The squabble over the interpretation of figures by two major accountancy bodies is unseemly. Hardly the recipe for a meaningful merger. Yet the aggressive merger campaign, mounted by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) to woo members of the bodies - the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) - over the heads of their elected committees, is to continue, despite a heady rebuff from one of them.

The 47,000 members of CIMA were asked: "Are you satisfied that the ACCA approach is in your long-term interests?". Their reaction has been overwhelming; some 86 per cent of the 15,000 replies received were emphatic that they did not want the proposal to go ahead. And the response by those who registered their views on CIMA's website was even more dramatic with 91.6 per cent saying No.

CIMA argued that the response was "a massive CIMA vote against the substance of the proposal". This was interpreted by CIMA's president, Mr Peter Layhe, as a "mandate to return to business as usual and, at the same time, begin to develop an alternative path to an effective restructuring of the profession".

But ACCA disagreed. "The strategy - the merger plan itself - is bang on track", ACCA trumpeted. This was based on the response ACCA had received to its merger plans from the three bodies.

The latest figures supplied by ACCA to The Irish Times showed that 19,163 replies had been received from the 120,000 accountants. Of these, 13,482 said Yes, or 70.4 per cent, while 26.4 per cent said No.

A breakdown showed that CIMA members were least enthusiastic, albeit a majority voted in favour. Some 76.7 per cent of the responses from CIPFA members said Yes, 75.6 per cent of ACCA members were in the affirmative while 60.8 per cent of CIMA members said Yes. Curiously the Irish members of CIMA are more enthusiastic with 65 per cent saying Yes compared with 56 per cent in the UK.

With both claiming success, which is the more valid?

CIMA's interpretation is more authentic for two main reasons. First, ACCA sent out its circular 10 days before CIMA's council meeting made it clear that it was opposed to the approach. Some 6,000 had responded without the benefit of their council's advice; since then only a trickle - some 600 - extra members have responded. Second, ACCA has only had responses from 14 per cent of CIMA's members. In contrast, CIMA which has had a shorter campaign, had a response from onethird of its members, 86 per cent of whom said No. But the ACCA has put its own spin on the response CIMA received. Mr David Leonard, chairman of ACCA's special merger task force, said it was "a predictable consequence of the question which asked whether inadvertently or not, CIMA's survey focused on the style of ACCA's approach rather than the substance of the proposals. Many CIMA members thought that the approach of writing directly to members of the three bodies was inappropriate. But the key question of whether ACCA's specific strategy for the profession is the right way forward, a large majority of CIMA members say Yes"

ACCA now says it intends to move the debate away from interpreting numbers and on to the real issues. Indeed it should; it would be on a sticky wicket if it focused on the numbers. CIMA says the approach adopted by ACCA is now dead. ACCA disagrees. And CIPFA members are to be approached by its council next month. ACCA is adamant that it will continue with its 10-week planned campaign which gives it another six weeks to run. Is this then a mere charade to justify its tactically flawed approach? And how will ACCA justify the costs involved in this avoidable campaign?

A merger would be in the best interests of the accountancy bodies as they could share costs and common interests. But for it to work it would have to be mutually acceptable to all parties; otherwise the will of one would swamp the others. While CIMA has asked ACCA for talks on common interests (not on the merger proposals which ACCA has espoused), the fear now must be that ACCA's aggressive stance will put back any merger proposals for many years.