Concern erupted this week in the U.S. financial planning industry about the disciplinary treatment of advisors, after five members of the Certified Financial Planner Standard Board’s disciplinary commission abruptly resigned over the weekend.

In response to the uproar, Canada’s CFP council says there are key differences in the review processes here at home that ensure consumers are protected and disciplinary action is fair and complete.

Five of nine commission members of the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (DEC) at the Washington, D.C.-based Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. resigned as a group, said a spokesperson from the CFP Board.

The disgruntled commission members stepped down because they felt the CFP Board removed the bulk of their power and independence, according to reports in a U.S. trade publication. The new rules include changes to the nomination process for members of the disciplinary commission and a requirement that a CFP staff member sit in on all hearing panel deliberations.

The DEC is part of the U.S. certification body for CFPs and is dedicated to handling all disciplinary reviews and actions. It is akin to the Ethics Practice Committee within Canada’s Financial Planning Standards Council (FPSC).

Here at home disciplinary processes for financial planners are different than those in the U.S., according to the FPSC, and this news will not spark any immediate changes. “In Canada, we do not allow staff participation at the hearing,” said Cary List, president and CEO of the FPSC, in an interview. “The staff, in fact, is precluded from participating in any hearing to ensure independence.”

South of the border the rule changes sparked the group resignation of more than half of DEC members, including the chair. In the past, commission members nominated their own volunteers and replacements and passed them on to the organization’s board of directors. Chris Wloszczyna, a spokesperson for the CFP Board, said it was “almost as if it was a self-perpetuating process.” He said under the new rules, the CEO will choose the nominations, in consultation with the DEC, and give them to the board of directors.

“The changes made by the CFP Board fundamentally compromise the peer review process,” Grace Worley, one of the commission members that resigned, told Financial Advisor magazine.

The concerns of the DEC members who up and quit centered around the belief that the hearing panel deliberations should be private and that having a representative of the CEO in the room removes a level of independence. In the past, the commission met privately to discuss a hearing and later announced its verdict publicly.

The CFB Board said the new rules aim for “clearer accountability and increased transparency” and noted that before the rule changes the DEC was the only committee or commission within the CFP Board that didn’t report to the CEO. “The hearing panels will still make the decisions,” said Wloszczyna. “The panels will continue to be autonomous groups. They’ll have the responsibility for making recommendations in individual cases. The ratification of these hearing panels recommendations will be conducted with a staff member and yet that person will be present in an advisory role, offering technical support or counsel when needed or requested.”

But the former commission members were skeptical, to say the least. “The CEO of the CFP Board has given staff unfettered control of the DEC process,” said former co-chair of the commission Harv Ames, in a report soon after the group resignation. “In doing so, he has done profound violence to the integrity of the whole disciplinary and ethics review process.”

Here in Canada, the FPSC Ethics Practice Committee is a standing committee of the board of directors, which gives the authority to choose the committee members to the FPSCs member organizations. This, according to FPSC CEO List, puts the ultimate accountability on the board. “We felt in Canada, the best way to do that is to let the member organizations themselves populate the Ethics and Practice Committee with the individuals they feel are most appropriate to serve the public interest,” he said. “That’s quite different from the CFP Board in the States.”

When a hearing panel is required to look into a FPSC member, it has 3 members. The chair of the panel is a member of the Ethics Practice Committee, and the two others are chosen at large from a list of approved members of the CFP community. The director of ethics, a staff position, does not participate in Ethics Practice Committee meetings.

@page_break@List says the changes in the U.S. will not have negative effects on the CFP designation in Canada. “At this point, there are no steps necessary for us to take because we are quite comfortable with the strength of our disciplinary process.”