If we choose to follow a path to a nationally recognised accreditation scheme, then we need to ensure that there is not another body further separating power base and dividing numbers.
The suggestion that the accreditation scheme could be a completely separate body is naïve. There is no benefit having another committee based organisation running the accreditation board; after all, that is only part of the organisational structure that a fraternity must have in order to hold a valuable cachet in the wider markets it services.
The accreditation scheme I have in mind will also require a body of people that can market, administer, provide membership services to and be supported by the accreditation board.
Ultimately the accreditation process requires project based mindsets, defined goals and timelines, planning, and implementation. It needs an organisation that can fund and provide resources for the accreditation scheme to be publicised, industry stakeholders made aware of and the scheme promoted to. Otherwise it means nothing.
Both organisations should amalgamate. Frankly, our fraternity is too small in this country to sustain two organisations.
Divided we fall. United we will stand. And if there are personal agendas preventing it, leave them at the door. We are simply too small and too well educated to justify behaviour like that.
For those that have presented arguments against it to me in the past, it is all personal, agenda driven, and it is simply de-constructive. The only winners are those who don't want accreditation because that would reduce their power.