basis and is not automatically awarded. There is no fixed criteria and each case is reviewed individually.

I'm not sure if CIPS meant to say 'rewarded' but exasperated by CIPS lack of transparency I said I would use my blog and try to establish others awareness of the process. Here's what they said:

I am sorry that you feel disappointed with the information that you have been provided.  Reading through the previous emails it appears that you have been led to believe that Life Honorary Membership is something that our members are entitled to after a certain period of time.  All I can do is reiterate what my colleague has told you that this is not correct and that this is a discretionary award on a case by case basis. I appreciate that you wish to blog about this, however I must stress that we are the team who handle these enquiries and as such are the experts in this area, any information gathered from other sources cannot be treated as reliable.

Using the shield of "we are ...  the experts in this area" echoes the criticism levelled at the profession many years ago when buyers refused to demonstrate professionalism in contract awards which only led to cynicism and suspicion.  

Equally, while information gained from a blog may not be reliable, CIPS isn't prepared to provide any clarity at all.  Let's remember that CIPS membership fees must subsidise this cabal and its beneficiaries.

I don't know about you but that leads me to ask: who decides there is a case for Life Honorary Membership, who are the Life Honorary Members, and, given the lack of any fixed criteria, how can we have confidence in the process? A straw poll of members with over 25 years MCIPS/FCIPS membership indicates few are even aware of the category of membership!

So, if any of you can provide the clarity which CIPS can't/won't provide on the dark secrets of CIPS Life Honorary Membership, I'd love to hear? It would be better that we had the transparency of a professional organisation than the perception of application of the black arts. 

One more time: get the procurement processes right and stick to them.

You may well be familiar with the old hymn 'Tell me the old, old story' - it strikes me there is a procurement version: 'Get the procurement processes right and then stick to them'. Time and again we find those basics just aren't adhered to, yet we hear grandiose ideas of procurement being really strategic - are there parallel universes?

Perhaps operational procurement is forgotten and the cry is that the processes must be wrong - if the processes are wrong, fix them, don't avoid them. Broken processes and worse, unadhered to processes have no place in either efficiency, value for money or competitiveness. They also create the environment for procurement fraud, bribery and corruption.

So let's think about some of the basics which Larne Borough Council, like some many, have got wrong and no doubt will be echoed elsewhere shortly:

1. If you enter into an agreement - get it signed asap;
2. If you have awarded a franchise, particularly in times when firms are going bust, invoice and get payments regularly;
3. If you are using corporate credit cards or pCards make sure you manage them responsibly;
4. Understand what good processes are, adapt appropriately and adopt them, then consistency stick to them.

In this age of 'transparency' it would be nice to see the full report on Larne Borough Council which is said to also express concerns on the award of contracts. 

Those unaware of the Northern Ireland local government may not realise that there is a restructuring of councils taking place, while there are currently 26 councils, there will soon only be 11. The restructuring provides a wonderful opportunity for procurement transformation, not only strategically but in terms of processes - it provides an opportunity for NI to become an exemplar. But if you want to get the processes right, it makes sense to understand the lessons from past failures - that can't happen when reports for investigations remain hidden. Let's hope that the Larne 'hidden' report is the last we hear of inferior local government procurement performance - what are the odds? 

Allegations of procurement fraud at Police Federation have lessons for all

Confidence in the police is probably at an all time low as a result of Plebgate, behaviour of undercover officers, hidden union bank accounts, Hillsborough, 'stop and search', and the failure to get any form of closure for the Lawrence family. The last thing the 'Peeler's Union' want is more damage to its reputation through a scandal of questionable procurement practices. Yet, 'Fraud squad investigates police union boss over charity deal' screamed out of today's Sunday Times.

Those implicated claim to be innocent yet they will now be paying a high personal price, whether or not the allegations are proved.

There is little doubt there was a lack of good judgement by those concerned. I don't think that lack of good judgement is solely with the specific individuals under investigation, I think a lack of good judgement was exhibited by all those concerned with the oversight of the Federation. They could have stopped the 'questionable' procurement - isn't that what oversight is supposed to include? It is my interpretation of the Bribery Act that they also failed to put in place processes to prevent bribery in procurement - had they done so, there wouldn't have been the opportunity to engage in the 'questionable' activities.

A QC representing the individual under the spotlight, acknowledges that appropriate procedures hadn't been followed. Contracts were rushed through in the absence of competition and awarded to friends who appear to have charged excessive fees. Advice from the charity's lawyer and auditor was ignored. There was also an absence of due diligence in the award.

