Yesterday I sat my professional review. I selected London as the location for my review in the knowledge that the Institution would be the best place to spend one of the most important days of my career.
Imagine my disappointment to discover that the Institution, 'recognised world wide for its excellence as a centre of learning (and) as a qualifying body', would not be used for my review. Instead, I would sit my review in the poorly lit basement of the Methodist Central Hall around the corner.
The room for my review was directly off the public tea room, had no natural light and was subject to noise from maintenance in adjoining rooms.
Future members of the Institution could be forgiven for getting the impression that reviews are held in such low regard that they do not warrant the provision of accommodation within the Institution itself.
The reason I suspected that the Great Hall was not available was that it may have been hired out for an external function during the day. That in itself would be contrary to the 'Guide to the ICE', which clearly states that 'when not required for ICE events and activities, the rooms . . . are marketed externally'. The reviews are surely an integral part of the Institution's year, and, as a qualifying body, form one of its raisons d'etre.
However, on inspection, the room remained unused. Is this ensuring best value to the Institution and its membership? Is the business entity that is 'One Great George Street', rightly proud of its best alternative venue accolade, becoming more important than the needs of the subscribing membership?
Peter Barty. 9 Northlands Rd, Eastleigh, Hampshire, SO50 9AW