(CFP Lite, as popularly named, was a CFP Board proposal to expand its sphere through diminished standards, under the misguided notion that cheaper is more attractive. The ostensible logic would have brought more "practitioners" "inside the tent" as "associate CFPs." The ensuing outrage protested the necessary diminution of CFP mark standards and mark holder credibility. We had worked hard, not just for our own licenses, but to give our marks value, meaning and vitality. We objected to their purposeful devaluation.)
Today, four years later, remaining CFP Board issues seem to retain remarkable constancy with original issues. Too much remains unaddressed. Dave, let's take note of our elephant. Indeed, given current issues, what better time?
I know people are trying. I know volunteer leadership generally recognizes certain past issues, as does acting paid leadership. But you know and I know CFP Board can't really move forward until both volunteer leadership and paid leadership are of like mind to do so, and everyone gets to an authentic understanding of CFP Board's heart's core. This means mission and genuine mission identification.
Unfortunately, though personalities have altered, certain negative attitudes and diversions linger and warp. The sheet: Fear. Fear of the practitioner. Fear of law. Aggrandizement of perceived authority and disciplinary muscle. Arrogance. That certain sense of smugness. Legalisms. Stuffiness. Bad manners. Even outright viciousness. Expansionist agendas formed and implemented in isolation. Disregard of practitioners. Bits of deceit; confusing messages. Apparent aloofness with regard to the membership organizations, most particularly FPA. (It is extraordinary that it took until 2003 to recognize that CFP® standard bearers ought to have a special relationship to CFP Board.) The songs may be over but their melodies linger.
Mission misidentification has lead to unwarranted incursions into the world of academia, international efforts of unknown dimensions and implications, inappropriate conversations with large financial service institutions, exponentially expanded staff and a "big man in town" self-image.
Frankly, it takes awhile to get past all of this, even with the most open heart and mind. So often it has seemed the Board was determined to tell the profession and its representatives what would be rather than wonder what could be and listen. Remember those scripted road shows in the early 90s? Remember the rush to legislated practice standards? And, of course, CFP Lite. And other recent decisions.
Even now the communications I receive are authoritarian and cautionary, yet cold. Still no case law. Interesting, because CFP Board is certainly not going to scare its practitioners, yet why else is it done? Obviously markholders will ignore nonsense rules, costing CFP Board authority and credibility. Remember, CFP Board's 14,000-foot mountaintop rests firmly on 13,500-plus feet of its markholders' cheerful, enthusiastic, voluntary support. Literally, hundreds of thousands of hours have been spent to develop meaning. Ideally, it is self-regulation at its very best. CFP Board needs markholders; markholders need CFP Board.
Unfortunately, the call of expansionism has been all too tempting. Titled leadership has too frequently pushed agendas without actively defending them. Too often, this has taken us through inappropriate diversions, leading to conflict with practitioners and membership organizations.
Since the elephant article, CFP Board has gone through two executive directors, a bunch of practice standards and CFP Lite. That elephant seems to still be there; still in our living room; reason and purpose still unknown.
So, here is my best take on our friendly pachyderm. For starters, I perceive the CFP Board still lacks definitive, appropriate mission. The emphasis here is on "appropriate."