ACCA Members show
no confidence in the leadership
ACCA's council election processes are a sham. No matter what the membership
decides the leadership overrides it by casting hundreds of votes. So the
only way to register a protest is to ignore the election altogether.
The AGM held on 8 May 2003 heard that out of a membership of over 90,000
only 5,655 members (6.28%) voted, this includes the 844 votes cast by president
Members were asked to elect individuals to 11 council seats. The highest
vote of 3,458 (3.84%) was recorded by Jacqueline Cole. The 11th spot was
filled by Valerie Culley with 2,804 votes (3.04%). In any decent organisation
an election result with this low turnout and vote would be declared 'void'.
But not at ACCA. The leadership and its cronies now have no moral mandate
to govern, claim expenses, travel the world or make any decisions.
By some perverse logic, ACCA President Jonathan Beckerlegge told that AGM
that the low turnout indicated that the membership was satisfied with leadership's
policies. When asked by Prem Sikka to provide any evidence to support this
assertion, Beckerlegge was unable to, possibly because his speech writers
had not anticipated the question.
Any observer of politics knows that people boycott polls because they have
no confidence in the system, its integrity, honesty or sincerity. ACCA members
are right to boycott council elections. There is nothing on offer.
ACCA council election's
are a sham designed to provide a veneer of respectability to unsavoury practices.
Members are right to boycott them.
- ACCA council elections
are neither free nor fair. Through the proxy vote system, the leadership
rigs the system in favour of its cronies, so why should anyone bother to
- The leadership
does not explain how it casts its proxy votes.
- The 180 word election
council statement hardly gives anyone any opportunity to put forward any
ideas, policies or suggestions for reform.
- If the candidates
write an address that the management does not approve of, then the management
changes the statement. They did this to Prem Sikka and changed his election
statement without his consent. In local, national, European, trade union,
mayoral and other elections the system encourages dialogue and further information
by referring people to web sites and their e-mail addresses. But ACCA management
deleted all references to web sites and e-mails from Prem Sikka's election
- None of the candidates
for the 2003 elections put forward any statement about policies, reforms,
value for money or anything else. They all wanted to be elected on the basis
of personalities and how they suck-up to the leadership.