Got The T-Shirts To Show For It

Oh Man, here we go. As they say in the old country, it’s déjà vu all over again. Second verse, same as the first. With this latest flap involving its rules and procedures with respect to professional review of CFP® registrants, CFP Board has once again managed to generate controversy where none need exist.

Unfortunately, this merely continues CFP Board’s twenty year habit of treating its one and only genuine constituency with disdain and unilateral confrontation. What is so hard about doing things in public, providing good reasons and honoring people who have done nothing more than give of their time and talent for free?

Frankly, with their brand spanking new mission statement and foresightful executive director, I had hoped for better. After all, changes in disciplinary procedures and administrative processes would seem to be smack dab in the middle of its ongoing mission of “upholding [CFP® certification] as the recognized standard of excellence for personal financial planning.” But nooooo. It is the same ol’ same ol’, reflecting patterns and practices established long ago. It is all too familiar.

Our white paper writing friends, late of CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission, state their case quite nicely. It seems to boil down to process, respect and the appropriate exercise of power. There may be some great reasons for the changes but how would we know? Just like the proposed revised code of ethics of 1990. Just like messing with vital definitions to gut the term “fee only.” Just like CFP Lite. Just like the continued absence of case law. Just like dozens to hundreds of interface moments with licensees, financial planning’s professional associations and their representatives. Just like demanding nondisclosure agreements for anybody knowing anything about CFP Board business. Just like the adoption of confusing, inappropriate mission statements that obfuscated rather than clarified.

I see the issues in even broader terms than this particular series of events. Indeed, it engages the essences of relationships between CFP Board and the financial planning profession including its professional associations and academic constituencies.

Make no mistake, I wish CFP Board nothing but the very best. I have been a fan and friend of CFP Board from its beginnings. From sharing a study group with its first executive director, Larry Hayden, to my physical presence in its very first offices as its brand new double disk DOS computers were unpacked. I have spent many, many hours as a volunteer and others as a representative of one or another professional association. I have broken bread with every single one of its executive directors and have personally known employees, ex-employees and volunteers from its governing body and its Board of Professional Review. I have been proud to call most of them my friends and colleagues. I continue to believe that a vital, functional CFP Board is an essential component for financial planning’s emergence as an authentic profession.

However, it is not the only component nor even the most important one. While CFP Board can, and should, proudly proclaim that its marks have won the battle for public recognition, that credit must mostly go to its mark holders. We are the ones who did the work and provided our clients with solid advice and productive relationships. We are the ones who stepped to the line and voluntarily accepted a full-out client centric approach embracing trust and confidence and acknowledging reliance. Though we must recognize that CFP Board has guided the CFP® marks to its preeminent stature as the premier credential in financial planning, it does not have a monopoly on appropriate credit. We ought also to thank FPA and FPA predecessors for their work as well as expressing our gratitude for our 100,000 plus colleagues around the world who have earned the rights to use the marks and have done so with honor and distinction. Mark holders tend to treat our three magic letters with substantial reverence. We have earned the right to be respected at all levels. It could not have happened without us.

Unfortunately, relationships have not always been smooth or productive. For too much of its history, CFP Board has also maintained a nasty little habit of closed door decisions, unilateral proclamations, arrogance, narrow perspectives and condescension with respect to others in its universe. It has generally not played well with others. Such approaches are short sighted and mission destructive. They do not help financial planning become an authentic profession, uphold the prestige of the marks or serve the public.

Somewhere in the middle of all of this, can we ask CFP Board to remember who brought it to the dance? Could we ask them to remember and respect what has been done for it—up to and including the generous assumption of official duties by Harv Ames, Diana Simpson, Barry Kohler, Grace Worley and Jim Williams and taking their time to do what they believe in their hearts to be the right thing?

Volunteers from the financial planning profession have given it literally hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer time for tasks ranging from question development, teaching, subject matter development, job function analysis, development of codes of ethics and standards of practice, service on governing and functional boards and on and on and on. The professional associations have heavily promoted the CFP® marks, provided forums for educational offerings and enabled strong lines of communication for CFP Board to its licensees. Yet, for the most part, “thanks” have been sparse. To the contrary. At last check, FPA did not even have access to the names and addresses of the newly licensed. Tales of disrespect abound. This is all just crazy.

It may be that CFP Board’s tax status requires that it “serve the public” but where and how does that require that it treat its registrants and our profession with such disdain? Is the public trust abused if CFP Board actually cooperates with the professional associations? Or sees its mark holders as constituents, colleagues and stakeholders? Do closed doors serve the public? Do nondisclosure pledges uphold the CFP® marks as a standard of excellence?

How far do the voluntarily governed get pushed before their consent is reasonably withheld? How would that serve the public?

As previously noted, CFP Board’s new mission statement is beautiful. I suggest it be taken seriously by all and sundry. I further suggest that those actively engaged with CFP Board tape its mission statement on their bathroom mirrors, type it into their computer’s screen saver, or even tattoo it on their arms NBA style if that is what it takes. Then, when issues like this come up, they will be able to easily place themselves in context.

Then, when they need to take some action or another, they can quickly ask themselves the question, “Does this contribute to upholding CFP® certification as the recognized standard of excellence for personal financial planning?”

Financial planning began aspirationally. Financial planners are idealists. We, too, want to serve the public, uphold the marks and build an authentic profession. Can we get back on that path, please?
Meanwhile, Harv, Diana, Barry, Grace and Jim, thanks for your courage. Much appreciated.

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry