HOW THE NATIONAL TRUST MADE A MOCKERY OF THE
ELECTION OF CANDIDATES TO COUNCIL IN 2017.
This year 2017, The National Trust held their AGM at The Steam Room, Swindon. I watched the Webcast of proceedings. The organisation by Jo Cooke, Deputy Secretary, was simply excellent. The Chairman Tim Parker did a great job controlling the AGM in his first year as Chairman. I particularly liked the very fair way he gave Members the chance to ask questions on both sides of the divide. The Directors and Specialist Staff also played their part in replying to questions from the floor.
The Financial results for the year were superb. A great performance by the retiring Director General Dame Helen Ghosh, who is going to be Master of Balliol College Oxford, and her staff. He Legacy will be a very hard act to follow.Congratulations to everyone at the National Trust, especially the 60,000 Volunteers.
I have been a Member of the National Trust for over 50 years. I love the National Trust, it's diverse Membership and the National Trust Ethos of Conservation. I wanted to play my part to help The Council but it was not meant to be.
Before the AGM, The National Trust had invited its 5 Millions Members to Vote for up to 6 Candidates for Council - the National Trust asks Members of the Council to serve for 3 years - out of a list of 20 well qualified, impressive, superb Profiles and dedicated Candidates for Council. It was to be a fair and open election BUT the problem was - it was anything but fair and open. 14 of the Candidates, of which I was one, did not have much of a fair chance. The Election was fixed and biased by the National Trust hierarchy, namely The Nominations Committee.
Why is this ? Is this just sour grapes because I did not get elected ?
Well, you decide. Here are the facts.....
Only some 500 Plus Members of the National Trust out of 5 Million Members bothered to turn up to the AGM in Swindon. A relatively small % of the total Membership. The National Trust must have expected such a low turnout when they booked the Steam room. On the Webcast the room looked so full. However, every Member had rightly been given the opportunity to vote except many could not be bothered to vote and apathy prevailed.
Deputy Secretary Jo Cooke said - " It is a requirement of The National Trust Constitution that the Nominations Committee makes Recommendations."
Member Raymond Williams says - " Change the Constitution. "
The Nominations Committee selected its favourite 6 Candidates and lists their names in the AGM Booklet which includes the Voting forms and online voting guidelines. In the
Voting Booklet, the Nominations Committee them recommends that Members vote for their 6 chosen Candidates. Let us be clear what the Nominations Committee does or I should say what it does not do. It does not interview all the Candidates. It does not talk to any of the other 14 Candidates. We do not know what their Terms of Reference were. Who set any Terms ? Were the Trustees involved ?
What role if any did the Chairman have in the selection process of the 6 Candidates and the composition of the Nominations Committee ?
Deputy Secretary Jo Cooke said - I do not know how the Chairman voted because the vote was in secret." " The Chairman did not have any direct involvement in the selection process of the composition of The Nominations Committee. "
Raymond Williams says - " The Members should have a say. " " The Chairman should have a say since he should know the mood of the Members. "
Members and Candidates are left in the dark.
What criteria did the Nominations Committee use to select their favourite 6 ? I wonder ! We will never know.
The other 14 Candidates together with the Profiles of all 20 Candidates were on display in the AGM booklet and online together with their replies to Members questions. How many Members bothered to read them ?
As a result, the Nominations Committee tries to bias the result of the election by promoting their favourite 6 Candidates. How they reached their selection nobody knows ! It is all done in secret.
I think that they have succeeded in introducing bias into the Election and skewed the Election results.
5 of the 6 Candidates recommended by the Nominations Committee were elected to Council this year 2017. They received over 15,000 votes each. One other Candidate got 15,000 votes whilst the other 13 Candidates received from 5,000 - 13,000 votes each. Such was the dramatic impact of the intervention by the Nominations Committee.
The pre - chosen 6 received collectively 50% of the total vote of 231,249.
My case rests !
Only 4.6% of the Total Membership of 5,000,000 bothered to vote in the Election.
2.3% of the Total membership voted for the chosen 6.
Deputy Secretary Jo Cooke said - " The numbers voting this year were double those of last year."
Member Raymond Williams said - " The number of Members voting was still very small. "
The challenge to the National Trust for the future is - How to attract more Members to Vote in the Election and for or against the Motions ? It is quite pathetic that so few Members voted.
However, it is the same story in Local Government Elections and to a certain extent in the General Elections.
Apathy is King.
Is the election fair ?
NO. Here is my view ....
The Chairman will obviously use his Proxy votes to build up votes for the 6 favoured Candidates. He is not likely to vote against his own Staff's recommendations.
Deputy Secretary Jo Cooke said - " There were no Proxy Votes. "
Member Raymond Williams says - " I may be wrong and I am sorry. However, this is a terrible blow to National Trust Democracy.
It would be better if there was a Box on the Ballot Package marked - Proxy. This might broaden the numbers voting and produce a fairer result. But, note my recommendation on how the Proxies should be distributed." " Members would not have wanted to travel long distances to the AGM and spend money on overnight stays. "
" I suggest that consideration should be given to holding the AGM elsewhere, say The Midlands."
