There is a lot of transitioning out going on these. Sven Goran Eriksson to Steve Maclaren (let's hope that handover lasts beyond Saturday), Bill Gates and his man Ray Ozzie and now, of course, Eric Anstee.

Having announced his decision to stand down, Anstee tells my colleague Kevin Reed in an interview yesterday (you can listen to it on AccountancyAge.com) that he hopes his own transition will be completed by the end of the year.

Whether that comes off is in the hands of the headhunter Boyden. Interestingly the executive search consultant has offices in 40 countries – this won't necessarily be a

UK

Any bets on early favourites?

A small but vocal band of critics will get the news that they longed to hear today: Eric Anstee is quitting as chief executive of the ICAEW.

The timing for the institute could hardly have been worse. The council spent Thursday devoting more time than they would have liked to discussing the Durgan affair, a series of calamitous, self-inflicted wounds that has done Moorgate Place's reputation for transparency, good governance and common sense no good at all.

Anstee, we're told, took the decision to retire (at a relatively sprightly 55) in December and told president Ian Morris at the beginning of the year. It's surprising and somewhat impressive that it's been kept under wraps for so long, though I have to say no one I have spoken to since the long-planned merger with CIPFA failed last autumn has expected Anstee to stick around for too much longer.

We're also told that he informed council he would serve three years when he took on the post in 2003, though the announcement at the time made no mention of that. You have to wonder whether he would have applied the notion of a three-term had the merger come off.

So why leave? Is Anstee, a well-regarded deal maker throughout his career in business and practice, frustrated that the deals he tried to do in office (the eyecatcher with CIMA and CIPFA and the relative tiddler with just CIPFA) failed to come off? Probably.

The reason we're given, though, for his decision to stand down is pressure. Anstee once said that as a FTSE 100 FD (which, at Old Mutual, he was) 'to do the job properly you need to be working an 80 or 90- hour week'. The ICAEW role is unlikely to have been much less demanding in the last year.

Judged on that, the decision is understandable. And based on the conversations I've had lately, it's not surprising.

But in terms of how the timing will be perceived, the increased instability it brings to the institute at an already rocky time and, to draw a political parallel, how his legacy will be judged, it's looks awful.

I spent a morning with Tony Blair this week. I say a morning - it was more like half an hour. Our meeting was delayed thanks a bicycle chained to the security railings (did the police really not notice anyone put it there?) and curtailed as the PM had agreed to run a mile for Sport Relief.

I should mention that as well as myself there were at least 50 other magazine editors there and as a result of the intensely competitive arm-raising environment I did not get the chance to put my carefully honed question to him.

In case he reads this blog (and I suspect he does), I'll ask it anyway.

He had, I wanted to remind him, said last year that it was 'a delicious irony' that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has provided a bonanza for accountants and auditors - the very professionals thought to be to blame for the Enron and Worldcom scandals that provoked it.

Given that we had figures that showed growth among the biggest firms had exceeded their post-Enron peak (see today's Accountancy Age Top 50), did he still consider it a 'delicious irony'?

Did he consider it so delicious he would intervene?

And did he consider it equally ironic that rules designed to prepetrate the American dream were now harming it by persuading international companies to list anywhere but New York?

I see the ICAEW has been named as an Associate Partner of the World Congress of Accountants, the global beano for regulators and other players in the international accountancy business. ACCA is a diamond sponsor and will no doubt use its higher (though presumably costlier) billing to reinforce its message as the premier internal accountancy body. The event takes place in Istanbul in November.

ICAS is expected to name a succssor to Des Hudson (who is off to the Law Society) as new chief executive today or tomorrow. The new person will be closely watched given the recently fractious relationship the Scots have enjoyed with the ICAEW over the southern body's stated intention to adopt the name the Institute of Chartered Accountants had its merger with CIPFA gone ahead. Watch AccountancyAge.com for updates.

I'm sure I'm not alone in being tantalised by the prospect of the National Audit Office reviewing the work of the Financial Services Authority.