This is a complete and utter mess yet I think it is far from unique. I believe too many organisations needlessly leave themselves and their staff open to allegations of impropriety, partly believing it will never happen to them, partly through complacency, partly through naivety.

How vulnerable is your organisation? How vulnerable are you?

Hodge should demand even deeper transparency on public procurement decision making

I am a great admirer of Margaret Hodge's forensic examination of public procurement - she seems to have honed the skill of extracting the information others don't seem able to. So I read with interest today's the report in the Guardian which claims she has suggested the DWP may be on the verge of meltdown major contracts and has called for greater transparency.

The article is definitely worth a read, particularly if you are a public sector procurement practitioner who "simply have to up their game and get a grip" - a sentiment which Francis Maude seemed to agree with in his parallel interview on Radio 4's Today programme (start to listen around 2:21).

Hodge appears to be calling for greater transparency on contract management, particularly with major contracts. Personally I think that falls short of what is needed. I think, for major contracts, we should see greater transparency on the pre-award decision making and options appraisal. Let me explain.

FoI for public sector contractors?

I have to say I was surprised today to hear of proposals that the Freedom of Information Act could be extended to embrace public sector contractors (quite possibility driven by a recommendation from the Social Enterprise UK ) .

I don't actually believe the rhetoric that such a move will force firms to compromise commercial secrets as, it strikes me, Section 43 of the Act already provides that protection. However, I do question how well thought through this potential policy is and what is likely to be the outcome?

Common sense suggests that since the Freedom of Information Act is now well embedded in the public sector it shouldn't be too hard to establish the potential value which would be delivered through the increased scope. For example, it would be useful to know how much cost has been added to the average public sector organisation answering FoI requests? It would also be comparatively easy to carry out some research with those who have made FoI requests to establish the real benefit gained? I have never actually made a FoI request but have had experience in responding. Responding to FoI requests consumes an enormous amount of time and there is a game of sanitisation taking place - a cottage industry has been created for bureaucrats. But equally many requests are just lazy, disguised market research at the expense of the public sector, it's information which isn't in the public interest but the costs are being shifted from the private sector to the public sector. Labour could place a FoI to get that information before pursuing the policy.

If the legislation is extended there will be an additional cost to private and third sector organisations just because they happen to be public sector contractors. There will then have to be some disaggregation of those organisation's work which is covered by FoI requests and which isn't. Those organisations being asked to respond to potential FoI requests will have to allow for that cost in their bids and that in turn will be passed to the public purse - those advocating the policy will need to budget for those costs. It may also be worth considering what the likely impact will be on mirco, small and medium enterprises?

However, if the issue is that the public sector isn't really on top of its contractors, then changes to specifications and contract  management may be more cost effective options.

Some months ago I discussed another Labour proposal, that of obliging all public sector contractors to pay the Living Wage. It strikes me that Labour can see public procurement is a useful political tool but I think it may be better to sit down with some sympathetic businesses and work out the most effective means as opposed to kite-flying.

Personal accountability & Mea culpa

Is there such a thing as personal accountability? I think there is a skewed version of it, 'responsibility', when it is used for job evaluations but it means little in terms of the downside 'being held to account'. I am now convinced we need to revisit 'the buck stops here' concept and bring some meaning to personal accountability. When something goes wrong, it is not individuals who carry the can but faceless institutions. When something goes wrong, it is not individuals, and frequently not even the institutions, who pick up the tab, but the tax payer.

Today we have learnt that failures in 'the system' could lead to that taxpayer picking up a potential bill for millions of pounds as a result of Savile's abuse. Let's be clear, Savile was wrong and appears to have been a totally unpleasant person. But Savile was not alone in blame - also in the dock are the Crown Prosecution Service, Surrey Police, the Metropolitan Police, West Yorkshire Police, BBC and the management of so many of the organisations which 'failed to protect'. If the individuals managing these organisations had managed irresponsibly, it strikes me, that if cases were taken under health and safety legislation those who oversaw such failures would be potentially facing for custodial sentences - had that been the case they may have treated 'responsibility' more seriously.

But it doesn't stop with Savile though, think of Hillsborough.

Then consider the case of making inappropriate employment decisions. I have already discussed unusual appointments to some procurement positions. The potential cost of benefits lost or foregone is not  personally carried by those who make the appointments, nor would the cost of any employment tribunal.

But what about those 'responsible' for procurement decisions?