ACCA TAMPERS WITH ELECTION STATEMENTS
It is only in tyrannical dictatorships that officials unilaterally change
the statements issued by election candidates. Does ACCA fall in the the
same category? Read on.
The evidence is provided from correspondence between Prem Sikka (a candidate
for the 2000 elections) and ACCA officials. The issue is about the mention
of a web site address in an election statement.
For years, ACCA claimed that it needs its 'delegated proxy voting system'
to enable the President to cast 20-25% of all the votes for council elections
because individual members don't know the candidates. Now in the age of
the internet, anyone can have a free web site. Thus ACCA has no excuse.
But ACCA officials don't want an informed membership. To prevent dialogue
and debate, they are making up the rules as go along.
So please bear with us and take this journey. Read the ACCA letters
and marvel at how the rules are being manufactured.
Now read the correspondence that follows:
Please read the ACCA announcement about council elections in the official
magazine. Please note that it makes no mention of any ban on the use of
web site addresses in the election statements (Click
here to see the official announcement).
Please look at the information package that is sent to all election candidates.
It consists of a declaration form. a form for the Register of council Members'
Interests and a copy of the council's code of Practice. It makes no mention
of any ban on the use of web site addresses in the election statements
(click here to see the contents of the package).
Note how ACCA officials intimidate by saying that they have obtained a
legal opinion. But when asked they are unable to produce a copy.
ACCA officials claim that some time ago the council decided that web site
addresses would not be permitted in election statements. If so, why is
this information not included in the official announcement and/or the information
pack sent to candidates.
Then ACCA officials claim that the Council has already decided to ban the
mention of web site addresses in the election statements. When asked, they
are unable to produce the relevant minute.
Eventually, the ACCA official claims that at its "last meeting", the council
made its decisions. The "last meeting" was on 17th February 2000. The deadline
for the council elections was 4th February. So why this retrospective ban?
Under ACCA bye-laws one-third of its council has to retire every year.
So up to 12 council members may be seeking re-election. Yet they sat on
the council, looked at Prem Sikka's election statement and made their decision.
Whatever happened to independence and transparency? ACCA officials refuse
to answer any questions.
ACCA claims that the mention of web sites in election statements somehow
circumvents the 180 word rule. They obviously don't appreciate that elections
are about dialogue and communication. In 1999, the election statements
were circulated in a booklet that contained the ACCA web site address.
This site contains the outcome of the politices pursued by council. One-third
of the council members were seeking election. Thus the circular gave adavntages
to council members seeking election. Why did ACCA not apply what it preaches?
The election statements frequently invite the reader to go beyond the address
and look for information about the International Assembly, various Committees
and so on. Some individuals even cite their publications. In each case,
the reader is asked to refer to information that is not directly mentioned
in the election statement. ACCA officials never objected to any of that.
Prem Sikka learnt that only he has been subjected to the restrictions on
his election statements. All candidates should be given identical 'policy'
information but they have not been.
Are ACCA officials engaged in a racist policy in that they are only seeking
to constrain one person or are they engaged in a private vendetta against
Prem Sikka because he speaks his mind?
There are no procedures for lodging any complaints with ACCA about the
conduct of ACCA officials.
Letter from ACCA, dated 7 February
REPLY TO ACCA, 11 February 2000
Letter from ACCA, dated 14 February 2000
REPLY TO ACCA, 15 February 2000
Letter from ACCA, dated 15 February 2000
REPLY TO ACCA, 16 February 2000
Letter from ACCA, dated 22 February 2000
REPLY TO ACCA, 23 February 2000
Letter from ACCA, dated 24 February 2000
REPLY TO ACCA, 28 February 2000
Letter from ACCA, dated 29 February 2000
REPLY TO ACCA, 2 March 2000
Letter from ACCA, dated 3 March 2000
REPLY TO ACCA, 5 March 2000
Letter from ACCA, dated 6 March 2000
REPLY TO ACCA, DATED 7 March 2000
Letter from ACCA, dated 9 March 2000
REPLY TO ACCA, 13 March 2000
Letter from ACCA, dated 16 March 2000