The below is not accusative but is the perspective of someone who, professionally, has been involved in processes which have to be conducted confidentially but subject to rules regarding conduct of the process and which conduct is liable to inspection; I am also involved in inspection/audit of matters of propriety in relation to commercial/public contracts etc.
The controversial nature of the "charity" proposal was obviously recognised by CTC and the original postal vote was conducted through the Electoral Reform Society, presumably to obviate any potential criticism.
From what I read in the latest Cycle it seems to be the case that the validity of the direction in which certain votes were cast has been queried, rightly or wrongly, by some members.
I note that the latest vote appears to be conducted entirely in house and, given the enthusiasm of some parties to scrutinise matters, am more than somewhat surprised that CTC has chosen this path.
Are funds really so low that CTC can not afford to ensure that, as it absolutely must be this time round, the result is final and decisive and beyond any query or debate by conducting it through the same channels as before?
New Vote
-
Old pedaller
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 4 Sep 2009, 9:54pm
New Vote
Last edited by Old pedaller on 6 Dec 2010, 2:13am, edited 1 time in total.