They may both be regulators but there their similarities end.

The National Audit Office is staffed by cardigan-wearing public sector auditors while the FSA is chock full of sharp-suited Bright Young Things. Or so the stereotypes go.

Of course that's not the reality (not any more, at least) but each has a very different culture to the other.

The NAO, for instance, is led by Sir John Bourn, a thoroughly Whitehall establishment figure.

The FSA, on the other hand, is chaired by Sir Callum McCarthy, a career investment banker. (Admittedly Sir Callum enjoyed a spell at the DTI in the 1970s, while Sir John's chairmanship of the Public Oversight Board for Accountancy gives him a role overseeing accountants in business – but I'll stick to my crude contrast).

Equally, the FSA is in Canary Wharf - within spitting of the financial powerhouses with which it concerns itself – while the NAO is in Victoria, within striking distance of the government departments it oversees.

Expect fireworks, though not necessarily from the findings which are bound to be broadly supportive. After all the NAO does pass its findings to a body it is reviewing before publication.

I was pleased to read on AccoutnancyAge.com today of a small US bank who was ordered to reverse its decision to sack its chief financial officer for blowing the whistle and refusing to certify the company's financial statements.

The Virginia bank is now supposed to reinstate David Welch to his job on an interim basis, or offer him payment or will be forced to do so by the federal district court, according to WebCPA.

The ruling is a welcome result of Sarbox. But this sort of action has a longer history in the UK. I remember covering a spate of scandals involving sacked whistleblowers in the early 1990s that led to the creation of the charity Public Concern at Work in 1993. More recently we've seen the the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

None of this legislation is perfect. And whistelblowers continue to face tremendous obstacles. But high-profile cases like that of Welch can only help.

What do Darcey Bussell, Rolf Harris and Peter Wyman have in common?  It's not ballet - polo is more Wyman's bag. And it's not art - he may share his name with an acclaimed artist, but Wyman's closest brushes with brushes probably come through his membership of the Royal Society of Arts. What links them is that all were awarded CBEs in the Queen's Birthday Honours List at the weekend.

It's a richly deserved award - Wyman's that is. (I don't know enough ballet to comment on Bussell authoratively though I'm more certain that Rolf Harris is undeserving - for Two Little Boys alone surely a knighthood was in order.)

More than anyone Wyman steered the accountancy ship in the UK in the wake of the Enron and Worldcom scandals. It would have been a very different profession today if it had not been for his interventions - more heavily regulated, less certain about its role and a sector viewed, I'd wager, with more suspicion and less understanding.

Now I'm sure that will spark criticism as support for Wyman is far from universal. He is a former ICAEW president, not a universally popular position by any means. And he is a partner in the biggest of the Big Four firms - again that makes him a magnet for criticism.

It reminds me of the times (was it two or three years in succession?) that we tried to give him an award at Accountancy Age. We shortlisted him for our Personality of the Year Award only for readers to vote for other (albeit equally deserving) candidates on each and every occasion. I was relieved, in a small way, that the ICAEW itself finally got round to giving him their 'outstanding achievement award for 2006' a couple of months ago.

Audit committee members feel they are more exposed to litigation and financial prosecution than any other members of the board, according to research published today by KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute.
Lord Wakham, the former Enron audit committee member, wouldn't argue with that. He is waiting nervously to hear what – if any – action he faces as a result of the SEC investigation into other board members of the disgraced energy giant. And then there is the not-so-small matter of the Joint Disciplinary Scheme's inquiry which could see the ICAEW member disciplined on this side of the Atlantic.

All this talk of audit committees made for an interesting Insider Business Club webcast last week. We have had Tim Copnell, the KPMG man who conducted today's research, on in the past but last week's audit discussion saw Jonathan Hayward, chief executive of consultancy Independent Audit, talk about how the relationship between auditors and audit committees has changed.
'What I am picking up from mainly the larger companies that I talk to, is that there is an increased strain on the relationship with auditors,' he said. 'Not so much with the audit committees, because on the whole auditors have been pretty good at looking after the audit committees. But finance directors who have been very much at the sharp end have seen their fees go up and quality of service go down. And there is a degree of frustration building on their part.'

