CFP Board Refuses to Discuss ‘CFP® practitioner’ Sham

January 28, 2005

 

Many messages to the CFP Board, clearly explaining the blatant degrading mistake in their literature concerning the definition of ‘CFP^® practitioner’, have been responded to with a refusal to even discuss the issue.

They seemingly cannot understand plain English, and repeatedly respond by talking about an entirely different topic (i.e. whether or not they should use practitioner or have a practitioner division, instead of how they use & define the term).

Now the CFP Boards Lou Garday, CFO has flatly refused to consider the subject at all, even refusing to accept a phone call from us to help resolve the problem. The FPA too, in spite of our written request for help, is characteristically silent and totally uninvolved.

CONCERNED PLANNERS GROUP ^SM made not only the following concerted effort at better clarifying the issue for the CFP Board, but also offered a viable & rather simple solution in a letter to the CFP Board as follows:

Each time we contact you about the misrepresentation of the definition of the term ‘CFP^® practitioner’ you have responded by reviewing why it makes sense to identify such individuals by using the term. These are two separate issues. We are not disputing the idea that practitioners should be separately identified.

We object to your literature that identifies them, as individuals who have taken an “extra step” that other CFP^® Certificants have not, particularly when the extra step is explained, in that same literature, as the necessary requirements to earn the CFP^® designation…an extra step that ALL Certificants have taken, and not just ‘CFP^® practitioners’.

An example of a correct identification of practitioners would be, following an initial statement of how ALL CFP^® Certificants have taken the extra step, etc., is to then state that: “Not all CFP^® Certificants are available to work with the public, but those who are so available are further identified as “CFP^® practitioners.”

Your current marketing material implies that CFP^® non-practitioners have not taken the “extra step” to qualify to use the designation. That, though presumably unintentional, is false advertising that degrades some 5000 Certificants and demeans the designation itself.

Promote ‘CFP^® practitioners’, and recommend them to the public if you will, but do it without degrading non-practitioners and the designation we all are working to promote.

If this does not clarify and explain our concern to your understanding and agreement then appreciate that we feel a justification in our position and a need for a reasonable explanation of your position. You have never offered this because the Board has NEVER ADDRESSED IT. Such mutual agreement, if not accomplished by this email, should be pursued by a phone discussion in hopes of creating harmony between us. Is that really asking too much?

Despite all of the above efforts the result has been nothing but a deaf ear. Mr. Garday refused to call us to help better clarify and resolve the matter, and has not even answered the above last attempt at a resolution. So much for the CFP Boards assertions of being open and meaningfully proactive regards Certificants concerns. So much for the FPA too, that has not made even one inquiry on this issue or any other issue or controversy facing the CFP^® Certificant community, though they too have been approached.

IAQFP (formerly the Concerned Planners Group(sm)) Board Position Statement on this matter: in order for this matter to be reasonably resolved something along the lines suggested above must immediately be implemented by the CFP Board, with an announcement of correction to the CFP^® Certificant Community.