The Nominations Committee will attract votes from Members who cannot be bothered to read the Profiles of all 20 Candidates and are likely to vote as per the recommendations of the Nominations Committee.
So, what chance does the other 14 Candidates have ? Not much !
This year there was a big influence on the voting results due to the fact that there were 2 very controversial Motions - For and Against a ban on Trail Hunting on NationalTrust land and For and Against the Plan for the A303 Road under a £1.4 Billion Tunnel past Stonehenge.
This helped to polarise the Votes. Candidates got Votes from some of the 100,000 Members of the Countryside Alliance if they had clearly stated that they agreed with the Countryside Alliance and Candidates got Votes if they disagreed with the A303 Motion. The National Trust urged Members to Vote against each Motion. This helped to distort the vote. I must admit I took a view that if the activity is legal it is OK. I also voted For the Motion to stop the A303 Tunnel Plan. As a result, I probably lost a few thousand vital votes.
" C'est la Vie."
I also thought that Question 4 - Ask the Candidates, was a bit ambiguous. It referred to Stonehenge
and mixed two Motions - Trail Hunting and the A303 Tunnel in the same question 4. There should have been a total of 7 questions and not only 6 Questions.
I also thought that 2 highly emotional Motions should not have been included in the list of questions in the Ask The Candidates list. Some 60, 000 plus Members voted in the 2 Motions and each side urged their Membership to vote for the Candidates who supported their point of view. This skewed the results for each Candidate.
Here is another factor for Members to consider. In the voting for the 2 Motions, there were
" Discretionary Votes." These were votes assigned by Members to the Chairman Tim Parker,
In the Motion against Trail Hunting on National Trust Land, there were 3,460 Discretionary Votes Against the Motion and 2,057 For the Motion. So, the Motion was lost.
Similarly, in the Motion Against the tunnel under the A303, there were 6,710 Discretionary Votes Against the Motion. Once again, the Discretionary Votes decided the result of the Motion.
Who decided how to allocate the Discretionary Votes ?
The very poor number of the 5 Million Members who voted, also diminishes the validity of the Election.
The National Trust has to change the voting rules in the future according to my view as follows...
1 - Abolish the Nominations Committee. Change the Constitution to do this.
2 - Introduce Proxy Votes next year. This is a leap from normal practice at AGMs but I think in the case of the National Trust, it is badly needed. What is wrong with this if anything ?
3 - Members should have Proxy Votes but they are allocated in proportion to the Candidates according to their % of the registered National votes distribution. A proportional representation approach. If Candidate X gets 30% of the submitted votes online or on paper, he or she should get 30% of the Proxy vote.
Is this a denial of Democracy ? No. It broadens the Vote abd should produce a better fairer result.
4 - My challenge to the National Trust is......Print my article on your Website to give Members a chance to express their views.
I do not want to submit a Motion for next year's AGM because it take up precious time which could be used to debate more vital subjects. However, my Article needs debate and not pushed into oblivion.
Deputy Secretary Jo Cooke said- " Here is the link to the National Trust AGM website. You can post this on your website EUREKYS. "
Member Raymond Williams said - " I am most grateful to Jo Cooke for her response to my Article. I have made changes as a result of her sensible comments. I appreciate the fact that this subject of The role of the Nominations Committee has been strongly debated in the past. In fact, in recent years a Motion was passed by Members to prevent the Nominations Committee from placing asterisk's alongside their favoured Candidates names.
I propose that the National Trust goes one step further and abolishes the Nominations Committee."
5 - This year on the Voting Forms, the National Trust asked Members if they thought that the Recommendations of the Nominations Committee were " helpful ? "
We must be careful interpreting the results. They should have asked...." Do you think that the intervention by the Nominations Committee distorts the Vote and is unfair to all the Candidates ? "
I think that then the National Trust might have fairer election results and every Candidate will have a fair chance of being elected.
My views are shared with many people including The Christian Voice Journal who states in their recent headline article that the Council Election was fixed.
The Christian Voice - noted for it's Fair Play says:
" Whether anyone is elected does NOT depend one scrap on our votes. That is because the Chairman of The National Trust Tim Parker casts all the Poxy votes. It will come as no surprise at all if Mr Parker sends all the Proxies down the wire to Vote for his favoured six establishment approved figures. "
Member Raymond Williams says - " The Christian Voice is right about the Council Election was fixed - by the Nominations Committee recommendations but they are wrong about Proxy Votes. "
WHY NOT change the Voting Procedure ?
If the results of The Election are going to be pre-determined by The Nominations Committee -
They know best !
WHY HAVE ANY ELECTION AT ALL ?
The National Trust is just building up the hopes of decent Candidates, wasting National Trust money, and cynically ensuring in effect, that Members will Vote according to the wishes of the Nominations Committee.
No, The Nominations Committee do not know best !
Raymond Williams
EUREKYS
National Trust Member
Making Lives Better
