As someone once said "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."

A change of name by ICSA, as a distinct exercise, would not have an effect on external perceptions, except, maybe, to lead members to wonder why their membership fees were being spent on a rebranding exercise when there are so many other areas that members would prefer them to focus on.

Members study hard to qualify as Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. However, the qualification is increasingly under threat due to the extraordinary level of exam exemptions granted to first degree graduates.

I find it difficult to understand why a graduate, lawyer or accountant is expected to sit only 4 exams (a year's worth of study) by the Institute before they can count themselves as a fully qualified Chartered Secretary and Administrator when, in fact, the qualifying bodies for the same lawyer and accountant do not entertain the same criteria for a Chartered Secretary.

Increasingly, I am meeting lawyers who are taking the 4 exams as an adjunct to their existing qualifications, who see the extra exams as a way of quickly reaching the position of "General Counsel and Company Secretary" within quoted companies.

Who can blame them?

The ICSA qualification needs to be rethought and quickly. Extending gratuitous exemptions to other professions and graduates simply increases a perception in other professions and to the outside world at large of a second rate qualification, one that can be "added on" to a "real" qualification.

This completely undermines those hard working members who have started from the bottom and painstakingly worked through
each subject in order to reach qualification. More dangerously, it may also lead to a distinct lack of "number one" roles being offered to "pure" Chartered Secretaries. Is this really what ICSA are looking to achieve?

The change of name of the Association of Women Chartered Secretaries took place further to a carefully implemented 3 year plan to regenerate and energise the membership. Successful growth of the membership (over 10% year on year) through the revitalisation of the events calendar and increasing support and outside sponsorship from external companies were proof of a successful campaign to ensure longevity of the Association. A careful consultation with the membership demonstrated a consistent message that the former name had a number of negative connotations, for example, a subconscious link of the name to the Women's Institute and the new name, voted for by over 90% of the membership, was chosen because the members felt that it reflected what the body was about.

Maybe once ICSA have dealt with the real issues facing its members, a rebranding would be appropriate, demonstrating a real move forward for the qualification and its members. However, they until such fundamental issues as that outlined above are addressed, a rebranding exercise would offer members nothing to celebrate.

Kerry raises an extremely pertinent point. As a specialist recruiter into the company secretarial field, I work hard to promote extremely able and hard-working professionals whose dedication, commitment and overall contribution to corporate success is unquestionably as valuable as that of an equivalently-ranked lawyer or accountant, regardless of professional qualification. So it is disappointing for me to find that at the highest eschelons in some organisations the status of a ‘career company secretary’ ie someone whose primary professional qualification and core practical experience is in the field, is less widely recognised or valued than that of a secondarily-qualified individual.

The good news is that this is not the position in all cases; I have also worked with many organisations that are very receptive to and supportive of the company secretarial discipline in its own right and I firmly believe that this awareness is growing. Nonetheless, I can see that it would do no harm – and potentially a great deal of good – for the ICSA to work towards securing a proper quid pro quo in order to promote and protect its qualification alongside those of other professional institutions.

Perhaps its time for the Institute to set up a mens equivalent? Perhaps the Mens' Association of Chartered Secretaries. Then the Duly Incorporated, Righteous, Trustworthy Yeomen of the Mens Association of Chartered Secretaries (Dirty Macs, for short) could claim as much attention as the ladies do.

Many older members never got round to using the "administrator" tag as it was too general & as my American colleagues have only recently begun to understand what a Chartered Secretary is I'd hate to have to explain "& Administrator".

More seriously, perhaps we can look forward to Kerry's name appearing on the Institute ballot papers for next years elections to Council, where she could raise these issues where it will do some gooed?

I don't agree with the current generous exemptions policy of the ICSA. ICSA has taken these steps as membership numbers were falling.

I qualified in 1979 have passed 12 ICSA exam papers.
That is why I value and respect my qualification so much.

If I were taking the ICSA exams now, I would only have to pass 4 papers.