There will be more on this in this week's Accountancy Age. But I'd love to hear from auditors and FDs alike whether that is a picture that they recognise.

Now here's an opportunity I should pass on. If you have ever hankered after an opportunity to run through London in a gorilla suit (and who, honestly, can say they haven't) here's your chance. We're sponsoring five accountants to take part in this year's Great Gorilla Run - a charity fun run that requires everyone who takes part to wear a full gorilla costume. Obviously. To sign up click here.

The funeral takes place in Dublin today of former Irish premier Charles Haughey. Famously, Haughey was an accountant, something unusual, to the best of my knowledge, among state leaders.

After leaving university Haughey worked as an accountant with the firm Haughey, Boland & Company, according to Wikipedia. (Apropos of nothing, the Haughey name survivced until just four months ago when the firm, now called Tulldar, only changed its name with the Irish Companies Records Office).

Though Haughhey's career was not untainted with scandal, he is being buried with full military honours with Irish President Mary McAleese and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern among the thousands attending the funeral, the BBC reports.

And that's what makes Irish politics so unusual in my book. Ahern is an accountant too, and honorary president of the CIPFA RoI Branch Committee.

I can't think of another example of a country being led by an accountant, though it must have happened. But two? Surely that's a first.

I've been in two minds over the NHS' recent financial troubles. I'm all for restructuring, I recognise the importance of strong financial management and I know no cows are sacred. For all that though, the current situation where deficits and, forgive the tabloidese, postcode lotteries run wild hardly seems desirable either.

All the while, however, I've been surprised that health service finance directors haven't found themselves held more responsible for the problems. Accountants are normally an easy and over-used target. But in this case I would have expected more questions to be asked of those who have been controlling the purse strings.

Today's Times goes some way to answering my questions. In the paper's Public Agenda supplement, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust chief executive Peter Homa reserves fulsome praise for his 'outstanding' FD Colin Gentle for turning round the trust's financial fortunes. To me, that suggests other FDs could have done more. Perhaps I'm being naive.

The Sunday Times had an interesting take on Accountancy Age's recent story about the taxman's battle with 'TV couple' Richard and Judy. It's not an isolated case, the paper reports, HMRC is set to try and recover hundreds of millions of pounds from celebrities as part of a clampdown on the offsetting of agents fees against tax bills. Very much one to watch. And hopefully Accountancy Age's picture editor will have a field day in the months ahead. (Sourced Via Accountancy Age)

So after an ill-advised period of clinging on to the trappings of office, he's finally bowed to the inevitable and put credibility first. But that's enough about John Prescott's somewhat belated decision to vacate Dorneywood. Let's get back to Graham Durgan.

The should-have-been-next president of the ICAEW has decided – with the help of the institute's executive, a council of past presidents and sheer weight of opinion among those members of the public who take an interest in these matters – to stand down amid a conflicts of interest row that showed no signs of dying down.

Colleagues were muttering today of 'how he has done the right thing'. And they are right. He has, though it goes without saying that it should never have come to this.

Others said how upset he had been by coverage in The Independent, which broke the original story a little more than a week ago. We shouldn't be surprised by that either. We all take decisions that we believe to be right but which might not stand up to forensic examination. And, as I have said before, I would expect Durgan and his colleagues to have acted properly throughout the appointment process.

Procedures would – and should – have been put in place to avoid any clear-cut conflict. Surely. But that counts for little in cases like this one.

The reason why he had to stand down is because the ICAEW sets very high standards for itself. By necessity. Integrity is at the core of what it does, as the chief executive reitereated not a fortnight ago. It demands it of its members and must practice it itself.

So we should be pleased that Durgan is standing aside. But damage has undoubtedly been done. Let's hope it can be repaired, though it will take time. Showing more awareness to and sensitivity of perception issues has to be the place to start.