ACCA Balloting peculiarities

What are the ACCA's controllers up to?

 The ballot papers for the ACCA council elections are not numbered.  The ballot papers for the functional societies (e.g. the Public Sector) are numbered. Given this why is the leadership unwilling to number the ballot papers for the council elections? What does it fear? The spare stationery remains with 'insiders'. Why does the spare stationery not reside with an independent authority?

There is no proxy voting system for the International Assembly or any functional society. Yet the leadership insists that ACCA must have a delegated proxy voting system for council elections. Could it be that this discredited system enables the ACCA's controllers to "appoint" their cronies, as former Council members have claimed. The delegated proxy voting system is outdated and has no legitimacy. It prevents independent minded persons from being elected to Council. Currently, ACCA officeholders cast  more than 20% of all the votes. Usually only between 5-8% of the membership actually votes. This make the officeholders 'block' vote very influential. Without their approval no one can get elected.

The non-application of  the delegated proxy voting system to some elections is an explicit acknowledgment by the leadership that the system is discredited and indefensible. But it will not give up its old habits easily.  Do ACCA members have the courage to modernize their professional body?