I was exempted only the Foundation stage for my 6 years' service as an Administration Officer in the RAF but, not being a graduate, was required to sit the 12 exams which then made up the Pre-professional and Professional stages (and am very pleased I did). I recall, whilst studying for the latter, being surprised to learn from a fellow student that she had been exempted the former by virtue of her music degree!

These comments illustrate our continuing identity crisis we have as Chartered Secretaries that lawyers and accountants
don't suffer from. I never use the "& Administrators"
when referring to the Institute and, as Grumpy says, it is difficult enough explaining the "Secretaries" part -
though my usual riposte to the "how's your shorthand?"
is one wouldn't ask that of the Foreign Secretary or Home
Secretary and I'm sure Condoleeza Rice wouldn't take too kindly to it either! Our profession is undervalued when
compared to the lawyers and accountants and it means
that we Chartered Secretaries have to pedal harder than
them to achieve the recognition we deserve. However,
ICSA is achieving recognition as an Institute for its
contribution to legislative and regulatory changes and its best practice guidance and I applaud it for doing so. So, "ICSA" is becoming a familiar brand in its own right and one that is achieving visibility
and respect; maybe now is not the time to confuse
people with a change.

Following on from Philip’s comments, I agree that at last the ICSA is becoming increasingly widely recognised and respected as a professional qualification and with this the prestige of the company secretarial occupation has become heightened.

As recruiters we are finding more and more that new graduates are familiar with the ICSA and the role of the Co-Sec in general. Graduates are undoubtedly attracted to this career because of the professional status that the qualification has to offer. However I would not suggest that this is the only attraction. As I am sure most people would agree the company secretarial role offers diverse and challenging corporate responsibility which combines a multitude of technical skills, commercial know how and allows individuals to play a pivotal role in an organisations operations and development.

The debate surrounding the exemptions of exams in the ICSA qualification is contentious and it is interesting to hear people’s individual experiences and opinions. I think that the flexibility in the qualifying scheme is designed to allow people from varying backgrounds to eventually come to the same place. As recruiters, we see people entering in to the profession through a variety of routes, from PA/ administrators, law graduates, accountants and solicitors alike. I can appreciate the frustration for those who have to qualified through all 12 exams only to find that certain (perhaps completely unrelated) educational requirements exempt people from the early stages, as is highlighted by Tim.

However it was encouraging to learn that one of our top clients for graduate recruitment have altered their standards surrounding the qualification and regardless of any automatic exemptions granted by the ICSA, are funding their graduates through both stages of the professional levels. This not only standardises peoples learning and knowledge, it also ensures that the candidates receive a thorough and strong grounding of technical skills from which they can progress through practical experience. I was extremely impressed with this approach and whilst I would not suggest that this would necessarily be beneficial to all of our clients who recruit graduates, I think that it is useful in this instance.

I would be keen to hear more about people’s own qualifying experiences and any opinions that you may have on this topic.

I find this exemptions issue quite a joke. I am studying
an accounting qualification.I got next to no exemptions.
All accountants need to do is 4 more subjects. I have to
do 10 to get my accountancy qualification.I think
accountants should do atleist 8. For example I didn't
get a credit for any management papers, neither should
they get any.
This just devalues ICSA. If you can enter this field
from accounting or law, why can't I get a job in cosec
then ????
It seems certain people can move from finance into cosec,
but not others. Why? My finance qualification has taken
me from Manangement Accounting ,developing costing
systems,systems development and drawing up financial
statements to invoice coding. What a stunning
perfomance.Don't give too many credits. If they give me
a credit, give them one. If not they get nothing! ICSA
is far superior.

