Friday, May 10, 2013

ICAEW Council Elections Bungled

My thanks to Christie Malry for pointing me to his post about the bungled ICAEW council elections.

As per Julia Penny:
"Thanks for everyone who voted for me in #ICAEW Council elections. Unfortunately looks like the vote needs to be re-run though."
Well done lads!

I am surprised that the ICAEW screwed this up, they have been so fastidious in the past wrt ensuring that things are run according to their rules; as I discovered 11 Jan 2007 when I tried to stand:
"My thanks to The Times, which has come out in support of my candidacy for the ICAEW Council elections:

"Ken Frost has found one Croydon accountant, so it’s nine to go. As I wrote the other day, Frost, a long-standing critic of the accountants’ professional body in England and Wales, wants to stand in elections to its council. But according to the peculiar rules of the ICAEW, he needs ten nominations first from members of his local association. One has come forward, he tells me, and I may be able to put him in touch with another, if Herne Hill in South London is deemed sufficiently local. The ICAEW insists the rules must be observed in all cases. Frost must run!"
Also as per 13 Jan 2007:
"In November the ICAEW wrote to all members, informing them that Croydon had no representation from members "not in practice".

"Election to the vacancy will therefore be 'assured' for a member not in practice provided one or more such candidates come forward..."

Election procedure 18 states:

"To redress the under-representation on Council of members not in practice and, in particular, of members in business, the Council has agreed that, for the years 1995-2007 inclusive, it will 'assure' one seat per constituency for a member not in practice..."

Well, I am not in practice, and I am in business. I offered to stand, and advised the ICAEW as such; but noted that although I know many ICAEW members nationally who would sign my nomination, I knew no one in Croydon.

Despite this, they refused to notify members of my wish to stand.

Given that they could not have possibly known, before nominations were in, as to whether there would have been a non practising member standing, and given that they were asking for non practising members to stand, I wonder why they did not help me inform the members of my wish to stand?
Regarding the 2013 shambles, please can someone let me know what the problem was, and how much a re-run will cost?



As per Taxation:
"An ICAEW spokeperson told Taxation there had been errors in some nominations across four constituencies: London, Manchester, the North West and Essex. They were not spotted until after the election, when it was decided that the fairest solution would be to rerun the elections.

The move could mean the candidates who won on Tuesday lose their newly gained places unless the losing candidates agree to stand down and allow the victors to be returned unopposed. Candidates will have to get their vote out for a second time if their election is contested."

As per ICAEW on Twitter:
"ICAEW to re-run elections in S Essex, London, Manchester and N-W England: we discovered inadvertent errors in the nomination process.

We apologise to all the candidates involved and particularly those who were successful in the elections."
You will note that the ICAEW does not apologise to the membership as whole, who will have to pay for this.

Accountancy Age put the cost of the re-run as being £10K:
"FOUR OF TEN ICAEW Council elections will have to be re-run after the process was botched.
The four constituencies: South Essex; London; Manchester; and North West, ran elections to join the ICAEW that had flaws in the process.

Nominations were incorrectly made in the four constituencies. Those putting forward nominations must be fully-qualified ICAEW members, and be based within the constituency - it is understood that nominations were made that failed to meet these criteria, and were not picked up during the election process.

Michael Izza, ICAEW chief executive and returning officer for the elections, has declared the elections for these constituencies void and will be re-run.

Members ‘incorrectly' voted into council in the four constituencies will be able to attend the June council meeting as observers, said an ICAEW spokesman. The re-run should be completed by August
The cost of re-running the elections, which will involve the Electoral Reform Society, is currently estimated at £10,000."

No comments:

Post a Comment