Critics question management of the Chartered Society of Designers as CEO is paid salary of £122k
The Chartered Society of Designers has come under fire from critics as it completes the final stages of a consultation that will allow it to bestow ‘chartered status’ on members of the profession.
Questions: CEO of the CSD Frank Peters
The registered charity – which already holds a Royal Charter – was granted permission to set up a register of chartered members in 2011 by the Privy Council. This will effectively allow the organisation to set the criteria by which professional design standards should be assessed, and help define what being a designer actually means.
These are the same powers held by professional bodies that govern engineering, law and accountancy.
However, some are now questioning whether the CSD is an appropriate body to be charged with such responsibilities and have accused its CEO, Frank Peters, of failing to answer questions about the charity’s finances and strategy.
Questions have been asked specifically about a subsidiary company set up in 2001, the Design Association – an accreditation body – which currently sits with liabilities of more than half a million pounds. The Drum has seen a letter from the Charity Commission in 2010 querying the purpose of the company and why the Society continued to “loan” charitable money to a company it described as “insolvent”.
The CSD’s finances have suffered a significant drop in income since 2002, falling from almost £560,000 to just over £300,000. However, the salary of the highest paid executive at the CSD - now assumed to be Peters - peaked at almost £140,000 in 2010. For 2011 it was recorded at around £122,000. In comparison, the CEO salary at the Design Council is in the same band but that charity brings in an income of more than £10m and the Council employs nearly 100 people. The CSD is understood to have just a handful of staff on its books.
One member of the CSD, who wishes to remain anonymous, said: “One big issue is the subsidiary, the Design Association, and arrangements to pay back £500,000 monies we believe are owed to the Charity, and where all the money went – to who and for what? We have not got answers to our questions.”
The process surrounding the implementation of the ‘Chartered Designer’ status has also been a cause of angst. The charity itself was first granted ‘Chartered’ status in 1976. However, at the point it assumed it was able to bestow the title of ‘Chartered Designer’ on its members.
In 2001, the Privy Council informed the CSD, that this was not in fact the case, and suggested what changes had to be put in place to rectify the problem.
A key point in resolving the issue came in 2011 when the Privy Council granted the organisation permission to bestow Chartered Designer status on members – assuming certain conditions were met, such as a wide spread consensus on the criteria which should be applied to assessing whether or not a designer had met the necessary standards.
However, some members expressed dismay at effectively losing the status which was a major reason they joined the CSD in the first place.
Designer David Hyde’s Davidthedesigner blog has become a major focus for discontent. One individual who posted on the blog claimed: “The CSD were bestowing ‘Chartered Designer’ status on their members from around 1976 until they realised they could not, after the intervention of third parties and the Privy Council – I have the membership forms that state a benefit of being a CSD member is ‘Chartered Designer’ status. All those subscriptions received under false promises!”
The Drum has seen the letter addressed to Frank Peters, from the Privy Council dated 28 August 2001, advising that the charity would require specific permission to bestow Chartered status on members and noting that the Society criteria for membership may require amendment.
However, many critics claim that the Society continued to encourage members to use it until around 2004.
The Drum attempted to put some of these questions to the CSD, but operations manager Carmen Martínez-López told us: “The Society is not dictated to by the editor of The Drum. We’ve noted your interest, when the announcement of chartered designer is finally done toward the latter part of this year you will be included. But we do not have to write on the whims of the editor of The Drum.
“Thank you for your request but we are unable to address this at present as we will be informing CSD members in the first instance as to the progress of their initiative.”
She later added: "My understanding is that it is the job of the regulatory bodies to oversee organisations and ask any pertinent questions. In the case of the Society that falls to the Charity Commission primarily, the Privy Council in respect of our Royal Charter and of course the laws relating to any corporate entity.
"The Society operates to all of these regulatory bodies and provides all of the information and data required of it in order that it is transparent. That which is not required to be made public is a matter for the Trustees of the Society to divulge or not as it sees fit and in the interests of the Charity for which they are responsible. The Society considers the regulatory bodies do a good job in ensuring organisations such as CSD are transparent."
In a subsequent enquiry relating to the Design Association's liability in excess of £500,000, we were simply referred back to the organisation's published accounts.
The response would not surprise some critics. One told The Drum. “I have many other questions which have not been answered, such as on membership numbers. Secrecy is a hallmark of the CSD Secretariat along with thinly veiled threats of legal action for anyone who questions it.”