THE FOCUS OF THIS DEBATE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DIVERTED AND AND WHY NOT THE EXEMPTIONS ISSUES OF THE PRESTIGIOUS PROFESSION I BEGUN TO STUDY HAS LEFT ME WONDERING DID I MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE. I HAVE HAD TO SPONSOR MYSELF IN ALL 17 EXAMS PAPERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STAGE NOT COMPLAINING ABOTU THE CHANGE IN FEES FROM £75 PER MODULE TO £675. AND AFTER SUCCESSFULLY QUALIFYING I FIND OUT THAT OTHER PROFESSIONA AND DEGREE STUDENTS ARE BARELY ATTEMPTING 6 MODULES AND STILL QUALIFY AS CHARTERED SECRETARIES.WHAT IS WORSE MOST OF THESE PEOPLE ARE SPONSORED BY THEIR COMPANIES. CANT THE PROFESSION BE MORE FAIRER BY ALLOWING APPLICANTS TO GO THROUGH THE STAGES LIKE OUR PREDECESSORS DID? THE PROFESSION HAS BECOME TOO EASY AND HENCE DEPRECIATING AS FAR AS I AM CONCERN.
AND TALKING ABOUT THE PROFESSION BEING WELL RECOGNISE CHEC THE HOME OFFICE WEBSITE IT DOESN'T APPEAR ON THE LIST OF RCOGNISE PROFESSIONS. WE NEED TO ADDRESS THESE EXEMPTIONS AND RECOGNITION ISSUES BEFORE WE THINK OF A NAME CHANGE.

Well,let me congratulate the founders and administrators of the ICSA for coming this far since 1891.The exemptions are very accurate and very
much in order.For instance,a qualified Barristr/Solicitor is in all fairness expected to be exempted from all the preliminary stages of ICSA because most of the courses had been passed either at the undergraduate or the professional level.Consider the following courses for example;Business Law and Practice,Company Law,Insurance Law,Corporate Law and Practice.These are also courses of ICSA in which the Lawyer is well grounded.The exemptions are perfect.Note that other professional bodies e.g ACCA,ACA etc,also exempt entrants from certain modules.
No need for change of name.The present name,ICSA,has been wonderful.
I however encourage new improvements to meet the standards of the present age.The Institute should also work to enlist the course in the Home Office's web to be regarded as course with highly skilled status.

I quite agree ICSA could, and arguably should, drop the "and administrators", but ever the pragmatist, that would require a new website (what would the new domain name be?) and I fear ICSA could end up misplacing its focus from promoting the profession.

As unpopular as it seems, unless someone has an inspiring and workable alternative, sticking with ICSA will avoid distraction amongst our administrators, allowing us secretaries to get on with what we do best... secretarying!?

As for the exemptions issue and how we, as Chartered Secretaries, compete against the lawyers - who I perceive to be the real "competition" - that's a debate for another day.

On the subject of a possible change of name by the ICSA - dropping the 'and Administrators' - it is perhaps relevant to recall why this word was adopted when the Institute changed its name from The Chartered Institute of Secretaries. At the time only a minority of members was actually employed in commercial companies as such, the remainder were in other bodies such as hospitals, gas and electricity boards, national and local government and charities.

The ICSA was contemplating a number of mergers with other bodies at this time, such as local government administrators, none of whose members had any connection with commercial companies. As such, it was felt that a more relevant name was desirable in order to retain membership and consequent subscription income. Also it has to be said that the ICSA secretary at that time (the one before John Ainsworth) was very 'civil-servicy' in orientation and seemed to place more value on public bodies than pure company secretary-ship.

Since then of course many former public bodies such as electricity and gas boards and hospitals have become private companies so presumably a higher proportion of all ICSA members are now employed in company secretariats. It would be interesting to know the present proportion.

With regard to the future, whilst I wish that the ICSA had not added the 'and Administrators', it may do more harm than good to discard it. A name change would be costly and require Privy Council consent. Also non company secretarial members are entitled to some recognition. In addition, with European harmony in mind, the term 'company secretary' is not always understood or used outside the UK whereas 'administrator' is.

As a further comment, I do note that ICSA's "sister" organisation in the US is titled "Association of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals". Interesting....